Open Carry??

[wjmphoto]

The UN has no bearing on the US.

If a future U.S. government that is anti-RKBA accedes to a such a treaty, it will have a great deal of bearing. According to Article 6 of the Constitution, treaties have an effect equal to the Constitution itself.

Actually that is a debatable subject. Treaties have been found unconstitutional in the past because they did indeed violate rights granted by the constitution itself. They can be found either wholly invalid or part of the treaty itself can be invalidated on the basis of unconstitutionality. An example would be the Bancroft treaties. It is also accepted that treaties become part of the body of federal law and as such can be modified or repealed through legislative action, which inherently makes them subserviant to the constitution just as any other federal legislation must be.

Basically treaties have the effect of federal law, but they are not considered the same as the constitution itself and cannot be written so as to be unconstitutional. A treaty that would violate the second amendment would be unconstitutional and not valid and would be in no way binding upon the citizens of the US.

[jimlongley]

Remove them to where? Are you going to build more prisons to take them out of society and make sure they don't get guns?

Tent cities and chain gangs would work, deportation is kind of impractical these days, but maybe forced labor overseas, and there's always branding and mutilation.

That's a great plan - not. If you mean remove them from being able to carry, how do you do that without a qualification process?

As you have already acknowledged the criminals won't care about the qualification process, so it acomplishes nothing more than acting as a check on the law abiding, it changes a right to a privilege granted by the state.

Licensing serves a two-fold purpose - it allows the state to establish a safe level of proficiency in order to carry and disqualifies people from getting a permit. Having a problem with this is less than rational.

Only if you define rational as allowing the state to have control over your rights.

As for Cho, he is an example of failure of government to enforce the laws on the books. Virginia chose to not report Cho, when cases like his are supposed to be on the NICS records and stop people like hom from buying the gun in the first place. The failure was not the Federal law, it was Virginia and the Supreme court ruling that said states can opt to report these things or not. When reporting to the one database that every state uses to confirm people are OK to buy a weapon is not done uniformly, that is the problem. Virginia is to blame for Cho getting a weapon - period!

Cho lied on his 4473, the FEDERAL system accomplished nothing.

The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.

I don't see how your first sentence and second sentence even fit in the same paragraph. How does a background check ensure that only law abiding citizens are carrying? Your second sentence denies this. And then, if criminals will, by definition, disobey that law, how does it help?

It would help if you were not guilty of selective omission when you reference a quote. I stated that a background check guarantees that only law abiding citizens legally carry. Omission of that single word make the 2 sentences appear to be in contradiction of each other. Inclusion of it eliminates that contradiction. Selective quoting and omission does not prove your point in any way shape or form.

I did not selectively quote, I quoted the sentences in their entirity, the "legally" is redundant as by definition the law abiding citizens will be legally carrying under a Vermont style system, and criminals will be, by the same definition, illegally carrying and a background check does nothing to prevent that, it merely places an obstacle in the path of law abiding citizens and changes a right to a privilege administered by the state.

There is no logical reason to not have a process of licensing guns for the purpose of carrying them in public,

Not having an arbiter to decide whose logic is truly logical, I'll decline to argue whether there is indeed no "logical" reason not to have a licensing process. OTOH, I will argue, as I have before and seem to not be able to make the point clear, once you license the right, you have reduced it from a right to a government administered privilege. Call that illogical if you will, but I don't think so.

just as there is no logical reason to not have a system of licensing people in order to drive a vehicle. Unsafe drivers should be kept off the road and not allowed to drive,

Like that really works.

Public safety does come into play and licensing that demonstrates ability to use a firearm safely and the fact that you have not done something to lose that right is part of the equation.

Okay, comparing it to driver's licenses, as long as the government establishes public ranges as ubiquitous as public highways, then I'll go for a license to use them, but I can own any car I want without licensing it, and I can drive without a license on private property, so no license to own a gun and no license to carry in public except at the public ranges.

