"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." President George Washington(Address to 1st session of Congress)
My opinion is that there should not be a permit requirement in the first place. I'm all for mandatory handling courses simply because it's so much easier to pop yourself with a handgun than it is with a long gun. Pass the handgun proficiency course, pass the background check and you should fall under the same ownership rules that are in place for long guns. I think handgun owners who want to carry concealed should also need to be educated on the law and be made aware of what their liabilities are.
It's a huge responsibility but I believe that anyone who passes a background check and training has the right to be armed.
the 2nd answer is worded a little wrong, The part about "needs to carry". When i applied for my permit we were asked why we wanted a permit. Of course the answer usually was, collecting and competition shooting, [that was before pistol hunting was allowed around here] Of course in order to do these things you have to be able to carry. A concealed hand gun causes much less stir than making someone carry it around in plain sight. Calling it a concealed weapon permit merely gives the owner the option to do either. The back round checks that are in place are IMHO are sufficient
Obviously, I've been duped. My apologies to all who read this. I had heard that quote attributed to Washington a few years ago and thought it a good one. It was easy to find this morning and paste. I don't feel so bad after all, it's been kicking around and being mis-attributed since 1790! Doesn't change the way I feel about the issue either.
The only individuals that should carry a conceal gun should be Law Enforcement and people who have a legit need to carry conceal whether, it is for undercover or self protection due to one's legit occupation. No one needs to carry conceal outside that scope.
Montana anyone can carry a gun but, it had to be displayed in view and if you walked into a business you were not able to carry loaded. You had to articulate why you would need a conceal weapons permit.
So, I am for no one other than special security (i.e. diplomatic security), law enforcement or court officials. They need it for the following reasons, undercover and self protections.
Hunters, competitive/target shooter should display their weapons and keep unloaded while transporting. People are to announce to a Police Officer that, they have a firearm in their vehicle. I do know that there are those who do not.
There is no logical reason to deny a carry permit. If you clear the background check and can have a handgun, then how you carry it, or just leave it home, is your business. I have no problem saying you can not bring a gun into certain locations, but the right to carry should not be denied.
Hey Eric, I am all for the "Right to Bear Arms!" However, I have to disagree on "A concealed hand gun causes much less stir than making someone carry it around in plain sight." That is all a matter of opinion.
Besides people cause a stir because, of their "Guns Kill Mentality!" Guns do not kill, people kill. I can leave my pistol on a table fully loaded and it will not kill but, put a person behind that gun it may whether, purposely or accidentally.
Dave, as Doug said, regardless of the source quoted, it's content is completely correct and insightful. This is about the only topic on which I agree with Ron Paul.
And Terry, I never really thought about it that way, but you hit the nail on the head - thank you.
I usually do not call upon my American Indian heritage, but being a member of a racial group that had to fight in a World War for this country before being able to vote (it was well earned is my point), I very much appreciate my constitutional rights, including the one provided for in the second amendment. The right to bear arms is a civil right.
John, just because, a person passes a background check does not make them safe and responsible enough to carry a gun. They may be someone who just has not done something to flag themself. People have breaking points. Some people suffer trauma and develop mental issues. The list can go on and on. Like I have stated above, " I am for the Right to Bear Arms!" I just do not believe certain cases should allow conceal weapons.
I have lived in states that allow anyone that passes the basic background checks to carry open or concealed and felt safer than on the streets of Rochester or Buffalo. I have also found that it is easier to obtain an weapon on the streets in New York than in a gun shop. How is that right?
For everyone who believes it is every mans constitutional right to carry a gun, and believe that there should be no permit application: If a person with the credentials of tyquan rivera is released from prison, moves into your neighborhood, applies for a gun permit and is denied, are you going to fight for his "constitutional right" to carry a gun in your neighborhood? For those of you who don't know of tyquan rivera.... http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Tyquan-Rivera-Gets-Maximum-3-1-3…
When you commite a felony you should lose all your rights as a citizen of the United States. Maybe if we stop coddling the criminal's and make them thing about all that the loose will deture them.
John W., Can I ask, If a person doesn't have the right to protect themselves and their family who is responsible for protecting them from violence and are they accountable if its not done.
Rex, should the ladies that where charged with a felony for buying 10 cartoons of cigarettes from the rez last year lose their right to protect themselves. So far they lost their freedom,their car (a possibility)their money and time. Are they really a threat to society? If felons are so dangerous why to we let them free?
Here's and interesting book to read on this subject.
Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
Harvey A. Silverglate (Author)
Once a person commits a crime against society his "Right to Bear Arm" is stripped. "For everyone who believes it is every mans constitutional right to carry a gun." It is a fact not something you believe in.
Matt, I do know what you are trying to say. I agree there are certain cases where that right should not apply. Let's face it; our Forefathers never experience the amount and type of crimes we face today.
However, till one shows their inability to be responsible, they have the “Right to Bear Arm.”
John- there are people who believe there should not be a permit process. That it is every citizens right to protect themselves. hence, my question. What don't you understand?
Yes I should of said If your convicted of a violent crime . Those ladys were charged but what were they convicted of? Its a Class A Misdemeaner not a felony to transport cigs first offence.
I agree with you Rex. If crimes against humanity are committed they should strip their rights away. Heck, an increasing number of convicts are becoming career criminal because, we give them free, three hots and a cot, education, gym and digital cable. Who would not want all this and not have to pay?
Unfortunately, the reality is that civil groups would be in an uproar because, a criminal's behavior will be blamed on everyone and everything other than him/her.
John- "However, till one shows their inability to be responsible, they have the “Right to Bear Arm.”" Not everyone with a clean record is responsible. In other words, just because you can pass a background check doesnt mean you are responsible enough to carry a gun. many innocent, defenseless people have learned this the hard way!
So Matt your argument is that everyone is guilty untill proven otherwise? Or that crime would not go down if the perp didnt know if you were armed or not?.
Well there needs to be a permit process. There are too many people out there who would purchase a firearm for the wrong reason; such as protecting themselves while committing a crime. As we seen in the past with "Active Shooter". People who feel that society is against them or people who's feelings were hurt or people who were teased. Not to mention people who would take law into their own hands.
I believe we have the "Right to Bear Arms" but, todays society is different and we need to control access to whom can "Bear Arms". Why, would I give an known violent felony the "Right to Bear Arms"? I might as well say shoot me here.
I agree people have the right to protect themselves especially against violent crimes. However, if that persons has committed crimes they get what they deserve. When a criminal's family is in danger, it is of that person's doing.
Rex- I didn't say everyone is guilty. I stated that not everyone approved to carry a gun is responsible enough to carry a gun, meaning that some people are responsible enough and some aren't. How does that imply that everyone is guilty of anything? And your second question makes no sense! I'm saying that if you give the wrong person a gun to defend themselves, who judges whether self defense, especially with a gun, is needed? I think there was a major case about this a few years back right in rochester.
John- define violent crime. Is an unarmed 17 year old breaking into your car a violent crime that requires you to shoot and kill him? I agree with the points you are making, but there are very fine lines that distinguish right and wrong
I worded what I wanted to say wrong. What I ment was that because a few people may use guns improperly all should be banned from owning them? With freedom comes responsability The person who shot the youth was in the wrong He should of called the police and stayed home to protect his own not go out and be a vigilante.But what that has to do with a conceled weapon I don't know. But I also think there should be background checks and a waiting peroid.
An unarmed 17 year old breaking into your car is not a violent crime. Let me rephrase, "A violent crime against a person." If, an 17 year old tries to hijack your car with physical force, that is a violent crime and yes you have the right to protect yourself. However, what level of force is dependent on the situation. Such as, age difference, physical size difference which would be against you, what type of force the criminal is using, number of offenders involved, etc.....
Example, the Wal-Mart greeter who was strucked in the face had the right to use deadly force. A strike against someone's head is use of deadly force. Now we know people fight all the time and strike people's head but, if someone provoked the fight or did not try to evade the fight. Well, that person's right to use deadly forces does not exist. You have to show without a doubt that person mean to cause serious or physical harm.
The Wal-Mart greeter did not provoke and did not try to evade (Because, Ms Simmons fled the scene.) Ms. Simmons did mean bodily harm to the elderly woman. Their is that age, size issue too.
it doesnt have anything to do with a concealed weapon. It was just a reference to the right to defend yourself argument, and what constitutes the need for defense of that magnitude.
I am on the fence on concealed permits, for them I think training in both situational law and ethics that apply to it should be done and a demonstrateable need. But I think a permit to carry out in the open as well needs to be added. As for ownership? Background checks then the standard can carry unloaded between range and home as well as having it in the home should suffice.
John- your statement is exactly the point im getting at (And i agree with what you say). It comes down to the responsibility factor. And not everyone is responsible enough to make a judgement on what actions require that type of self defense. So, really, one persons right to defend themselves may end up stripping an innocent persons rights from them. This is part of the reason why gun laws are such a hot debate.....because of the idiots who carry them and misuse them. Rex- Unfortunately, one persons irresponsible actions can ruin things for everyone else. I think the fact that we're even in this type of debate proves that.
Yeah, we seem to be on the same page but, with delays in comments are causing our issues.
To get to the issue at hand concerning the poll. I do not believe everyone needs to have a conceal weapons permit. The permits are a limited conceal permit. Especially when transporting, we do not want people viewing your weapons in your car and breaking in to retrieved them. My comments against conceal permit is the fully conceal.
