The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: MarkoPo on September 05, 2009, 09:22:53 PM
-
On all of the shows I have watched I don't recall anyone open carrying a pistol. Most of the presentations have been from a concealed holster. The reason I bring this up is I live in Michigan where open carry is not only legal, but making a big comeback. I recently attended an open carry picnic at a local park and it ended up in the local paper. There is also more TV coverage of people open carrying a weapon at events such as policial meetings. I'm not sure how I feel yet about open carrying my pistol in public. When I an going to the range to target shoot I don't bother using my IWB holster, I just strap the open holster on my waist and go. I would like to know how some of the professionals feel about open carrying in public. Do you think it gives up the element of surprise, or make you a faster target? There have been some situations where someone was legally open carrying in a department store and had the police called on them and they were detained, questioned, but ulitmately released without charges. We (in Michigan) have specific laws protecting citizens who choose to open carry. On our local level, out police department had a training on the legality of open carrying, so did the 911 operators who where instructed to tell any callers that open carry is legal unless the person is waving the pistol around or acting erratically. I am curious as to what other peoples opinion is on the subject. Thanks.
-
Marko -
Welcome to the site, head on over to the new member thread, introduce yourself properly, eh?
Open carry has been discussed her quite a bit. MB actually did a 180 on it, worrying that it would be counter-productive, then landing (correctly IMHO) on the side of using rights so you don't lose them. He tied it into the gay movement and their chant of we're here we're queer - and over 30 years went from illegal in most states to some states now recognizing gay marriage. Right, wrong or indifferent, it worked for them.
So yeah open carry.
-
I'm not a "Professional" but we have kicked this subject around on here
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8627.0
As far as TACTICAL considerations we seem to be divided between people who want to retain the element of surprise, and those who either believe it has a deterant effect, and those who think the average person doesn't see what they don't expect to see. I'm on the fence about it myself, (Influenced partly by the fact that I do not have a holster suitable for open carry )
How ever from a political stand point open carry is one of our strongest tools to "normalize" the public perception of fire arms.
By the way, your cook out was covered in a thread here as well as on Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk".
Good job. Here are more links to threads
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=7529.0
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=2494.0
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=2856.0
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=7797.0
Hope this helps till some of the others can weigh in.
3 other things, Cute kid ;D, Welcome to the forum, We have a new member thread where you can introduce yourself.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=19.0
-
Thanks for the responses and links. I did post in the new members thread. I'm glad our picnic got some good coverage! The food was great. :)
-
I think podcast before last (123?) Michael broached the subject again.
I've posted here: http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8627.msg111753#new (http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8627.msg111753#new) on the podcast. I like open carry...even though I have qualms...I'm going to work through them.
-
I'm somewhat conflicted on OC vs CC.
I'd kind of like the idea of OC, so as not to have to worry about concealment at all.....which in many ways would make life so much easier.
But, I like the 'tactical' advantage (not making ones self an obvious target ?) of CC and having no one know it's there until needed.
Both options have valid points.
If the 2nd Amendment were applied as intended, it would be a moot point anyway, yes?
-
My biggest problem with open carry is that the places where a CC pistol sits, under the armpit, high on the hip are more likely to keepit from getting in the way during the normal course of the day.
-
If you like open carry, go for it. There may be some places you may go, where you'd like your gun to be more discreet and if you can, you may switch to concealed carry on those occasions. Ultimately, people should be able to carry however they'd like.
Open carry is kind of weird in California. Location that are legal can be kind of complicated and the gun has to be unloaded. It's kind of like carrying a picket sign with 2 messages. One is, "We have rights, Dammit!" The other is, "Goblins! Come and get it!" A good article was posted in the following thread.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=7796.msg98739
-
The main prob with OC is, there are alot of ass holes that do it, looking for a conflict. If you have any doubts about that, look at some of the OC sites, or THR( the high road .org) Its full of people who think they are doing good, but are actually shooting all of us in the foot.
I personally would not OC in a urban area. There is a list a mile long on not to do it.
-
If you like open carry, go for it. There may be some places you may go, where you'd like your gun to be more discreet and if you can, you may switch to concealed carry on those occasions. Ultimately, people should be able to carry however they'd like.