The founders set up a system of government to establish the laws of the land, establish states and let them form their own governments, and a court system to interpret the laws and their integrity. Speech, freedom of the press and other items granted in the bill of rights are not absolutes.

I wonder what "shall not be infringed meant to them.

Part of the problem is in your thought process, your statement above indicates you keep thinking of these rights as something granted, whereas the founders wrote them down as pre-existing and protected, not to be infringed upon.

You can't yell fire in a theater, post troop movements in the papers and many other things are restricted from these so-called absolute freedoms.

Sure you can, it's just not protected as a right.

No freedom and no law is absolute.

Maybe not, but pre-existing rights are.

But there are some very big differences in demographics that do make Vermont a great deal different that other places. They are overwhlemingly a white state with few minorities.

I don't think I even want to go there, you appear to be saying that minorities cause crime or some such.

There are a lot of people who hunt and teach their kids to use a weapon early on. That is not the case in a lot of these big cities in places that are much more dangerous. I try to avoid bringing cultural diversity into it, but the facts are that Vermont is not a cultrually diverse place and does no have a lot of the racial and cultural issues that places like Arizona and Texas do have.

But one thing your quick google of the demographics of Vermont didn't show you is that the overwhelming majority of the minorities in that state are concentrated in a small number of population centers, where the racial and cultural issues are very evident.

Vermont is quite culturally diverse, hippies living alongside arch conservatives, yuppies living alongside day laborers, heck they even have the supremely anti-gun Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, and there are several American Indian tribes represented.

Yes there are people who teach their kids to hunt and handle firearms young, and there are those who teach their kids to hate guns, there are those who grow pot and those that report them, all that and more, and they still have unlicensed concealed carry that works.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I am simply of the mindset that licensing does serve a purpose, be it licensing of vehicles, drivers or people allowed to carry a weapon.

And licensing of drivers accompishes nothing, too.

Taking the time to take a class, show proficiency with a weapon and get a license is little enough for me to be able to legally carry a firearm.

And it's barely enough to do more than scratch the surface. If you're going to license to ensure legality and safety, you need to go a lot farther than Driver's Ed. courses do, and the CHL class today doesn't even come close to that level of thoroughness, and Driver's Ed. accomplishes little if anything.

As a law abiding citizen I should be able to carry without having to be licensed, if you catch me carrying illegally, throw the book at me, if I do it again, throw a bigger book, but there is no way that taking a course and shooting straight prove that I don't have criminal intentions and requiring a license for the law abiding does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying.

I simply think that we need to come down harder on people who carry without a license just as we need to be much harsher on people who drive on a suspended or revoked license.

Not much of an arguement with that, except that the current laws against driving suspended, revoked, or never licensed at all, have no effect on those who choose to ignore the laws. I listen to a scanner quite a lot, and the numbers of stops for driving without, suspended, revoked, unregistered, uninsured, etc. every day is quite amazing, and that's just in one small city. Also heard regularly, numerous repeat offenders of above. I would expect no greater compliance with any gun licensing system, and experience has borne that out.

OTOH, Vermont style carry takes away the problem of the government granting a privilege and turns it back into a right. The criminals will go on carrying illegally, just like they do now, and commiting crimes with them, just as they do now, and when caught should be treated as criminals, just as they are now, and make the sentences tougher for use of a gun in whatever crime (which has been shown to work) and a bureaucracy is eliminated, so the funds can be transferred to the tent city for criminals out in Borden County.

There is nothing wrong with having these laws and requirements, but there is something very wrong with not punishing those who fail to abide by the rules.

There is something very wrong with having these laws and requirements, they are an infringement on a Constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) right.

[stevie_d_64]

("anygun") I am an open carry advocate, and I am not aware of any state that does not allow open carry because af any deterrence factor. I have read many arguments against open carry simiklar to your so called deterrence factor. Many individuals are against open carry because they imply that the BG will disarm you first. There have been no instances recorded that I can find of this happening.

Bingo!

("Longtooth") I too am an advocate of open carry.