(Concealed weapon)
A concealed weapon can and from time to time be a pump shotgun and deer slugs purchased at wally world after the background check has been cleared, just simply stop by hardware departement and purchase hacksaw and files. Cut the stock and barrel to desired length, short enough to conceal under a coat, bingo! Not many regerestered handguns are found to be used in crimes, only if stolen and sold on the black market.People that intend to commit a crime or miss use handguns/or guns in general do and in most cases do not regester them nor do they have to pass any background checks,simply have the money and the connections (any street corner in lg citys)to buy a weapon of choice.
I also am a firm believer that because a person can pass the background test is by no means proof that they can properly handle a weapon, training courses would be more and if not most inportant part of the application to carry or purchase.
The real point here is that New York, and Genesee County, restrict our right while states like Texas and Indiana do not. True, we can move to them, but we should not have to.
A sawed off shotgun though it can be concealed is not a conceal weapon permit. It is in fact an illegal firearm if, it is less than eighteen inches in length.
You are right that a lot of weapons used in a crime are not register to the offender. The prefer weapon of choice is a .380 caliber handgun, which is easily concealed.
Most weapons used in a crime are register to someone and if, used by someone other than the owner. They are in violation of another crime.
What I think we can agree on is that conceal weapons permits should be controlled and used by Law Enforcement and Court Officials. My reasoning is this. Both occupations are a public service, they both have people who have a hatred of their occupation and if, there is a known cop in the mix of a violent crime, the cop will be the first target. Cops' information may be limited in availability but, with the internet not totally hidden.
John W.,
I don't think we can agree that only certain public officals should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Anyone who can legally own a handgun should be allowed the same right.
You are right John but, do not forget Montana, you can also carry in public. However, you live in an extremely liberal state. This country also has an extremely liberal media. Who's ranting about farmers killing illegals immigrants that steal and threaten them in the southern states is cruel and unjustified.
Unfortunately, this country has too much left and right wing personnel in the media and political arenas. Not enough balance force between them.
So John, articulate an legit reason why the average Joe would need a fully concealed weapons permit, rather than just carrying openly and unloaded when going from point A to point B.
Why would someone who carries a firearm for hunting, competitive/target shooting or for collecting have a need to carry concealed?
John W. I don't speak for John R. of course, but I believe he's saying that it should be a person's option to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise or not carry one, without having to prove or even state to anyone, including a police officer, what the reason is for carrying it. It's noone's business, nor should it be. It's private property. If that's what you meant John R., then I agree as well.
John W.,
Just because I want to. I should not need a reason if I can own a handgun legally. If I go hunting, I should be the one to decide if I carry it concealed or not, not some bureaucrat. If I want to just walk around with it concealed, why not? Why should anyone care? It should not be there business.
Self Protection for the average American is not a legit reason. No one should condone self protection for outside my foremention scope.
Can one use their weapon to protect, by all means yes but, when absolutely necessary and when justified.
Justifying carrying a conceal weapons permit for self protection for an average Joe citizen is too risky. Giving one training in "Use of Force" would not be enough. As a Police Officer, I go through daily training in "Use of Force" and we are always learning something new. People bitch about renewals of licenses, registrations, permits, etc...... Imagine if an a normal gun owner had to go through quarterly “ Use of Force” training.
Imagine you are walking down a street when bam, someone tries to mug you. You pull out your dirty Harry 44 and pop off rounds. Whoops you miss your target and hit Granny crossing the street further down. My point is people carrying guns for self protection need more than "Use of Force" training, they would require to be proficient in firing such weapon in an public arena under stress, know their surroundings, etc... Defending one's self in public is a extremely different than defending one's self at home.
Matt wrote: It comes down to the responsibility factor.
True, but what about having children? You don't have to be responsible to have kids, just working parts, a partner and space. Yet there are thousands of children that are left to the state, or worse yet neglected; even killed. Can we make people get permits before they procreate?
My point is irresponsible people will be irresponsible regardless of laws, or who they can hurt. Taking away rights because these people exist is like saying don't go outside because you might catch a cold. Educate, yes. Enfore, yes. Deny? no.
John W.,
Since when is self protection not a legitimate reason? And maybe I just want to carry it. Not for protection, but because I just want to. There is no legitimate reason to tell a person who legally owns a handgun they can not carry it. And again, why should anyone care?
Why is having to present evidence of "need" even an issue? If something was important enough to be a specifically articulated right of ownership in the Constitution, one should never have to provide evidence of "need". I am all for background checks, but no American citizen who has passed one should ever have to provide a need to have a permit for gun ownership, concealed or otherwise.
Why is it that one can not even own a handgun in this wonderful state with out getting the blessing of the court? I am not saying conceled we are not even allowed to own a handgun.
If the owner of an establishment doesn't want guns in there, then they also have every right to have metal detectors or pat down people at the door. Be it a restaurant, bar, retail store, bank whatever. If you don't like being patted down, don't enter the establishment. SImple
I believe we are miss understanding each other. My debate is conceal weapons permit. Not carrying legit and register firearm.
Why would one need to carry conceal in public? Besides there are people who would abuse it purposely and accidentally. This just makes more of unpredictable situation.
I rather see people like in Montana and Texas carry openly and not concealed.
Police carrying conceal would be more for their safety, opposed to their right to bear arms.
Permits identify, one that person is clear to carry; two helps identify weapons. Controls who can carry. As we debated just because, the Constitution gives the "Right to Bear Arms" doesn't mean it is safe to give to everyone.
Heck, we keep talking the right to protect ourselves. When this right came around was when this country was being established and there was unknown frontier and dangers to settlers. Such as Indian attacks, foreign invasions, bandits, etc...
The wild west was not just for self preservation but, for one's honor and property.
Yes, protecting one's home is important. In the past we did not have the Police force of today. Once again I will state, I am all for the "Right to Bear Arms!" However, the need for one to carry conceal in public is not necessary and dangerous to public safety.
Ok J.R. why would you carry your weapon in public for no reason? Let me rephrase the Self Protection issue. Self Protection in public causes a lot of unpredictable scenarios and Self Protection of your home involves less issues and is more contained.
Why should people care that you are carrying in public? Here is a reason, you would carry for no reason in public so, what is really your intent? Like we mention just because, you pass a background check does not mean your are 100% safe to carry. One's ability to carry in public should be more than a background check. People do not know how you will react under stress, do not know how or if you can handle a gun proficiently. Public Safety is the main goal and people who feel they should just carry because, they can. Well they really have no clue or care in the world for the Public's safety.
John W.,
Again, I should not need a reason to carry a handgun concealed. I should not need special permission if I legally own the gun. My reasons should not be subject to the whim of some bureaucrat who thinks he knows best, and likely does not.
John W. you continue to assert that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons makes all of us less safe since we don't know the intent, need or proficiency of the carrier. Where is the empirical evidence to back that up? The CDC list the top 15 causes of death in America as follows:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)
Only 3 of the top 15 would somehow involve legally owned guns and since those three are general categories, guns make up only a percentage of each. Many of the listed causes of death involve habits and lifestyle choices that contribute to the stats. I would not want government legislating my intent or proficiency in any of those activities that lead to death. Smoking cigarettes leads to several of the above listed causes of death and even though I don't smoke I would not want government wanting to know my need or intentions concerning smoking. many of the accidental deaths in category 5 involve motor vehicles, i would not want government legislating my need or intention concerning driving. Consuption of alcohol contributes to #12 but I don't want government legislating my need or intention concerning alcohol use. I could go on but you get the picture when it comes to government trying to meddle in need or intent.
As you well know, elitism exists in Law Enforcement as it does with some our elected officials and politicians; both public servants.
Elite politicians live in gated communities with private police forces and armed body guards to protect them.
In most localities, Police are allowed to carry 24/7, therefore, when they are with their families in public, off duty, carrying concealed, they and their families and loved ones are protected and safe from harm.
This is a good thing and I have no problem with this, just as I have no problem with citizens carrying concealed. Most Police Officers recognize that armed permit carriers are mature and reasonable enough to use good common sense and retreat to safety whenever possible.
I pose this question; are the lives of the common man or woman, citizens, any less valuable than Police Officers, Court Officers or any public officials designated as Police or Peace Officers, some with extensive training, some with not?
Both brands of elitists view themselves as smarter than us, better educated than us, more mature and reasonable, cut from a finer cloth, and yes, better trained.
The fact is the Police are a reactive force and arrive in most cases to the scene of the crime after the fact…..when we are lying dead in a pool of blood, with our gun safely at home which is OK, because circumstances in the home are less complicated than out on the street.
I guess some people support your Second Amendment Rights if you can give them me a good reason otherwise leave your gun at home and die if you must for perceived public safety.
It's unfortunate that some you call "elitists" in New York State feel they know better than us, and feel they have to take care of us. I find the idea that you have to give a reason to have your rights is repugnant.
And as we both know from our jobs, many convicted criminals will tell you they aviod anyone or place where somebody might have a gun.
Repugnant and more, the list goes on and as a tragic example take the case of Colin Ferguson.
In New York City and the surrounding area, the police aside, a good reason for being granted a concealed carry permit is being politically connected and weathy.
The common man or woman, citizen must wait for the police to save them.
Colin Ferguson is a mass murderer who was convicted of murdering six people and injuring nineteen others on the Long Island Rail Road in Garden City, New York.
On December 7, 1993, as the train pulled into the Merillon Avenue Station, Ferguson pulled out his gun and started firing at passengers. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers, Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. They held them until the police arrived.
