MDA doesn't like 30.06

[Keith B]

Anybody remember if the guy who dropped the gun in the restaurant had a CHL? I remember the incident, but not the details.

He did. It was some type of derringer and went off when it fell out of his coat pocket and hit the floor. I am thinking it was probably a NAA .22 and was not indexed properly between cylinders. They are prone to discharging if the cylinder is not set right and you hit the hammer.

I just assumed he grabbed for it as it fell. That's how many ND's happen, and it's always "The gun went off when it hit the floor".

Actually, was a .38 caliber derringer according to the guy quoted in the article. He said he didn't know it had fallen and what had actually had made the loud explosion noide until the person he was dining with saw his pistol on the floor under his seat. http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-who- ... 19149.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[03Lightningrocks]

Say what you will but this is 100% brought on by the OC radicals who carry long guns openly in places they do not belong. I truly believe it is their intention to do this as they perceive concealed carry permit holders as the enemy.

[jmra]

Say what you will but this is 100% brought on by the OC radicals who carry long guns openly in places they do not belong. I truly believe it is their intention to do this as they perceive concealed carry permit holders as the enemy.

[jimlongley]

Say what you will but this is 100% brought on by the OC radicals who carry long guns openly in places they do not belong. I truly believe it is their intention to do this as they perceive concealed carry permit holders as the enemy.

I don't think I understand. Where were the long guns carried that they did not belong? Is there a law that says they did not belong? Are the areas posted? How does one determine where a legally carried firearm does not belong? Who gets to say where they do or do not belong? You? Me? Our opinions may differ greatly.

I may not agree with the tactics used, but if they were not doing something illegal, then they had a right to do it. Similar to the minority that stood up to Colonel Smith at that bridge, who were denounced as rabble and accused of making things worse for peaceful citizens, it might just be that these guys are the ones that set the wheels in motion to correct the wrongs forced upon us by our government, and they were doing something illegal.

[03Lightningrocks]

Say what you will but this is 100% brought on by the OC radicals who carry long guns openly in places they do not belong. I truly believe it is their intention to do this as they perceive concealed carry permit holders as the enemy.

I don't think I understand. Where were the long guns carried that they did not belong? Is there a law that says they did not belong? Are the areas posted? How does one determine where a legally carried firearm does not belong? Who gets to say where they do or do not belong? You? Me? Our opinions may differ greatly.

I may not agree with the tactics used, but if they were not doing something illegal, then they had a right to do it. Similar to the minority that stood up to Colonel Smith at that bridge, who were denounced as rabble and accused of making things worse for peaceful citizens, it might just be that these guys are the ones that set the wheels in motion to correct the wrongs forced upon us by our government, and they were doing something illegal.

I think you understand but it suites your purposes to feign ignorance on the issue. I'll tell you something else that it seems nobody has said yet. If you really are of the mindset that a guy walking into the isle of the Home Depot you work at with an AR15, in PLANO TEXAS!, where nobody has any reason to be doing such a thing, I pray for your sake the guy is a bad shot.

[The Annoyed Man]

[sarcasm]On the upside, the article will drive a lot of traffic to Texas3006.com.[/sarcasm]

[ShootDontTalk]

"I think you understand but it suites your purposes to feign ignorance on the issue. I'll tell you something else that it seems nobody has said yet. If you really are of the mindset that a guy walking into the isle of the Home Depot you work at with an AR15, in PLANO TEXAS!, where nobody has any reason to be doing such a thing, I pray for your sake the guy is a bad shot."

We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that spell out inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.You may not have a valid reason for doing what you do. Your neighbor may not think you have a reason. The action may not be seen as wise or even prudent. In fact, much of what we enjoy as the pursuit of happiness might seem idiotic by many people. The question is not do you or I think it reasonable. The question is what does the Constitution say? What does the law say? If it is not illegal, it meets the test. Many people think you and I have no reason to carry a concealed weapon in Home Depot. Thank God for America where it doesn't really matter what opinion you and I have when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Such is the substance of freedom, whether we like it or not. My opinion, anyway.