Me too...I'd like the option...When "I" decide it is appropriate...Or when its not...

[wjmphoto]

Good, it is ineffective and irrelevant. I already quashed your attempt to allege that CA has "open carry", and now you are making statements and then trying to backtrack..

Actualy, I would advise you to go back and reread the thread. anygunanywhere made the assertion that you can open carry in CA, not I. Basically you quashed nothing that I said and made an incorrect assumtion without actually reading who made the statement. From that point you went off half cocked.

We can't have an intelligent conversation when your logic is non-existent, and your posts are disingenuous regarding facts.

Having an intelligent conversation starts with talking to the person who actually made a statement in the first place rather than berating someone for something that was not said by them.

[jgue]

http://www.txcdl.org/ I support open carry,if only for the conveineance.

[wjmphoto]

There is no logical reason to not have a process of licensing guns for the purpose of carrying them in public, just as there is no logical reason to not have a system of licensing people in order to drive a vehicle.

There is a logical reason: neither of these systems works.

But there are some very big differences in demographics that do make Vermont a great deal different that other places. They are overwhlemingly a white state with few minorities.

Thank you for sharing that observation.

- Jim

Not observation, it is a fact.

You are talking about a state that is 97% white, very few blacks, asians hispanics or any other minorities, and unlike many states there is not a large problem of illegal immigrants. They have a higher percentage of high school and college graduates than the national average and lower unemployment rate as well. Demographically that are not a state that is going to have the socio-economic factors required to have high rates of crime. The safety of Vermont is not a result of their gun laws, but a direct result of the makeup of their popluation and economic base.

Your "colors" are truly showing. Your assertions are racist. Or could it be if we could get rid of those pesky minorities crime would go away, eh Fuhrer?

Make me laugh. Demographics have a great deal to do with the crime rate in Vermont. No one is implying that specific races are going to commit more crime. Race is only part of the demographics. You entirely ignored the fact the employment rates and education levels are all above the norm in Vermont and the number of people on government funded programs is lower than the national average there as well. Demographics do involve all factors and must be taken into account - ignoring them ignores the reason why a state like vermont does have lower crime rates.

Getting rid of minorities is not even something suggested. Finding a way to help them get educated and raise their standard of living is the only answer. Or are you going to deny that minorities make up a disporportionate percentage of people in prison and those who commit crimes. That is denial of the worst sort. Rather than living in denial, we should be looking for ways to level the playing field for these minorities so they are not in a hopeless situation that forces them to resort to crime.

:roll:

[stevie_d_64]

Gun ownership is no different as it is a right that citizens should posses except under extraordinary circumstances. Felons and people with mental health issues reasonably fall under those extraordinary circumstances that should preclude one from being able to own a firearm.

If that were an absolute, as you state, then there would "not" be a system in place to allow people that "you" define fit within those catagories a way to petition to have "certain" rights restored to them "by the state"...Everytime I hear or see the word "reasonable" I see "infringement"...

The balance of gun control regulations that have been enacted have nothing to do with these 2 limitations.

Bullbutter...These have everything to do with the overall issue of gun-control...And the more people roll over and accept "reasonable infringements" it has been a real battle to restore for certain peoples sensibilities, the "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms...Thats pretty much all of us...

And no law written on paper to address the issue has ever stopped a determined person (deranged or not) from ever committing a crime with a firearm...So to me, I find no use for any of them other than they being a springboard for further efforts to make it difficult if not discouraging to maintain my right to defend myself with whatever means and morals I deem necessary...

Give me 10 minutes, and I can go buy pretty much any firearm I want to from people who don't give a flip about who buys them...That is a fact...And people who fit your definition know this as well...And no law will ever reduce or eliminate this market...Not one bit...

So the solution is not the effort to create laws, that on paper, "say" it is illegal, etc etc etc...Thats band-aid politics...Gives a few people warm and fuzzies...

I'm going hop off this soapbox for a while and read a little more of your stuff...I hope to be able to see and understand a little deeper into your positions...Not that my opinion matters a hill of beans...