Ferguson was convicted on February 17, 1995, of murder for the deaths of the six passengers who died of their injuries. He was also convicted of attempted murder for wounding nineteen passengers. He is serving his sentence of 315-years-and-8-months to life at the Attica Correctional Facility in western New York. His current earliest possible parole date is August 6, 2309.
If a concealed permit was available to any of these mentioned brave men, in my opinion, cut of the finest cloth, and despite the fact they did not have extensive training, how many lives would have been saved before Colin Ferguson got off a second shot…..
Matt, your statements are ludicrous. What bureaucrat uses what metric to determine if my constitutional rights are optional. And if your subjective criteria are used for guns, what about drivers licenses? Many more folks are killed with automobiles than legally obtained arms. So many other examples can be used.
Violent felons are a given. They cannot legally obtain or possess weapons. Yet how many re-offend with easily obtainable illegal guns.
On the other hand, maybe you are right. Howard does a bit of a background check by determining posters are who they say they are. Maybe he should consider subjectively deciding who is fit to post and who isn't.
'Course he'd probably go broke with 0 posters... :)
John, none of your comments make much of any sense. I'm not talking about your terrible sentence composition, I'm talking about your arguments in general.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people actually carry concealed and do so responsibly. I've carried every day for over 20 years and have never had a problem with the law about it. Whenever I've been pulled over for whatever reason, I've always declared that I'm armed and the officers always respond the same way by asking where the firearm is located. I've never even been asked to produce my permit after stating that I'm armed. It's business as usual..I get my ticket, grumble about it a bit and then I'm off to finish my day, as is the cop who pulled me over.
In Vermont, anyone who can pass a background check can legally carry a concealed firearm. When's the last time you heard about a wild west shootout in Vermont? Lots of people there carry concealed and there aren't any problems. Your arguments just sound silly and ignorant. By saying they sounds ignorant, I'm not calling you names. I'm simply saying that you're ignorant about what you speak.
Ok Jeff....I have to make a few points about your example in the that top 15 list....
I know you wouldnt want the Govt to regulate your behavior, but in fact it has already been done in most of your examples.
Smoking: Well lets see, we just this summer saw steps to even more restrictive govt admin to this, Smoking in city parks? Already you arent allowed to smoke in any public place, even bars which to me would seem more appropriate to be the owners choice rather than forcing compliance by the owners. Also the taxation of the product itself amounts to a financial version of prohibition which the nations capitalize on like the bootlegging barons and organized crime did back in the 20's It doesnt look like it'll be backing off either as some landlords now can legally disallow smoking in properties as well as discriminate in renting to smokers and even evict over violations.
Alcohol: Prohibition was written in as an amendment, how did that fair. The public including law enforcement disregarded it almost blatantly. It's results? Well it pretty much empowered and strengthened public acceptance of corruption giving organized crime a foothold and making millionaires of people of the inclination to defy the law to provide the public a service that the govt was denying. Also funded those same distributors to begin the corruption of our Govt letting them influence legislation to continue prohibition and protect the revenues they were amassing. Lets not forget how many innocent people killed by bad batches of alcohol, caught in the crossfire and bombings of well funded criminals fighting for their territories, and so on. You'd think that the Govt would have learned from that lesson but how many correlations to today can we see with it?
Driving: The Govt does regulate driving as well, you dont automatically get to drive, you pay and pay thru the nose for driving. Now we have additional fee/tax on vehicle registration. Get a seat belt ticket or any kind of moving violation the fine isn't much but it is eclipsed by manditory surcharges and costs. Then your insurance skyrockets (speculative profits for that industry) Then the state Govt gets it chance to rob you as well by requiring fees to keep your liscence if you get a few speeding tickets or any other violations, or they yank your driving priveledge. Thats seems pretty close to regulation to me.
As for the needs discussed here for concealed carry permit or the whys and how lets look at this.
Responsibility goes out the window, otherwise it just opens a door for the Govt to intrude even more into our lives, lets then make ppeople apply for permist to buy wire as you can kill with electricity by irresposible wiring, lets make people apply for permits for shovels, hammers and other hand tools as used irresponsibly they can cause death. How about applying for permits to have gasoline, kerosine etc they can be really dangerous as well. As for the missing and shooting an innocent, well accident happen and we have a justice system in place to hold people accountable, people who get all shooty are gonna see the wisdom of discernment and training or they will lose the ability to legally carry concealed or otherwise. Its an argument to be sure but one that fixes itself.
Now as for reasons for the average person to carry? How about a convenience store clerk? What about a successful small business owner picking up his change requirements for day to day business or making deposits. How about pharmecutical salesman, dont they traffic in a likey target for a criminal element. I think personal safety should be considered as well. how about a newly divorced woman who may need to travel in dangerous urban areas looking like a victim can make one a target of opportunity.
But if such people have a permit to carry concealed the criminal element then suffers a risk, a reason to think twice before victimizing what may look like an easy unarmed victim. Who wants to mug someone if theres a chance that they may be killed and the person that does the killing wont have to face consequences?
It would be interesting to look at crime statistics for Albion after the shooting of the guy robbing the burned out house? Especially significant after the no bill verdict on the shooter? Is there a drop in stealing copper or thefts in general? If there was then whats to say that more widespread risk of criminal activity would be reduced by concealed carry permits. Carrying out in the open makes the whole thing moot as then the potential criminal can choose who not to victimize, right?
Doug, I would not be surprise on the number of conceal weapons. You would be surprise on the number of people who carry conceal illegally. As you know all New York State Pistol Permits are conceal anyway. There are several types of concealed policies. Most permits are issued for recreational purposes such as, hunting, collecting, competitive shooting. You are expected to carry your weapon concealed in your vehicle. This is to help avoid misunderstandings. Their is personal protection conceal, which allows you to carry anywhere except, schools, bars, courthouses. However, people who carry under the recreational permit that carry everywhere are in violation.
Recreational really allows one to carry to and from their home to hunting, competitive shooting or gun retail stores/repair shop locations. Those who are carrying to and from work, or grocery stores, malls, etc.., are wrong! Yes, it is hard to prove what location one is traveling to or from. I can tell you I know several people who do carry to places other than what the permit allows.
You declaring your weapon is because, you seem like a responsible individual.
LOL I did a little research... Now I'm pretty sure I'm more confused. My understanding was a recreational license allowed carrying an unloaded weapon. However it appears a little more complex, let me show you.
Restrictions on New York State handgun licenses vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In contrast to "no carry" New York City, and some counties which only issue "to and from target shooting and hunting" licenses, many upstate New York counties issue unrestricted Pistol Licenses that allow unrestricted concealed carry of a loaded handgun (except for important exceptions such as schools, court houses/rooms, secure areas of airports). An unrestricted carry license is the only New York State carry Pistol License that allows armed self-defense as a primary reason for carrying a handgun.
Some of the most rural upstate counties (such as Delaware County) specifically do not enforce the vague "concealed" language in New York State's licensing law, effectively allowing open carry of a licensed handgun. Paradoxically, except for visiting New York City (which does not recognize any other county or city's license), the restrictions (or lack thereof) as they appear on the license stay with the license as the individual travels from county to county within the state. For example, the holder of a Delaware County pistol license (unrestricted carry) can carry his concealed handgun into a restaurant in Suffolk County, while his Suffolk County friend cannot. Not all of the most pro-gun counties of New York are particularly far from New York City either; many tourists getting away from New York City for a weekend trip to the country have been quite surprised at the prevalence of openly carried firearms of all types, only several hours from home.
This dichotomy in New York State handgun license policies (upstate rural/downstate urban) is an outgrowth of two specific cultural forces: the strength of home rule in New York State, and the tradition of the various hunting seasons in the rural counties.
So my take on all this is if we argue rules here thats one set of facts argue livingston, monroe or wyoming etc. thats another ball game entirely. Anyone want to carpool for a trip to Delaware county for an unrestricted permit? LOL
"What about a successful small business owner picking up his change requirements for day to day business or making deposits."
Per a local hand gun safety class instructor, that is one of the few accepted reasons for hand gun ownership for purposes of personal protection.
"It would be interesting to look at crime statistics for Albion after the shooting of the guy robbing the burned out house? Especially significant after the no bill verdict on the shooter?"
From all I"ve read and heard about this incident I get the distinct impression that there is more to this story than is being let out. I think eventually we will learn it wasn't as simple as a homeowner protecting their property.
Chances are that walking around carrying a handgun may make you feel safer but unless you shoot regularly in all sorts of conditions including extreme duress, should you actually be on the receiving end of a "life-threatening" situation you're not going access the weapon and "drop the bad guy". Life isn't television. If you really want to protect yourself and are of the opinion that escalated violence is your best option, become very proficient in a martial art.
Kevin on the Albion story, there may well be may be more to the story but the facts stand.... A grand jury was presented evidence and testimony and made a decsion, with all my years on this earth and in NY I dont think I can recall more than a couple of times anywhere that a grand jury ever no billed a case involving a death. Thats just fact which needs to be distinguished from rumor and gossip and opinion which can all be very one sided.
BTW, I am all for Self Defense but, to allow everyone to carry conceal everywhere for this purpose is how did you put it Doug? Oh, ignorant! As a citizen if one is traveling through areas; where one thinks he needs to protect himself. Maybe one such avoid putting oneself in that position.