[tbrown]

I don't think I understand. Where were the long guns carried that they did not belong? Is there a law that says they did not belong? Are the areas posted? How does one determine where a legally carried firearm does not belong? Who gets to say where they do or do not belong? You? Me? Our opinions may differ greatly.

You're wasting your time Jim. Neither shooting mentioned in the article happened with a long gun but the anti OC radicals won't be swayed by facts or reason. Their prejudice is driven by emotion. MDA and their kind will twist the facts to fit their feelings to avoid cognitive dissonance and push their agenda to restrict gun rights.

[The Annoyed Man]

"I think you understand but it suites your purposes to feign ignorance on the issue. I'll tell you something else that it seems nobody has said yet. If you really are of the mindset that a guy walking into the isle of the Home Depot you work at with an AR15, in PLANO TEXAS!, where nobody has any reason to be doing such a thing, I pray for your sake the guy is a bad shot."

We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that spell out inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.You may not have a valid reason for doing what you do. Your neighbor may not think you have a reason. The action may not be seen as wise or even prudent. In fact, much of what we enjoy as the pursuit of happiness might seem idiotic by many people. The question is not do you or I think it reasonable. The question is what does the Constitution say? What does the law say? If it is not illegal, it meets the test. Many people think you and I have no reason to carry a concealed weapon in Home Depot. Thank God for America where it doesn't really matter what opinion you and I have when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Such is the substance of freedom, whether we like it or not. My opinion, anyway.

I can't argue with you as far as our rights go. It's true. We have them. But there still remains the fact that a large part of the population apparently doesn't agree with us.......and they vote and they elect people who also don't agree with us. So the upshot is that regardless of what kind of kind of rights we actually have, a lot of people are not going to see them the same way as we do, and so people who openly carry an AR15 into Home Depot are going to continue to be carted off to the hoosegow until the lawyers can sort it all out.

But beyond that, context has a LOT to do with it. In the event of a real armed confrontation, you've got seconds or less to act. As far as I know, it isn't any more or less legal to carry a loaded long gun into a bank than a Home Depot, but I have to be perfectly honest and say that if I am in my bank and someone trots in carrying a Model 870 at port arms, I am not going to think to myself, "oh look.....another open carry guy". No, I am going to think "oh crap! We're being robbed!" and I'm going to react according to that tactical situation. And if I react by shooting the guy, "I was in fear for my life and I shot to stop the threat", will be a valid defense, whether or not he was just open carrying, or an actual bank robber. I might be wrong, but I think that I'd have an even chance of being no-billed. The reason is that a reasonable man might reasonably believe that a shotgun armed man entering a bank was there to rob the place and that a reasonable man might reasonably be in fear of his life.

That's not a statement about whether or not he should have the right to carry his 870 into a bank, it's about whether or not it is the smartest thing to do.

[03Lightningrocks]

There is no prejudice. I am not against open carry. That right there proves how many of you are working from a huge misconception. It is a fact that open carrying long guns through the mall or other public place is not having a positive affect. Why on earth would we want to continue behavior that is obviously creating the opposite result we all want to achieve?

Here is the proof this tactic is failing miserably! We are all talking about the tactics. It is not the message that is the problem for us. IT IS THE TACTICS! So please quit with the long winded history lessons about our founding fathers! We already believe in the RKBA. Just as much as you do. We are all just as patriotic as Jim claims he is. Again... It is not the message we are in disagreement with... It IS THE TACTICS we disagree on. The tactics that are sending the wrong message.

Here it is again. There is no denying that this is becoming a more common story. And it is being created by the TACTICS that are failing miserably. It is undeniable! Please quit with the insulting innuendoes that somehow we are all less on point than you are.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 232690.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[03Lightningrocks]

"I think you understand but it suites your purposes to feign ignorance on the issue. I'll tell you something else that it seems nobody has said yet. If you really are of the mindset that a guy walking into the isle of the Home Depot you work at with an AR15, in PLANO TEXAS!, where nobody has any reason to be doing such a thing, I pray for your sake the guy is a bad shot."