[frankie_the_yankee]

Aw heck. Consider this guys (and gals!).

Basic economics. You make something more difficult and AT THE MARGIN fewer people will do it.

Basic principal 1 - in an ideal world, no violent criminal or deranged maniac would ever be able to get their hands on a gun.

Basic principal 2 - in an ideal world, any LAC who wants to should be able to buy and carry the gun of their choice, wherever they want and whenever they want.

Since we do not live in an ideal world, we need to find the "sweet spot".

So we should try to make it as hard as possible for criminals & nuts to get guns, while making it as easy as possible for peaceable LAC's to get guns.

Yes, to some extent, a license turns a right into a privilege - but if getting the license itself is a right, the difference is small. So the burden on peaceable LAC's is minimal, while at the same time, the obstacles for the criminals and nuts are (relatively) large or at least larger.

You can buy any gun you want. The NICS check clears in a few minutes and you're all set. If you have a CHL, you don't even need the NICS check.

Now look at what the criminal or nut faces. He can't buy anything he wants. He has to buy whatever his black market connection HAS. Any idea why criminals often have so-called "junk guns"? A lot of the time, it's because it's the only gun they could get.

That's why I laugh when I hear the Brady people beat the drum to get rid of "junk guns". Because those are the guns I WANT the BG's to have. If I ever have to defend myself against a BG, I want him to have the junk, while I have a very nice powerful gun in perfect working order that I keep well maintained and practice with often.

Where can criminals and nuts go to practice? Fewer places than I can, so at the margin, they will practice less.

So in my view, licenses and background checks DO serve a useful purpose in that they make it harder for criminals to get guns, and more illegal for them to carry guns, while not impacting me at all.

Sure, some criminals will carry illegally. But that just increases the chance they will be taken off the streets and sent to jail the next time they run a red light or get into some other minor beef. One less dirtball out there for us to rub shoulders with.

Remember the success of "Project Exile" in reducing the homicide rate in Richmond, VA a few years back. Every felon caught illegally carrying a gun got an automatic 5 years at "Club Fed". A lot of the time, carrying was the only illegal thing they were doing (of note) when "contacted" by LE. So if carrying hadn't been illegal (for them), they would not have been put away.

The key thing is, AS LONG AS BUYING THE GUN AFTER PASSING THE BACKGROUND CHECK IS A RIGHT, AND AS LONG AS GETTING A CHL IS A RIGHT, I have no problem with the requirements and in fact, I believe they serve a useful purpose.

Remember ECON101. "At the margin....."

As for open carry, I have no problem with it if someone wants to. I think a CHL should allow it. I open carry all the time on my ranch. But when I'm out in public, I much prefer concealed carry. I do not like retention type holsters, and with some experience carrying openly in PHX I can say that carrying concealed is much more comfortable. Tactically, it gives the advantage of surprise.

But if open carry floats your boat, it's fine by me.

[DSARGE]

If open carry were legal in Texas, I'd get a cap and ball revolver like Eastwood had in "Pale Rider" and have a holster worn low on the hip.

Funny thing--I was deployed once, and there were a group of nationals that were die hard western fans. They believed that there were gunslingers like that now in the US. They noticed I had a different accent than the other few Americans there, and brought it up one day. My buddy told them I was from the South and I was one of those "gunslingers". He never told me he did this until I kept talking about how wierd the nationals were acting toward me all of a sudden.[/list]

[seamusTX]

If open carry were legal in Texas, I'd get a cap and ball revolver like Eastwood had in "Pale Rider" and have a holster worn low on the hip.

Consider this:

PC §46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter:...
(3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:
(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition....
(5) "Handgun" means any firearm that is designed, made, or
adapted to be fired with one hand.

If you squint a certain way, this part of the law could mean that a cap-and-ball revolver is not a handgun prohibited in 46.02.

AFAIK, this interpretation has not been tested in court.