Oh before one states this. Yes crime can take place anywhere and anytime. However, a criminal will most always have the advantage over their victim. When I went through the New York Peace Officer Academy this was their top quote. "It is better to be a witness, than trying to be a hero!" Doug you are right their has been no wild west type incidents in Vermount that I know of. Their has been incidents in Montana and Texas where people shoot someone for theft of their property. In both cases they shot an unarmed offender. So, would you justify that as a legal or illegal use of force? Doug would you have shot the arse that stoled your ATV if, you could not stop them in time?
Richard your comment "I guess some people support your Second Amendment Rights if you can give them me a good reason otherwise leave your gun at home and die if you must for perceived public safety", I find that to be ignorant as well. You feel because, I look at the Second Amendment differently then you, my point is meaningless.
When was this amendment written? What was society and the environment like? What laws were in place for public safety? Who was there to protect your family and you? Now we can debate that todays society has a lot of evils. We can also debate there are more laws to help protect public safety and one's right to protect his family and home.
Tell me Richard or Doug when have you ever been in a position to pull out your gun and use it for self defense?
I have numerous times.
Doug and Richard, I am for the Second Amendment but, times, laws, society are different. Who knows one day we may be defending our country on our soil.
As for personal defense, that is a very poorly thought out responce so you eliminate out of the equasion of self defense, the handicapped, the elderly, and the clumsy or physically unco-ordinated and so on?
As for the personal protection, uhm yeah that was the whole point of that paragraph I noticed there was no comment on the other reasons posted nor the effect that concealed carry would have vs open carry? What does a gun saftey instructor say about that?
John w.,
So the people in Vermont, Indiana, Texas, etc, are better than us? They don't have to ask permission or give a reason to exercise their rights. Why does it work in those states, but not in NY?
"Who knows one day we may be defending our country on our soil."
"Permits identify, one that person is clear to carry; two helps identify weapons. Controls who can carry. As we debated just because, the Constitution gives the "Right to Bear Arms" doesn't mean it is safe to give to everyone. "
The first thing that an invading army will do is go to the police and find out who owns what firearms and go out and collect them.
.
LOL I am very well aquainted with firearms and shooting weapons. From an early age I had a natural instinctive marksmanship that allows me to hit my target. In the Navy I was a gunners mate, found I had natural mechanical talent that lent itself well to that maybe I will be a gunsmith someday it was something I didnt choose to persue after I left the service.
Kevin's comment reminded me of my days in Ithaca, I was an avid shooter, everything from bows to .50 cal rifles. No matter what I shot, I became quickly bored with the gun once it's character was known (shooters in the audiance know what I am refering to) So I invented challenges that quickly became popular w my shooting friends. Extreme long shots w .22 without scopes, shooting from the hip or quick draw style (much more dangerous than people think, even going and running and doing jumping jacks intensley then shooting for immediate accuracy. And my favorite way to dispose of golf balls that got hit and left in my yard (lived next to a golf course then)I called gallery golf done with pistols of whatever cliber you choose, place the ball on a tee then shoot at it and get it the farthest downrange in the shortest amount of shots (upper limit of one clip)the nuances of this were very challenging, you had to hit a small target, and hitting it straight on destroyed the ball so you have to sort of nick it, BUT cant hit it too off center or it flies off the range.
My point is most people end up going plinking and shooting above and beyond their inital training, once your familiar with your gun it gets boring so you invent ways to make it more difficult. Not all but in general. So even the argument of no exp in different conditionsreally isnt a very good one. The cost of a permit, the weapon and the training required to get said permit filters out the impetuous, and irresponible to a degree, not an absolute by any means but pretty good imho.
So Rex thats a very good point but I counter it that if almost everyone has one, then they are back to square one of dealing with everyone as a whole anyway :)
I'll be sure to let the NYS Trooper that gave that advise know your opinion when i see him this coming weekend. He'll likely be curious to know what branch of law enforcement you're part of to give you such expertise on the matter so what should I tell him? How does someone who is clumsy or physically uncoordinated possess the skill required to shoot accurately under duress by the way?
As far as your second paragraph, I have no idea. I was relating his specific comment that a business owner responsible for transporting large sums of cash had a valid reason to cite "personal protection" as his desire for a handgun permit.
LOL Kevin you obviously have a pretty black and white view to things so I will answer you. 1) I was trained in law enforcement as a master at arms in the navy. Very specific rules that dont always apply to law enforcement outside of the armed services. 2) Even a clumsy or physically un-coordinated person could shoot and hit an assailant the close range that would be necessary to use martial arts under duress or not. Thats pretty much a no-brainer and thought you were more intelligent than that to make such a comaparison, didnt meant to upset you THAT much. :)
PS by the way being a NYS trooper doesnt really make anyone that much more special or perfect or an expert. They are still human, just ask the troopers convicted in Dryden NY for faking evidence and pretty much screwing up the investigation of the Harris Family murders. I just hate when people idolize someone and treat their word as that of a saint just because of position or title. Those types of worship and respect should be given only to those who have time and again done meritorious service and earned such blind uplifting. To do otherwise just cheapens the respect.
Gun control in this state is laughable, the only people who have a hard time getting permits are those who want a gun to protect themselves. Criminals don't need permits or background checks, they buy them off the street.
I met the Trooper for the first time while assisting in the search for Samantha Zaldivar. We've worked together several times since in similar unenviable situations. Over the years we have become good friends. We have trusted each other with our lives on more than one occasion. My respect for him was earned a long time ago.
Even if the criminal has the advantage, are you willing to strip me of any ability to defend myself? I'd rather have the option to make that decision myself than to have you take it away from me entirely. If you don't want to carry concealed, so be it. Try telling a cop that they don't need to carry because the criminal has the advantage anyway. When he or she gets done laughing and wiping away the tears, maybe you'll get the point. How is it, in your opinion, that a cop should be able to protect their self and I shouldn't be allowed to? I'm just baffled by that nonsense. The cops can't always be there and that's why I carry.
Quotes:
The problem across New York State is that each county judge assigned to pistol-permit assessments can exercise his or her preferences as to the status of issuance.
"We (permit applicants and handgun owners) are subjected to the scrutiny of a criminal before and while we hold permits," Taylor said. "We go through a more thorough check than any other permit or license applicant in the state," he added.
----------
I submitted fingerprints, 4 people had to sign notarized statements attesting to my character and I had to have 3 levels of background checks performed in order to get my pistol permit. Please, for the love of everything that's sane, why should I only be allowed to carry for hunting, competition shooting and collecting because one, single judge thinks that's how it should be? I was even subject to that nutty Brady check that was fortunately done away with.
Please remember this, the only people impacted by gun laws are those who are responsible enough to abide by them in the first place. Gun laws don't mean JACK to the guy who isn't supposed to have a firearm in the first place.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment –Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment –A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment –In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Seventh Amendment In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment –Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These are our Bill of Rights, not a bill of suggestions, not a bill of privileges, but a Bill of Rights.
I hold the Constitution of the United States dear and celebrate the brilliant, visionary men who wrote it. Patriots who wrote it for future generations and the problems they would face.
From the time the Bill of Rights was ratified until now, the times laws, society were different, and each generation viewed theirs as better or worse, yet the Bill of Rights remains to protect future generations. Do you think crime is something new and unique to our time?
You wrote in part, “You feel because, I look at the Second Amendment differently then you, my point is meaningless.”
Your point is not meaningless. I know exactly what you mean and I strongly disagree in your interpretation of the Second Amendment and will not let it stand without challenge; see the First Amendment.
Given the current environment, and excluding the Second Amendment, how do you view the remaining Nine Amendments and their hindrance of public safety?
Kyle, I agree with your assessment of how government regulates those things, but the point of my post was opening the door to government using intent and need as ways to regulate behavior. Certainly government regulates driving in many, many ways. What haven't done...yet is regulate it by determining my need or intent in driving. My need to won something and my intent with anything I own is none of the governments business.
"Firearms stand next in
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." President George Washington(Address to 1st session of Congress)
Dave's quote is bogus, of
Dave's quote is bogus, of course. Check out: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
My opinion is that there
My opinion is that there should not be a permit requirement in the first place. I'm all for mandatory handling courses simply because it's so much easier to pop yourself with a handgun than it is with a long gun. Pass the handgun proficiency course, pass the background check and you should fall under the same ownership rules that are in place for long guns. I think handgun owners who want to carry concealed should also need to be educated on the law and be made aware of what their liabilities are.
It's a huge responsibility but I believe that anyone who passes a background check and training has the right to be armed.
Dave, great points.
Even if the quote is bogus,
Even if the quote is bogus, the point still stands that legal firearm ownership is safe and is a right of every law abiding citizen.
Bogus quotes do detract from
Bogus quotes do detract from the legitimate arguments for gun rights, though. sigh...
Just to make it clear, if you
Just to make it clear, if you have to ask permission (permit)it's no longer a right.
the 2nd answer is worded a
the 2nd answer is worded a little wrong, The part about "needs to carry". When i applied for my permit we were asked why we wanted a permit. Of course the answer usually was, collecting and competition shooting, [that was before pistol hunting was allowed around here] Of course in order to do these things you have to be able to carry. A concealed hand gun causes much less stir than making someone carry it around in plain sight. Calling it a concealed weapon permit merely gives the owner the option to do either. The back round checks that are in place are IMHO are sufficient
Obviously, I've been duped.
Obviously, I've been duped. My apologies to all who read this. I had heard that quote attributed to Washington a few years ago and thought it a good one. It was easy to find this morning and paste. I don't feel so bad after all, it's been kicking around and being mis-attributed since 1790! Doesn't change the way I feel about the issue either.
