With out laws
It would most defiantly be confiscated as evidence of the crime
As someone else mentioned, carrying it legally would allow her case to be argued about the shooting only, and not digress into the fact she was committing a felony by carrying illegally.
Hundreds of thousands of people nationwide found time to obtain a permit, including myself...she can too.
Ever notice how those people who talk about paying the IRS is unconstitutional...still pay their taxes?
I suspect that those who think it's okay to carry without a permit will never walk up to a LEO and say "Hey, I'm illegally carrying a firearm on me, and I bet you can't do anything about it."
On the other hand, I can carry concealed or open, and wave at the nice police officer.
Hundreds of thousands of people nationwide found time to obtain a permit, including myself...she can too.
Ever notice how those people who talk about paying the IRS is unconstitutional...still pay their taxes?
I suspect that those who think it's okay to carry without a permit will never walk up to a LEO and say "Hey, I'm illegally carrying a firearm on me, and I bet you can't do anything about it."
On the other hand, I can carry concealed or open, and wave at the nice police officer.
If you read my post all the way through I wasn't really encouraging unlawful carry... like I said, I don't personally consider the risks to be worth the benefit, when you consider the impact it could have on the applicability of the SYG law. As for lying to a police officer, I would absolutely encourage that if it gives you less chance of having them search and seize your property, or charge you with a crime.
As flybeech pointed out, your suggested civil disobedience does not make a good comparison to unlawful carry. There is a huge difference between engaging in behavior that threatens the lives and property of others, which would be wrong whether it was illegal or not, and violating some malium prohibitum law that prohibits behavior that does not threaten anyone else's rights in any way.
I don't necessarily agree that civil disobedience needs to be either all the way or not at all. To me it's not so much a matter of standing on principle or making a point, as it is just living your life as freely as possible under the circumstances. I don't support breaking the law just for the sake of doing so... I only believe in doing it when it is something you would want to do anyway, and when the benefit is greater than the possible negative consequences times the likelihood of getting caught.
As I said before, violating the prohibition on carrying an offensive weapon is not a felony... it is a misdemeanor, and carries a possible penalty of $100-250 fine, and 0-30 days in jail; and almost anybody who doesn't have a prior record will get off with probation and no jail time.
I agree with that 100% but my comment was directed at those who often attempt to paint themselves as Constitutional die hards/warriors simply because they "make a stand' on an issue like this....with as you said, few negatives and virtually zero chance of getting caught.
If one wants to frame this as a Constitution people Vs. anti-Constitution people, they better be putting more skin in the game than carrying without a permit.
It really does not bother me to need a permit to carry a gun. It is certainly better than no carry option at all.
Which of your other rights would it not bother you to get permission from the government order to exercise?
Speech? Should we go back to requiring a license to publish a book, like in Merrye ole England? The pen is mightier than the sword, after all. How about having a kid? Seems to me that the unregulated exercise of that right is more dangerous than anyone carrying a gun.
If this sort of regulation bothers you but gun control doesn't, ask yourself why it is just certain rights you are willing to allow to be infringed. Consider that it might be because things have always been that way in your lifetime, and it is hard for you to imagine such things NOT being regulated.
The bottom line is that such infringements may not bother YOU, but neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell someone that they have to get permission to do something which doesn't threaten anyone else's rights in any way. Living by that principle is the only chance we have at anything resembling a free and civilized society. Otherwise it just comes down to a numbers game: who can pull together the biggest voting bloc, the biggest special interest group, or the biggest group of armed men.
Speech? Should we go back to requiring a license to publish a book, like in Merrye ole England? The pen is mightier than the sword, after all. How about having a kid? Seems to me that the unregulated exercise of that right is more dangerous than anyone carrying a gun.
If this sort of regulation bothers you but gun control doesn't, ask yourself why it is just certain rights you are willing to allow to be infringed. Consider that it might be because things have always been that way in your lifetime, and it is hard for you to imagine such things NOT being regulated. The bottom line is that such infringements may not bother YOU, but neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell someone that they have to get permission to do something which doesn't threaten anyone else's rights in any way. Living by that principle is the only chance we have at anything resembling a free and civilized society. Otherwise it just comes down to a numbers game: who can pull together the biggest voting bloc, the biggest special interest group, or the biggest group of armed men.
There is a chance that if she shot someone in self defense that she could get away with it but it is highly unlikely. I know that has happened in the past but not many times. I would rather have a permit and be within the law than to chance going to prison and losing everything that I love in this world all because I didn't get a permit. It isn't that hard to get one either and doesn't cost that much. Why does she not get one? Is there something that is stopping her from being legal? And I also wonder if the Castle Doctrine laws would protect her since she has no permit. The reason that those were created and enacted were to protect legally armed citizens should they have to shoot someone. At least that is what I thought they were created for.
I understand your point...I know that not having a permit (or permission), is not going to keep a BG from carrying a weapon and there is no guarantees that a person with a permit will not commit a crime. It just wasn't that big of a deal to me to go through the application process. At the end of the day, I am allowed to own and carry guns.
Similar threads