Cap-and-ball and muzzle-loading pieces are also not firearms under federal law. You can order them by mail.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

Jim Dark has some experience being accosted by the law while in possession of a muzzle-loader. Maybe he'll chime in...

[frankie_the_yankee]

Background checks do nothing, except keep the state from spending money on a piece of plastic for those who cannot qualify. They have no real effect on who carries.

Look up the results of "Project Exile" in Richmond, VA.

Background checks might not keep criminals from carrying, but they DO keep them from LEGALLY carrying - because they can't pass the background check needed to get a CHL. (I'm comparing this to a situation where either, 1) no background check was required for a CHL, or 2) no CHL was required to legally carry.)

They also make it more difficult for people who can't pass them to buy guns.

You or I can walk into a store and buy whatever we want, WHENever we want. Criminals can't do that. With no background checks, they could. Sure, they'd have to lie on a form, but so what?

ECON101 - you make something harder to do (or more of a hassle), and at the margin, fewer people will do it. It holds true in every other field of human endeavor, so I see no reason why it wouldn't hold true in this one as well.

[seamusTX]

Jim Dark has some experience being accosted by the law while in possession of a muzzle-loader. Maybe he'll chime in...

In his case it was a rifle. As I understand that story (heard second-hand), he would have been OK if he were carrying a .50 BMG rifle.

Short version: someone saw his rifle in his car at a drive-through and called 911.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

Look up the results of "Project Exile" in Richmond, VA.

Which has little to do with the effectiveness of background checks and a lot to do with the effectiveness of additional mandatory sentences.

Background checks might not keep criminals from carrying, but they DO keep them from LEGALLY carrying - because they can't pass the background check needed to get a CHL.

So by some magical means the lack of a background check transforms criminals carrying illegally into criminals carrying legally? We need a level check here, carrying illegally is carrying illegally whether a background check takes place or not, and carrying illegally happens in Vermont and Alaska as well as New York, Rhode Island, and Texas.

(I'm comparing this to a situation where either, 1) no background check was required for a CHL, or 2) no CHL was required to legally carry.)

As above, I don't see the logic behind this. Are you saying that criminals routinely carry legally in Vermont?

They also make it more difficult for people who can't pass them to buy guns.

That's questionable at best.

You or I can walk into a store and buy whatever we want, WHENever we want. Criminals can't do that. With no background checks, they could. Sure, they'd have to lie on a form, but so what?

So they can't walk into a store and buy a gun, well actually Virginia Tech is a good example of that, Cho walked into two different stores, and lied on two different forms, committing two different felonies, and even passed two background checks, but one way or another he would have gotten guns. As someone else pointed out, it's way too easy to go buy a gun on the street, an illegal gun in an illegal transaction, and no amount of licensing and background checks is going to stop that.

ECON101 - you make something harder to do (or more of a hassle), and at the margin, fewer people will do it. It holds true in every other field of human endeavor, so I see no reason why it wouldn't hold true in this one as well.

Sorry, ECON101 just doesn't cut it here. There have been a number of laws passed since the 60s to try to accomplish just that, and they have had no visible effect. Of course maybe that's what you mean by "on the margin" that the effect was marginal at best. Stopping mail order guns didn't change anything, stopping sales across state lines didn't change anything, Brady checks haven't changed anything, and the anti gun nuts' mantra continues, "You won't compromise."; "Just one more little law."; "Just like driver's licenses."; "Fifty caliber sniper weapons of mass destruction." and on and on and on.

Frankly it gets quite tiresome to hear it from them, but it's to be expected, we already know that appealing to logic won't work with them because they warp and twist everything to fit their own brand of logic, their own definition of common sense, their own view of reasonable, but it's really distressing to hear this coming from gun owners.

I suspect some form of Stockholm Syndrome is happening, the anti gun nuts' big lies have been repeated so often and so loud that otherwise normal people are falling for their propaganda and starting to repeat the anti rights oganizations' dogma.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Jim,

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices. Economics is just the study of both individual and aggregate human behavior, and how we judge the various tradeoffs we encounter in life.