Of all the crimes committed
Of all the crimes committed using handguns (murder, attempted murder, robbery, etc.), how many of the people convicted actually have a permit?
The only individuals that
The only individuals that should carry a conceal gun should be Law Enforcement and people who have a legit need to carry conceal whether, it is for undercover or self protection due to one's legit occupation. No one needs to carry conceal outside that scope.
Montana anyone can carry a gun but, it had to be displayed in view and if you walked into a business you were not able to carry loaded. You had to articulate why you would need a conceal weapons permit.
So, I am for no one other than special security (i.e. diplomatic security), law enforcement or court officials. They need it for the following reasons, undercover and self protections.
Hunters, competitive/target shooter should display their weapons and keep unloaded while transporting. People are to announce to a Police Officer that, they have a firearm in their vehicle. I do know that there are those who do not.
There is no logical reason to
There is no logical reason to deny a carry permit. If you clear the background check and can have a handgun, then how you carry it, or just leave it home, is your business. I have no problem saying you can not bring a gun into certain locations, but the right to carry should not be denied.
Hey Eric, I am all for the
Hey Eric, I am all for the "Right to Bear Arms!" However, I have to disagree on "A concealed hand gun causes much less stir than making someone carry it around in plain sight." That is all a matter of opinion.
Besides people cause a stir because, of their "Guns Kill Mentality!" Guns do not kill, people kill. I can leave my pistol on a table fully loaded and it will not kill but, put a person behind that gun it may whether, purposely or accidentally.
Dave, as Doug said,
Dave, as Doug said, regardless of the source quoted, it's content is completely correct and insightful. This is about the only topic on which I agree with Ron Paul.
And Terry, I never really thought about it that way, but you hit the nail on the head - thank you.
I usually do not call upon my
I usually do not call upon my American Indian heritage, but being a member of a racial group that had to fight in a World War for this country before being able to vote (it was well earned is my point), I very much appreciate my constitutional rights, including the one provided for in the second amendment. The right to bear arms is a civil right.
John, just because, a person
John, just because, a person passes a background check does not make them safe and responsible enough to carry a gun. They may be someone who just has not done something to flag themself. People have breaking points. Some people suffer trauma and develop mental issues. The list can go on and on. Like I have stated above, " I am for the Right to Bear Arms!" I just do not believe certain cases should allow conceal weapons.
I have lived in states that
I have lived in states that allow anyone that passes the basic background checks to carry open or concealed and felt safer than on the streets of Rochester or Buffalo. I have also found that it is easier to obtain an weapon on the streets in New York than in a gun shop. How is that right?
For everyone who believes it
For everyone who believes it is every mans constitutional right to carry a gun, and believe that there should be no permit application: If a person with the credentials of tyquan rivera is released from prison, moves into your neighborhood, applies for a gun permit and is denied, are you going to fight for his "constitutional right" to carry a gun in your neighborhood? For those of you who don't know of tyquan rivera.... http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Tyquan-Rivera-Gets-Maximum-3-1-3…
When you commite a felony you
When you commite a felony you should lose all your rights as a citizen of the United States. Maybe if we stop coddling the criminal's and make them thing about all that the loose will deture them.
John W., Can I ask, If a
John W., Can I ask, If a person doesn't have the right to protect themselves and their family who is responsible for protecting them from violence and are they accountable if its not done.
Rex, should the ladies that
Rex, should the ladies that where charged with a felony for buying 10 cartoons of cigarettes from the rez last year lose their right to protect themselves. So far they lost their freedom,their car (a possibility)their money and time. Are they really a threat to society? If felons are so dangerous why to we let them free?
Here's and interesting book to read on this subject.
Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
Harvey A. Silverglate (Author)
Once a person commits a crime
Once a person commits a crime against society his "Right to Bear Arm" is stripped. "For everyone who believes it is every mans constitutional right to carry a gun." It is a fact not something you believe in.
Matt, I do know what you are trying to say. I agree there are certain cases where that right should not apply. Let's face it; our Forefathers never experience the amount and type of crimes we face today.
However, till one shows their inability to be responsible, they have the “Right to Bear Arm.”
Terry, I am not sure what you
Terry, I am not sure what you are trying to ask or state. What does carrying conceal have to do with this?????
John- there are people who
John- there are people who believe there should not be a permit process. That it is every citizens right to protect themselves. hence, my question. What don't you understand?
Yes I should of said If your
Yes I should of said If your convicted of a violent crime . Those ladys were charged but what were they convicted of? Its a Class A Misdemeaner not a felony to transport cigs first offence.
http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/memos/cigarette/m03_1m.pdf
I agree with you Rex. If
I agree with you Rex. If crimes against humanity are committed they should strip their rights away. Heck, an increasing number of convicts are becoming career criminal because, we give them free, three hots and a cot, education, gym and digital cable. Who would not want all this and not have to pay?
Unfortunately, the reality is that civil groups would be in an uproar because, a criminal's behavior will be blamed on everyone and everything other than him/her.
John- "However, till one
John- "However, till one shows their inability to be responsible, they have the “Right to Bear Arm.”" Not everyone with a clean record is responsible. In other words, just because you can pass a background check doesnt mean you are responsible enough to carry a gun. many innocent, defenseless people have learned this the hard way!
So Matt your argument is that
So Matt your argument is that everyone is guilty untill proven otherwise? Or that crime would not go down if the perp didnt know if you were armed or not?.
Well there needs to be a
Well there needs to be a permit process. There are too many people out there who would purchase a firearm for the wrong reason; such as protecting themselves while committing a crime. As we seen in the past with "Active Shooter". People who feel that society is against them or people who's feelings were hurt or people who were teased. Not to mention people who would take law into their own hands.
I believe we have the "Right to Bear Arms" but, todays society is different and we need to control access to whom can "Bear Arms". Why, would I give an known violent felony the "Right to Bear Arms"? I might as well say shoot me here.
I agree people have the right to protect themselves especially against violent crimes. However, if that persons has committed crimes they get what they deserve. When a criminal's family is in danger, it is of that person's doing.
Rex- I didn't say everyone
Rex- I didn't say everyone is guilty. I stated that not everyone approved to carry a gun is responsible enough to carry a gun, meaning that some people are responsible enough and some aren't. How does that imply that everyone is guilty of anything? And your second question makes no sense! I'm saying that if you give the wrong person a gun to defend themselves, who judges whether self defense, especially with a gun, is needed? I think there was a major case about this a few years back right in rochester.
John- define violent crime.
John- define violent crime. Is an unarmed 17 year old breaking into your car a violent crime that requires you to shoot and kill him? I agree with the points you are making, but there are very fine lines that distinguish right and wrong
Read comment 16
Read comment 16
I hadn't read that until now.
I hadn't read that until now. It seems we have the same opinion.
I worded what I wanted to say
I worded what I wanted to say wrong. What I ment was that because a few people may use guns improperly all should be banned from owning them? With freedom comes responsability The person who shot the youth was in the wrong He should of called the police and stayed home to protect his own not go out and be a vigilante.But what that has to do with a conceled weapon I don't know. But I also think there should be background checks and a waiting peroid.
An unarmed 17 year old
An unarmed 17 year old breaking into your car is not a violent crime. Let me rephrase, "A violent crime against a person." If, an 17 year old tries to hijack your car with physical force, that is a violent crime and yes you have the right to protect yourself. However, what level of force is dependent on the situation. Such as, age difference, physical size difference which would be against you, what type of force the criminal is using, number of offenders involved, etc.....
Example, the Wal-Mart greeter who was strucked in the face had the right to use deadly force. A strike against someone's head is use of deadly force. Now we know people fight all the time and strike people's head but, if someone provoked the fight or did not try to evade the fight. Well, that person's right to use deadly forces does not exist. You have to show without a doubt that person mean to cause serious or physical harm.
The Wal-Mart greeter did not provoke and did not try to evade (Because, Ms Simmons fled the scene.) Ms. Simmons did mean bodily harm to the elderly woman. Their is that age, size issue too.
it doesnt have anything to do
it doesnt have anything to do with a concealed weapon. It was just a reference to the right to defend yourself argument, and what constitutes the need for defense of that magnitude.
I am on the fence on
I am on the fence on concealed permits, for them I think training in both situational law and ethics that apply to it should be done and a demonstrateable need. But I think a permit to carry out in the open as well needs to be added. As for ownership? Background checks then the standard can carry unloaded between range and home as well as having it in the home should suffice.
John- your statement is
John- your statement is exactly the point im getting at (And i agree with what you say). It comes down to the responsibility factor. And not everyone is responsible enough to make a judgement on what actions require that type of self defense. So, really, one persons right to defend themselves may end up stripping an innocent persons rights from them. This is part of the reason why gun laws are such a hot debate.....because of the idiots who carry them and misuse them. Rex- Unfortunately, one persons irresponsible actions can ruin things for everyone else. I think the fact that we're even in this type of debate proves that.
Yeah, we seem to be on the
Yeah, we seem to be on the same page but, with delays in comments are causing our issues.
To get to the issue at hand concerning the poll. I do not believe everyone needs to have a conceal weapons permit. The permits are a limited conceal permit. Especially when transporting, we do not want people viewing your weapons in your car and breaking in to retrieved them. My comments against conceal permit is the fully conceal.
I think the argument that
I think the argument that after passing the checks that a few may use the weapon improperly so none should have them is lame.
Rex- is that what you think
Rex- is that what you think I'm arguing? If so, maybe you should go back and re-read my posts. Again, you have misinterpreted my argument.
