Open carry?

[cjjtulsa]

Because my right to self-defense is an inherent right. Not one granted by government.

↑↑↑↑
This.

I should be able to carry without "permission" from the government. True, there are people I wouldn't be comfortable with carrying, but at the same time, there are way, way more than those that I'm not comfortable with currently driving. And that's a priviledge, not a right. My oldest brother is a heavy, heavy alcoholic.....and a concealed carry permit holder. Permission from our masters doesn't necessarily make one acceptable, nor does lack of permission make one suspicious.

I killed my original post as I thought it might throw things off the topic of "open carry". But what the hell....here we are!

 

[bettingpython]

So, what's your and Mad's take on felons carrying? Should they be allowed to carry? After all, how can the stat take a God given right?

There are lot's of non felons who shouldn't be allowed near a firearm because they are plumb dumb, and their are felons who have done their time and should not have their right to own firearms removed.

That's a huge ball of wax question, should someone who is convicted of embezzelement have their gun ownership rights stripped from them? I think not, once a person has served their time and reentered society they should have the right to protect themself jsut like anyone especially if they are non violent or not habitual offenders.

The question is where do you stand?

I am pretty darn libretarian myself. Lots of people drink to excess yet have committed no crime and have firearms, I think a BS felony conviction for something like weed shouldn't stand in the way of a person excercising their right to self defense or doing their civic duty of serving on a jury or voting.

 

[CHenry]

Thinking back to some of the folks in my SDA class, I would have to agree that I'm not a fan of just anybody who wants to carry, carrying without a license. I'm not even a fan of every non-felon having the right to carry without a license. A couple of these people really needed more experience behind the wheel of a firearm, and most importantly needed more firearm education before waltzing around a crowded room with a .45 dangling off their belt.

One guy in particular was appx 55 years of age or older, he said he'd not handled a firearm since he was about 12. Which is fine, because having the know-how of when to use a firearm in self-defense is most important and has nothing to do with having the know-how of pulling a trigger, but this guy understood nothing and seemed to absorb very little. He would ask multiple questions after just about every sentence the instructor got out of his mouth, and there were a couple of times the instructor said "No, that's absolutely not at all what I'm trying to say." The guy really didn't get it.. anything, nothing.. and every time he opened his mouth I sat there wondering if I feel safer or more endangered being out in the world with this guy (and people like him) toting around loaded firearms. The SDA class is a joke and this guy really belonged in an even more beginner firearms course.

*My above opinion has nothing to do with this bill, or any other bill in debate, nor does it have to do with firearm ownership in general. I just don't believe that just anybody without a criminal record and $500 in their pocket to buy a gun should be allowed to carry at will.

So the 2A should only apply to those who have a certain IQ level?
There's no argument that there are some less than stellar thinking individuals sharing this earth with us but when it comes to a persons rights, how can you say that? These people share the roads with us too which should probably scare the hell out of you more. with that said, if they prove to stupid to responsibly operate their car, they lose there driving privileges. As is the case if they use a firearm irresponsibly.

 

[HMFIC]

I am 100% against laws that make something illegal because it *could* be used in a manner that is already illegal!

Think about it, it's already illegal to brandish a gun, or to shoot someone, or commit armed robbery, or murder.

+1 million!

 

[cjjtulsa]

I'm just not too thrilled with not only having to protect myself from a criminal, but also somebody with good intentions, but no firearm education and experience, who sprays and prays.

From what I understand, the concealment class is just a vehicle to give your info and money to the government....and very little else.

I still say we should be able to carry without having to ask permission from our government.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

[sarcasm on]

I want to be first in line to get my handgun license?

[sarcasm off]

 

[Blinocac200sx]

So, what's your and Mad's take on felons carrying? Should they be allowed to carry? After all, how can the stat take a God given right?

When a felon violates someone else's rights, they forfeit their own.

 

[Tyson C.]

i ride the fence with open carry, i could see bad vs good situations come from this. i mostly see and uneducated public of overall judgement. yes i wish those that carry/will carry had more trigger time/scenario training...me included. all in all it is knowing the best judgement in the moment and what you do. after taking my CCW class there were people in there that scared the ever loving **** out of me, young and old. knowing that they are carrying, i would be affraid to have a loud sneeze around them, in a crowed room. this gave me a whole new look....more of an awakening of what really is out there in the public.

i know this maybe off course slightly, but one thing that burned into my mind when taking the CCW class that makes me double think every scenerio i see, is our instructor saying....Before you pull your weapon and you do what you think is right, make sure the 12 that will judge you, see it your way. And if you have to think about these 12 peers decision, then it might not be the time to do what you think it is right.

i wish you all the best of luck out in this world

 

[vvvvvvv]

UPDATE: They finally posted the committee substitute.

The bill is the same as last year's bill in that it strikes "concealed" from every instance of "concealed handgun license" and add "or unconcealed" to every instance of "concealed".

However, the committee substitute defines lawful open carry in the following way:

“Unconcealed handgun” means a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a belt holster that has any kind of a locking mechanism and that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case that has any kind of a locking mechanism and is designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible​

ETA: Red dudes, is there anyway we could merge this with the other thread in the 2A department?

 

[JB Books]

The question is where do you stand?
.

I stand where I can make the most profit.

I don't think ALL felons should be banned from owning firearms, particularly shotguns and rifles. A guy who goes to jail for insider trading isn't as dangerous as someone who goes for attempted murder.

Personally, I am not a fan of open carry, but I really do not care.