Look at shall issue CHL laws. Before such a law is passed, LAC's either couldn't get permits or could get them with great difficulty. So few carried. (Most obey the law, right?) Of course criminals couldn't get permits either before or after shall issue is passed. So the obstacles to them carrying were not changed. But passing shall issue lowered the barriers for LAC, and as a result more of them (usually many more) choose to carry.

If you make something harder, people do less of it. If you make it easier, they will do more of it. If you have two groups of people, say LAC's and criminals, and you make it easier for one while making it harder (or not changing it) for the other, more of the beneficiary group will do the thing compared to an equal or lower number of the non-beneficiary group.

Now it's true that a background check requirement (for a CHL) cannot stop someone from carrying if they are determined to do so. If that's your point, point taken.

But I can just as well argue, why have ANY laws against carry, even for criminals? They'll just break the law anyway, right? But we DO have laws against criminal carry, and for good reason. It gives us an ADDITIONAL serious crime to charge them with when we catch them doing something ELSE. So we can lock them away for a longer time.

From ECON101, we want it to be easy for LAC's to carry, while making it hard for disqualified persons (criminals, those adjucated incompetent, etc.). So we pass a law against criminals carrying. To make the biggest difference possible, we make the sanction severe. (Note: In most states, the penalty for a criminal carrying is greater than that for an unlicensed non-criminal.) The penalty for the disqualified person becomes greater, while the "benefit" of carrying stays the same. So fewer disqualified persons can be expected to carry.

(FYI, in economics the phrase, "at the margin" refers to the change in output (carrying in this case) that you get for an incremental change in input (obstacles to or penalties for carrying).)

Now let's move to the street. Absent a CHL, how is an LEO to know whether someone they encounter is legally carrying or not? Do they run a full NICS check on everybody they contact? Not sure if that's practical. And what if the computer is "down"?

A CHL is a handy way of establishing that you're a good guy. And to the criminal, since he doesn't have it, his chances of bluffing or fast talking his way through a situation are reduced. His risks are incrementally greater so at the margin, he may be less likely to do it.

Another thing that background checks for gun buyers certainly do is put an additional obstacle in the path of the disqualified person. (The system didn't pick up Cho, but that's just a detail. It could be tweaked, or not.) As I stated, you or I can buy any gun we want, any time we want. So the "barrier" for us is low. The criminal (because he will fail the background check) is forced into the black market. So the barrier the criminal faces is higher than ours - quite a bit higher.

So for a criminal, a background check requirement makes it more difficult to buy a gun than if they could just walk into a store like we can. And it doesn't change the "benefit" they get from owning it at all. So at the margin, fewer of them can be expected to do it.

As for VT, they and certain other states (the Dakotas for instance) have a low crime rate because they have a very peaceful population. I have spent a lot of time in VT, and I can tell you that the ability to freely carry guns has nothing to do with it. The cultural environment there seems to produce very few violent types.

For all that VT is held up as an ideal RKBA state, very few (non-LEO) people there actually carry guns on any kind of regular basis. I would say far fewer than is normal here in TX.

I come from a "discretionary" state. Believe me, living in "shall issue" TX is A MILLION TIMES BETTER.

As long as they HAVE TO sell me the gun when I pass the background check, and as long as they HAVE TO issue me a CHL when I meet the requirements, I'm good with it. ANY non-criminal, non-lunatic, non-quadriplegic can meet the requirements. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply as long as these things don't change.

And point of fact, it's the Brady Bunch that is all frothed up about slippery slopes these days. Look at how far shall issue has come in 20 years - something like 40 states now. And many states, like TX, continue to improve their laws, removing silly restrictions that may have been needed in the initial compromise (to get shall issue passed) but are now seen to be meaningless.

From the Bradys' perspective, give it 20 more years on THIS slippery slope, and EVERY state will probably be shall issue. They'll feel like vampires locked out of their crypts facing a sunrise.