(Concealed weapon) A
(Concealed weapon)
A concealed weapon can and from time to time be a pump shotgun and deer slugs purchased at wally world after the background check has been cleared, just simply stop by hardware departement and purchase hacksaw and files. Cut the stock and barrel to desired length, short enough to conceal under a coat, bingo! Not many regerestered handguns are found to be used in crimes, only if stolen and sold on the black market.People that intend to commit a crime or miss use handguns/or guns in general do and in most cases do not regester them nor do they have to pass any background checks,simply have the money and the connections (any street corner in lg citys)to buy a weapon of choice.
I also am a firm believer that because a person can pass the background test is by no means proof that they can properly handle a weapon, training courses would be more and if not most inportant part of the application to carry or purchase.
I guess that I missunderstood
I guess that I missunderstood #30 .
If a person passes the background and waiting period they should be able to carry any way they want.
The real point here is that
The real point here is that New York, and Genesee County, restrict our right while states like Texas and Indiana do not. True, we can move to them, but we should not have to.
Topic of the poll is conceal
Topic of the poll is conceal weapon permit.
A sawed off shotgun though it can be concealed is not a conceal weapon permit. It is in fact an illegal firearm if, it is less than eighteen inches in length.
You are right that a lot of weapons used in a crime are not register to the offender. The prefer weapon of choice is a .380 caliber handgun, which is easily concealed.
Most weapons used in a crime are register to someone and if, used by someone other than the owner. They are in violation of another crime.
What I think we can agree on is that conceal weapons permits should be controlled and used by Law Enforcement and Court Officials. My reasoning is this. Both occupations are a public service, they both have people who have a hatred of their occupation and if, there is a known cop in the mix of a violent crime, the cop will be the first target. Cops' information may be limited in availability but, with the internet not totally hidden.
John W., I don't think we can
John W.,
I don't think we can agree that only certain public officals should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Anyone who can legally own a handgun should be allowed the same right.
You are right John but, do
You are right John but, do not forget Montana, you can also carry in public. However, you live in an extremely liberal state. This country also has an extremely liberal media. Who's ranting about farmers killing illegals immigrants that steal and threaten them in the southern states is cruel and unjustified.
Unfortunately, this country has too much left and right wing personnel in the media and political arenas. Not enough balance force between them.
So John, articulate an legit
So John, articulate an legit reason why the average Joe would need a fully concealed weapons permit, rather than just carrying openly and unloaded when going from point A to point B.
Why would someone who carries a firearm for hunting, competitive/target shooting or for collecting have a need to carry concealed?
John W. I don't speak for
John W. I don't speak for John R. of course, but I believe he's saying that it should be a person's option to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise or not carry one, without having to prove or even state to anyone, including a police officer, what the reason is for carrying it. It's noone's business, nor should it be. It's private property. If that's what you meant John R., then I agree as well.
John W., Just because I want
John W.,
Just because I want to. I should not need a reason if I can own a handgun legally. If I go hunting, I should be the one to decide if I carry it concealed or not, not some bureaucrat. If I want to just walk around with it concealed, why not? Why should anyone care? It should not be there business.
Self Protection for the
Self Protection for the average American is not a legit reason. No one should condone self protection for outside my foremention scope.
Can one use their weapon to protect, by all means yes but, when absolutely necessary and when justified.
Justifying carrying a conceal weapons permit for self protection for an average Joe citizen is too risky. Giving one training in "Use of Force" would not be enough. As a Police Officer, I go through daily training in "Use of Force" and we are always learning something new. People bitch about renewals of licenses, registrations, permits, etc...... Imagine if an a normal gun owner had to go through quarterly “ Use of Force” training.
Imagine you are walking down a street when bam, someone tries to mug you. You pull out your dirty Harry 44 and pop off rounds. Whoops you miss your target and hit Granny crossing the street further down. My point is people carrying guns for self protection need more than "Use of Force" training, they would require to be proficient in firing such weapon in an public arena under stress, know their surroundings, etc... Defending one's self in public is a extremely different than defending one's self at home.
Matt wrote: It comes down to
Matt wrote: It comes down to the responsibility factor.
True, but what about having children? You don't have to be responsible to have kids, just working parts, a partner and space. Yet there are thousands of children that are left to the state, or worse yet neglected; even killed. Can we make people get permits before they procreate?
My point is irresponsible people will be irresponsible regardless of laws, or who they can hurt. Taking away rights because these people exist is like saying don't go outside because you might catch a cold. Educate, yes. Enfore, yes. Deny? no.
John W., Since when is self
John W.,
Since when is self protection not a legitimate reason? And maybe I just want to carry it. Not for protection, but because I just want to. There is no legitimate reason to tell a person who legally owns a handgun they can not carry it. And again, why should anyone care?
Why is having to present
Why is having to present evidence of "need" even an issue? If something was important enough to be a specifically articulated right of ownership in the Constitution, one should never have to provide evidence of "need". I am all for background checks, but no American citizen who has passed one should ever have to provide a need to have a permit for gun ownership, concealed or otherwise.
Why is it that one can not
Why is it that one can not even own a handgun in this wonderful state with out getting the blessing of the court? I am not saying conceled we are not even allowed to own a handgun.
If the owner of an
If the owner of an establishment doesn't want guns in there, then they also have every right to have metal detectors or pat down people at the door. Be it a restaurant, bar, retail store, bank whatever. If you don't like being patted down, don't enter the establishment. SImple
I believe we are miss
I believe we are miss understanding each other. My debate is conceal weapons permit. Not carrying legit and register firearm.
Why would one need to carry conceal in public? Besides there are people who would abuse it purposely and accidentally. This just makes more of unpredictable situation.
I rather see people like in Montana and Texas carry openly and not concealed.
Police carrying conceal would be more for their safety, opposed to their right to bear arms.
Alcohol and Guns, now there
Alcohol and Guns, now there is a great mix. hee yah.
Permits identify, one that
Permits identify, one that person is clear to carry; two helps identify weapons. Controls who can carry. As we debated just because, the Constitution gives the "Right to Bear Arms" doesn't mean it is safe to give to everyone.
Heck, we keep talking the right to protect ourselves. When this right came around was when this country was being established and there was unknown frontier and dangers to settlers. Such as Indian attacks, foreign invasions, bandits, etc...
The wild west was not just for self preservation but, for one's honor and property.
Yes, protecting one's home is important. In the past we did not have the Police force of today. Once again I will state, I am all for the "Right to Bear Arms!" However, the need for one to carry conceal in public is not necessary and dangerous to public safety.
Ok J.R. why would you carry
Ok J.R. why would you carry your weapon in public for no reason? Let me rephrase the Self Protection issue. Self Protection in public causes a lot of unpredictable scenarios and Self Protection of your home involves less issues and is more contained.
Why should people care that you are carrying in public? Here is a reason, you would carry for no reason in public so, what is really your intent? Like we mention just because, you pass a background check does not mean your are 100% safe to carry. One's ability to carry in public should be more than a background check. People do not know how you will react under stress, do not know how or if you can handle a gun proficiently. Public Safety is the main goal and people who feel they should just carry because, they can. Well they really have no clue or care in the world for the Public's safety.
John W., Again, I should not
John W.,
Again, I should not need a reason to carry a handgun concealed. I should not need special permission if I legally own the gun. My reasons should not be subject to the whim of some bureaucrat who thinks he knows best, and likely does not.
John W. you continue to
John W. you continue to assert that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons makes all of us less safe since we don't know the intent, need or proficiency of the carrier. Where is the empirical evidence to back that up? The CDC list the top 15 causes of death in America as follows:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)
Only 3 of the top 15 would somehow involve legally owned guns and since those three are general categories, guns make up only a percentage of each. Many of the listed causes of death involve habits and lifestyle choices that contribute to the stats. I would not want government legislating my intent or proficiency in any of those activities that lead to death. Smoking cigarettes leads to several of the above listed causes of death and even though I don't smoke I would not want government wanting to know my need or intentions concerning smoking. many of the accidental deaths in category 5 involve motor vehicles, i would not want government legislating my need or intention concerning driving. Consuption of alcohol contributes to #12 but I don't want government legislating my need or intention concerning alcohol use. I could go on but you get the picture when it comes to government trying to meddle in need or intent.
Protect us from us or them?
Protect us from us or them?
John Roach, As you well
John Roach,
As you well know, elitism exists in Law Enforcement as it does with some our elected officials and politicians; both public servants.
Elite politicians live in gated communities with private police forces and armed body guards to protect them.
In most localities, Police are allowed to carry 24/7, therefore, when they are with their families in public, off duty, carrying concealed, they and their families and loved ones are protected and safe from harm.
This is a good thing and I have no problem with this, just as I have no problem with citizens carrying concealed. Most Police Officers recognize that armed permit carriers are mature and reasonable enough to use good common sense and retreat to safety whenever possible.
I pose this question; are the lives of the common man or woman, citizens, any less valuable than Police Officers, Court Officers or any public officials designated as Police or Peace Officers, some with extensive training, some with not?
Both brands of elitists view themselves as smarter than us, better educated than us, more mature and reasonable, cut from a finer cloth, and yes, better trained.
The fact is the Police are a reactive force and arrive in most cases to the scene of the crime after the fact…..when we are lying dead in a pool of blood, with our gun safely at home which is OK, because circumstances in the home are less complicated than out on the street.
I guess some people support your Second Amendment Rights if you can give them me a good reason otherwise leave your gun at home and die if you must for perceived public safety.