We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that spell out inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.You may not have a valid reason for doing what you do. Your neighbor may not think you have a reason. The action may not be seen as wise or even prudent. In fact, much of what we enjoy as the pursuit of happiness might seem idiotic by many people. The question is not do you or I think it reasonable. The question is what does the Constitution say? What does the law say? If it is not illegal, it meets the test. Many people think you and I have no reason to carry a concealed weapon in Home Depot. Thank God for America where it doesn't really matter what opinion you and I have when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Such is the substance of freedom, whether we like it or not. My opinion, anyway.

I can't argue with you as far as our rights go. It's true. We have them. But there still remains the fact that a large part of the population apparently doesn't agree with us.......and they vote and they elect people who also don't agree with us. So the upshot is that regardless of what kind of kind of rights we actually have, a lot of people are not going to see them the same way as we do, and so people who openly carry an AR15 into Home Depot are going to continue to be carted off to the hoosegow until the lawyers can sort it all out.

But beyond that, context has a LOT to do with it. In the event of a real armed confrontation, you've got seconds or less to act. As far as I know, it isn't any more or less legal to carry a loaded long gun into a bank than a Home Depot, but I have to be perfectly honest and say that if I am in my bank and someone trots in carrying a Model 870 at port arms, I am not going to think to myself, "oh look.....another open carry guy". No, I am going to think "oh crap! We're being robbed!" and I'm going to react according to that tactical situation. And if I react by shooting the guy, "I was in fear for my life and I shot to stop the threat", will be a valid defense, whether or not he was just open carrying, or an actual bank robber. I might be wrong, but I think that I'd have an even chance of being no-billed. The reason is that a reasonable man might reasonably believe that a shotgun armed man entering a bank was there to rob the place and that a reasonable man might reasonably be in fear of his life.

That's not a statement about whether or not he should have the right to carry his 870 into a bank, it's about whether or not it is the smartest thing to do.

Very well said. I need to pay you to give me writing lessons.

[mojo84]

I'm simple minded. Carrying a long gun into Home Depot is about as appropriate as a woman wearing a bikini into a Pentacostal Church on Sunday morning.

[Oldgringo]

In simple minded. Carrying a long gun into Home Depot is about as appropriate as a woman wearing a bikini into a Pentacostal Church on Sunday morning.

AFAIK, there are no laws prohibiting stupidity nor are there laws requiring good judgment and common sense.

[bigbang]

In simple minded. Carrying a long gun into Home Depot is about as appropriate as a woman wearing a bikini into a Pentacostal Church on Sunday morning.

AFAIK, there are no laws prohibiting stupidity nor are there laws requiring good judgment and common sense.

In both cases they can be told to leave and arrested for trespassing if they don't. However, if they weren't told to leave, they shouldn't be arrested on phony "disturbing the peace" charges for their legal acts.

[ShootDontTalk]

I think some of you misunderstand what I wrote. In no case did I say I would open carry an AR15 into a Home Depot. I did make the clear point that I might not consider that wise or prudent. I wasn't even commenting on how such activity affects the issue of open carry.

What I was commenting on is that it seems slightly off base for us to attribute such behavior to nefarious objectives. We might be right in assuming that if it happened. But then we would be considered equally evil in intent were it known that we legally carry concealed weapons into a store by those who do not like anyone having guns.

The comment I spoke of seemed to indicate that a CHL holder would automatically suspect a man openly carrying a long gun into a store of bad intentions. As if the very act itself (which is both Constitutional and legal in Texas and many other states) was a precursor to something terrible. That is exactly what the anti's say about those who have a CHL. Can we have our cake and eat it too?

Please understand I'm not advocating such activity as wise or prudent or effective in communicating any desire for open carry.