Richard, As you know, I agree
Richard,
As you know, I agree with you.
It's unfortunate that some you call "elitists" in New York State feel they know better than us, and feel they have to take care of us. I find the idea that you have to give a reason to have your rights is repugnant.
And as we both know from our jobs, many convicted criminals will tell you they aviod anyone or place where somebody might have a gun.
Yes, John, Repugnant and
Yes, John,
Repugnant and more, the list goes on and as a tragic example take the case of Colin Ferguson.
In New York City and the surrounding area, the police aside, a good reason for being granted a concealed carry permit is being politically connected and weathy.
The common man or woman, citizen must wait for the police to save them.
Colin Ferguson is a mass murderer who was convicted of murdering six people and injuring nineteen others on the Long Island Rail Road in Garden City, New York.
On December 7, 1993, as the train pulled into the Merillon Avenue Station, Ferguson pulled out his gun and started firing at passengers. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers, Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. They held them until the police arrived.
Ferguson was convicted on February 17, 1995, of murder for the deaths of the six passengers who died of their injuries. He was also convicted of attempted murder for wounding nineteen passengers. He is serving his sentence of 315-years-and-8-months to life at the Attica Correctional Facility in western New York. His current earliest possible parole date is August 6, 2309.
If a concealed permit was available to any of these mentioned brave men, in my opinion, cut of the finest cloth, and despite the fact they did not have extensive training, how many lives would have been saved before Colin Ferguson got off a second shot…..
Matt, your statements are
Matt, your statements are ludicrous. What bureaucrat uses what metric to determine if my constitutional rights are optional. And if your subjective criteria are used for guns, what about drivers licenses? Many more folks are killed with automobiles than legally obtained arms. So many other examples can be used.
Violent felons are a given. They cannot legally obtain or possess weapons. Yet how many re-offend with easily obtainable illegal guns.
On the other hand, maybe you are right. Howard does a bit of a background check by determining posters are who they say they are. Maybe he should consider subjectively deciding who is fit to post and who isn't.
'Course he'd probably go broke with 0 posters... :)
Off Topic but thought someone
Off Topic but thought someone on here can answer....Are knifes illegal to carry ..
See New York State Penal Law,
See New York State Penal Law, Article 265
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm
John, none of your comments
John, none of your comments make much of any sense. I'm not talking about your terrible sentence composition, I'm talking about your arguments in general.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people actually carry concealed and do so responsibly. I've carried every day for over 20 years and have never had a problem with the law about it. Whenever I've been pulled over for whatever reason, I've always declared that I'm armed and the officers always respond the same way by asking where the firearm is located. I've never even been asked to produce my permit after stating that I'm armed. It's business as usual..I get my ticket, grumble about it a bit and then I'm off to finish my day, as is the cop who pulled me over.
In Vermont, anyone who can pass a background check can legally carry a concealed firearm. When's the last time you heard about a wild west shootout in Vermont? Lots of people there carry concealed and there aren't any problems. Your arguments just sound silly and ignorant. By saying they sounds ignorant, I'm not calling you names. I'm simply saying that you're ignorant about what you speak.
Ok Jeff....I have to make a
Ok Jeff....I have to make a few points about your example in the that top 15 list....
I know you wouldnt want the Govt to regulate your behavior, but in fact it has already been done in most of your examples.
Smoking: Well lets see, we just this summer saw steps to even more restrictive govt admin to this, Smoking in city parks? Already you arent allowed to smoke in any public place, even bars which to me would seem more appropriate to be the owners choice rather than forcing compliance by the owners. Also the taxation of the product itself amounts to a financial version of prohibition which the nations capitalize on like the bootlegging barons and organized crime did back in the 20's It doesnt look like it'll be backing off either as some landlords now can legally disallow smoking in properties as well as discriminate in renting to smokers and even evict over violations.
Alcohol: Prohibition was written in as an amendment, how did that fair. The public including law enforcement disregarded it almost blatantly. It's results? Well it pretty much empowered and strengthened public acceptance of corruption giving organized crime a foothold and making millionaires of people of the inclination to defy the law to provide the public a service that the govt was denying. Also funded those same distributors to begin the corruption of our Govt letting them influence legislation to continue prohibition and protect the revenues they were amassing. Lets not forget how many innocent people killed by bad batches of alcohol, caught in the crossfire and bombings of well funded criminals fighting for their territories, and so on. You'd think that the Govt would have learned from that lesson but how many correlations to today can we see with it?
Driving: The Govt does regulate driving as well, you dont automatically get to drive, you pay and pay thru the nose for driving. Now we have additional fee/tax on vehicle registration. Get a seat belt ticket or any kind of moving violation the fine isn't much but it is eclipsed by manditory surcharges and costs. Then your insurance skyrockets (speculative profits for that industry) Then the state Govt gets it chance to rob you as well by requiring fees to keep your liscence if you get a few speeding tickets or any other violations, or they yank your driving priveledge. Thats seems pretty close to regulation to me.
As for the needs discussed
As for the needs discussed here for concealed carry permit or the whys and how lets look at this.
Responsibility goes out the window, otherwise it just opens a door for the Govt to intrude even more into our lives, lets then make ppeople apply for permist to buy wire as you can kill with electricity by irresposible wiring, lets make people apply for permits for shovels, hammers and other hand tools as used irresponsibly they can cause death. How about applying for permits to have gasoline, kerosine etc they can be really dangerous as well. As for the missing and shooting an innocent, well accident happen and we have a justice system in place to hold people accountable, people who get all shooty are gonna see the wisdom of discernment and training or they will lose the ability to legally carry concealed or otherwise. Its an argument to be sure but one that fixes itself.
Now as for reasons for the average person to carry? How about a convenience store clerk? What about a successful small business owner picking up his change requirements for day to day business or making deposits. How about pharmecutical salesman, dont they traffic in a likey target for a criminal element. I think personal safety should be considered as well. how about a newly divorced woman who may need to travel in dangerous urban areas looking like a victim can make one a target of opportunity.
But if such people have a permit to carry concealed the criminal element then suffers a risk, a reason to think twice before victimizing what may look like an easy unarmed victim. Who wants to mug someone if theres a chance that they may be killed and the person that does the killing wont have to face consequences?
It would be interesting to look at crime statistics for Albion after the shooting of the guy robbing the burned out house? Especially significant after the no bill verdict on the shooter? Is there a drop in stealing copper or thefts in general? If there was then whats to say that more widespread risk of criminal activity would be reduced by concealed carry permits. Carrying out in the open makes the whole thing moot as then the potential criminal can choose who not to victimize, right?
Doug, I would not be
Doug, I would not be surprise on the number of conceal weapons. You would be surprise on the number of people who carry conceal illegally. As you know all New York State Pistol Permits are conceal anyway. There are several types of concealed policies. Most permits are issued for recreational purposes such as, hunting, collecting, competitive shooting. You are expected to carry your weapon concealed in your vehicle. This is to help avoid misunderstandings. Their is personal protection conceal, which allows you to carry anywhere except, schools, bars, courthouses. However, people who carry under the recreational permit that carry everywhere are in violation.
Recreational really allows one to carry to and from their home to hunting, competitive shooting or gun retail stores/repair shop locations. Those who are carrying to and from work, or grocery stores, malls, etc.., are wrong! Yes, it is hard to prove what location one is traveling to or from. I can tell you I know several people who do carry to places other than what the permit allows.
You declaring your weapon is because, you seem like a responsible individual.
LOL I did a little
LOL I did a little research... Now I'm pretty sure I'm more confused. My understanding was a recreational license allowed carrying an unloaded weapon. However it appears a little more complex, let me show you.
Restrictions on New York State handgun licenses vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In contrast to "no carry" New York City, and some counties which only issue "to and from target shooting and hunting" licenses, many upstate New York counties issue unrestricted Pistol Licenses that allow unrestricted concealed carry of a loaded handgun (except for important exceptions such as schools, court houses/rooms, secure areas of airports). An unrestricted carry license is the only New York State carry Pistol License that allows armed self-defense as a primary reason for carrying a handgun.
Some of the most rural upstate counties (such as Delaware County) specifically do not enforce the vague "concealed" language in New York State's licensing law, effectively allowing open carry of a licensed handgun. Paradoxically, except for visiting New York City (which does not recognize any other county or city's license), the restrictions (or lack thereof) as they appear on the license stay with the license as the individual travels from county to county within the state. For example, the holder of a Delaware County pistol license (unrestricted carry) can carry his concealed handgun into a restaurant in Suffolk County, while his Suffolk County friend cannot. Not all of the most pro-gun counties of New York are particularly far from New York City either; many tourists getting away from New York City for a weekend trip to the country have been quite surprised at the prevalence of openly carried firearms of all types, only several hours from home.
This dichotomy in New York State handgun license policies (upstate rural/downstate urban) is an outgrowth of two specific cultural forces: the strength of home rule in New York State, and the tradition of the various hunting seasons in the rural counties.
So my take on all this is if we argue rules here thats one set of facts argue livingston, monroe or wyoming etc. thats another ball game entirely. Anyone want to carpool for a trip to Delaware county for an unrestricted permit? LOL
"What about a successful
"What about a successful small business owner picking up his change requirements for day to day business or making deposits."
Per a local hand gun safety class instructor, that is one of the few accepted reasons for hand gun ownership for purposes of personal protection.
"It would be interesting to look at crime statistics for Albion after the shooting of the guy robbing the burned out house? Especially significant after the no bill verdict on the shooter?"
From all I"ve read and heard about this incident I get the distinct impression that there is more to this story than is being let out. I think eventually we will learn it wasn't as simple as a homeowner protecting their property.
Chances are that walking around carrying a handgun may make you feel safer but unless you shoot regularly in all sorts of conditions including extreme duress, should you actually be on the receiving end of a "life-threatening" situation you're not going access the weapon and "drop the bad guy". Life isn't television. If you really want to protect yourself and are of the opinion that escalated violence is your best option, become very proficient in a martial art.
Kevin on the Albion story,
Kevin on the Albion story, there may well be may be more to the story but the facts stand.... A grand jury was presented evidence and testimony and made a decsion, with all my years on this earth and in NY I dont think I can recall more than a couple of times anywhere that a grand jury ever no billed a case involving a death. Thats just fact which needs to be distinguished from rumor and gossip and opinion which can all be very one sided.
BTW, I am all for Self
BTW, I am all for Self Defense but, to allow everyone to carry conceal everywhere for this purpose is how did you put it Doug? Oh, ignorant! As a citizen if one is traveling through areas; where one thinks he needs to protect himself. Maybe one such avoid putting oneself in that position.
Oh before one states this. Yes crime can take place anywhere and anytime. However, a criminal will most always have the advantage over their victim. When I went through the New York Peace Officer Academy this was their top quote. "It is better to be a witness, than trying to be a hero!" Doug you are right their has been no wild west type incidents in Vermount that I know of. Their has been incidents in Montana and Texas where people shoot someone for theft of their property. In both cases they shot an unarmed offender. So, would you justify that as a legal or illegal use of force? Doug would you have shot the arse that stoled your ATV if, you could not stop them in time?
Richard your comment "I guess some people support your Second Amendment Rights if you can give them me a good reason otherwise leave your gun at home and die if you must for perceived public safety", I find that to be ignorant as well. You feel because, I look at the Second Amendment differently then you, my point is meaningless.
When was this amendment written? What was society and the environment like? What laws were in place for public safety? Who was there to protect your family and you? Now we can debate that todays society has a lot of evils. We can also debate there are more laws to help protect public safety and one's right to protect his family and home.
Tell me Richard or Doug when have you ever been in a position to pull out your gun and use it for self defense?
I have numerous times.
Doug and Richard, I am for the Second Amendment but, times, laws, society are different. Who knows one day we may be defending our country on our soil.
Kevin As for personal
Kevin
As for personal defense, that is a very poorly thought out responce so you eliminate out of the equasion of self defense, the handicapped, the elderly, and the clumsy or physically unco-ordinated and so on?
As for the personal protection, uhm yeah that was the whole point of that paragraph I noticed there was no comment on the other reasons posted nor the effect that concealed carry would have vs open carry? What does a gun saftey instructor say about that?
John w., So the people in
John w.,
So the people in Vermont, Indiana, Texas, etc, are better than us? They don't have to ask permission or give a reason to exercise their rights. Why does it work in those states, but not in NY?
"Who knows one day we may be
"Who knows one day we may be defending our country on our soil."
"Permits identify, one that person is clear to carry; two helps identify weapons. Controls who can carry. As we debated just because, the Constitution gives the "Right to Bear Arms" doesn't mean it is safe to give to everyone. "
The first thing that an invading army will do is go to the police and find out who owns what firearms and go out and collect them.
.
LOL I am very well aquainted
LOL I am very well aquainted with firearms and shooting weapons. From an early age I had a natural instinctive marksmanship that allows me to hit my target. In the Navy I was a gunners mate, found I had natural mechanical talent that lent itself well to that maybe I will be a gunsmith someday it was something I didnt choose to persue after I left the service.
Kevin's comment reminded me of my days in Ithaca, I was an avid shooter, everything from bows to .50 cal rifles. No matter what I shot, I became quickly bored with the gun once it's character was known (shooters in the audiance know what I am refering to) So I invented challenges that quickly became popular w my shooting friends. Extreme long shots w .22 without scopes, shooting from the hip or quick draw style (much more dangerous than people think, even going and running and doing jumping jacks intensley then shooting for immediate accuracy. And my favorite way to dispose of golf balls that got hit and left in my yard (lived next to a golf course then)I called gallery golf done with pistols of whatever cliber you choose, place the ball on a tee then shoot at it and get it the farthest downrange in the shortest amount of shots (upper limit of one clip)the nuances of this were very challenging, you had to hit a small target, and hitting it straight on destroyed the ball so you have to sort of nick it, BUT cant hit it too off center or it flies off the range.
My point is most people end up going plinking and shooting above and beyond their inital training, once your familiar with your gun it gets boring so you invent ways to make it more difficult. Not all but in general. So even the argument of no exp in different conditionsreally isnt a very good one. The cost of a permit, the weapon and the training required to get said permit filters out the impetuous, and irresponible to a degree, not an absolute by any means but pretty good imho.
So Rex thats a very good
So Rex thats a very good point but I counter it that if almost everyone has one, then they are back to square one of dealing with everyone as a whole anyway :)
I'll be sure to let the NYS
I'll be sure to let the NYS Trooper that gave that advise know your opinion when i see him this coming weekend. He'll likely be curious to know what branch of law enforcement you're part of to give you such expertise on the matter so what should I tell him? How does someone who is clumsy or physically uncoordinated possess the skill required to shoot accurately under duress by the way?
As far as your second paragraph, I have no idea. I was relating his specific comment that a business owner responsible for transporting large sums of cash had a valid reason to cite "personal protection" as his desire for a handgun permit.
LOL Kevin you obviously have
LOL Kevin you obviously have a pretty black and white view to things so I will answer you. 1) I was trained in law enforcement as a master at arms in the navy. Very specific rules that dont always apply to law enforcement outside of the armed services. 2) Even a clumsy or physically un-coordinated person could shoot and hit an assailant the close range that would be necessary to use martial arts under duress or not. Thats pretty much a no-brainer and thought you were more intelligent than that to make such a comaparison, didnt meant to upset you THAT much. :)
PS by the way being a NYS
PS by the way being a NYS trooper doesnt really make anyone that much more special or perfect or an expert. They are still human, just ask the troopers convicted in Dryden NY for faking evidence and pretty much screwing up the investigation of the Harris Family murders. I just hate when people idolize someone and treat their word as that of a saint just because of position or title. Those types of worship and respect should be given only to those who have time and again done meritorious service and earned such blind uplifting. To do otherwise just cheapens the respect.
Gun control in this state is
Gun control in this state is laughable, the only people who have a hard time getting permits are those who want a gun to protect themselves. Criminals don't need permits or background checks, they buy them off the street.
I met the Trooper for the
I met the Trooper for the first time while assisting in the search for Samantha Zaldivar. We've worked together several times since in similar unenviable situations. Over the years we have become good friends. We have trusted each other with our lives on more than one occasion. My respect for him was earned a long time ago.
Even if the criminal has the
Even if the criminal has the advantage, are you willing to strip me of any ability to defend myself? I'd rather have the option to make that decision myself than to have you take it away from me entirely. If you don't want to carry concealed, so be it. Try telling a cop that they don't need to carry because the criminal has the advantage anyway. When he or she gets done laughing and wiping away the tears, maybe you'll get the point. How is it, in your opinion, that a cop should be able to protect their self and I shouldn't be allowed to? I'm just baffled by that nonsense. The cops can't always be there and that's why I carry.
----------
Read this: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/other/outdoors/article521855.ece
Quotes:
The problem across New York State is that each county judge assigned to pistol-permit assessments can exercise his or her preferences as to the status of issuance.
"We (permit applicants and handgun owners) are subjected to the scrutiny of a criminal before and while we hold permits," Taylor said. "We go through a more thorough check than any other permit or license applicant in the state," he added.
----------
I submitted fingerprints, 4 people had to sign notarized statements attesting to my character and I had to have 3 levels of background checks performed in order to get my pistol permit. Please, for the love of everything that's sane, why should I only be allowed to carry for hunting, competition shooting and collecting because one, single judge thinks that's how it should be? I was even subject to that nutty Brady check that was fortunately done away with.
Please remember this, the only people impacted by gun laws are those who are responsible enough to abide by them in the first place. Gun laws don't mean JACK to the guy who isn't supposed to have a firearm in the first place.
John, The Second Amendment to
John,
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment –Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment –A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment –In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Seventh Amendment In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment –Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These are our Bill of Rights, not a bill of suggestions, not a bill of privileges, but a Bill of Rights.
I hold the Constitution of the United States dear and celebrate the brilliant, visionary men who wrote it. Patriots who wrote it for future generations and the problems they would face.
From the time the Bill of Rights was ratified until now, the times laws, society were different, and each generation viewed theirs as better or worse, yet the Bill of Rights remains to protect future generations. Do you think crime is something new and unique to our time?
You wrote in part, “You feel because, I look at the Second Amendment differently then you, my point is meaningless.”
Your point is not meaningless. I know exactly what you mean and I strongly disagree in your interpretation of the Second Amendment and will not let it stand without challenge; see the First Amendment.
Given the current environment, and excluding the Second Amendment, how do you view the remaining Nine Amendments and their hindrance of public safety?
Kyle, I agree with your
Kyle, I agree with your assessment of how government regulates those things, but the point of my post was opening the door to government using intent and need as ways to regulate behavior. Certainly government regulates driving in many, many ways. What haven't done...yet is regulate it by determining my need or intent in driving. My need to won something and my intent with anything I own is none of the governments business.