Open carry is kind of weird in California. Location that are legal can be kind of complicated and the gun has to be unloaded. It's kind of like carrying a picket sign with 2 messages. One is, "We have rights, Dammit!" The other is, "Goblins! Come and get it!" A good article was posted in the following thread.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=7796.msg98739
I have issues with carrying an unloaded weapon on my belt. I feel if I'm going to carry, I should damn well be ready to shoot.
I'm fortunate to have one of those elusive Kali concealed permits.
-
The main prob with OC is, there are alot of ass holes that do it, looking for a conflict. If you have any doubts about that, look at some of the OC sites, or THR( the high road .org) Its full of people who think they are doing good, but are actually shooting all of us in the foot.
I personally would not OC in a urban area. There is a list a mile long on not to do it.
Oh, you mean the way the gay rights parade damaged their movement ?
-
Oh, you mean the way the gay rights parade damaged their movement ?
it just backfired here in the last election.( if it back fired in CA, it will happen every where) they went from about a 55/45% split to a 80/20% split in about a year.
Then again, much like it is with the guys looking for conflict, its only a small % of the population that screwed everyone else. They pushed too far, and ended up losing every thing. even the marriages that did take place, are 1 court case away from being voided.
-
it just backfired here in the last election.( if it back fired in CA, it will happen every where) they went from about a 55/45% split to a 80/20% split in about a year.
Then again, much like it is with the guys looking for conflict, its only a small % of the population that screwed everyone else. They pushed too far, and ended up losing every thing. even the marriages that did take place, are 1 court case away from being voided.
As usual you are missing the point. 30 years ago being gay was a crime. now they are able to marry in many states. Sounds like a win to me.
Just because it happens in Ca. does NOT mean it will happen on planet earth.
-
only 2 states have gay marriage. also in many states gay sex is still a crime( tx for example) hell in VA, oral sex is still a felony.
Tom, if you know your history, laws that tend to get passed in CA, tend to get passed in other states.
-
This is a tricky subject, and I blow hot and cold on it. TAB is right that there's a high a-hole factor out there, but I still think the pluses are outweighing the minuses. As I said on the pod, I heard a lot of these same criticisms when were were putting CCW in place in Florida, and we can see how that turned out — better than any of us expected.
Michael B
-
40 years of tippy toeing around to avoid offending any one has seen us go from a few minor inconveniences like ATF forms to fighting for the very existence of the 2nd Amendment.
The don't offend any one approach like TAB recommends has been PROVEN to be a loser.
I'm armed, I'm going to remain armed,and any one who objects can KMA.
-
I live in Kentucky and am doamn proud of that fact. I would venture to say we have the best gun laws in the country. My right to open carry is protected by State Constitutional Ammendment and law states that no sity, county, or other municipality can limit carry further than the state law already limits it.
The problem is that most Cops and teh public in general does not know this. And some Cops dont like the law and will attempt to arrest yuo on bogus charges like brandishing and terrorizing the public. It never holds up and the few people I have talked to who have been detained or had their firearms confiscated usually end up in the right. But it is still a hassle. I dont want to be a "martyr" and cannot afford to lose my tool of self preservation, so until the local cops learn to respect state law, and the sheep stop freaking out, it is too much headache to bother. If i had more guns to spare, and more free time to sit in cop cars I would open carry every day.
-
I live in Kentucky and am doamn proud of that fact. I would venture to say we have the best gun laws in the country. My right to open carry is protected by State Constitutional Ammendment and law states that no sity, county, or other municipality can limit carry further than the state law already limits it.
The problem is that most Cops and teh public in general does not know this. And some Cops dont like the law and will attempt to arrest yuo on bogus charges like brandishing and terrorizing the public. It never holds up and the few people I have talked to who have been detained or had their firearms confiscated usually end up in the right. But it is still a hassle. I dont want to be a "martyr" and cannot afford to lose my tool of self preservation, so until the local cops learn to respect state law, and the sheep stop freaking out, it is too much headache to bother. If i had more guns to spare, and more free time to sit in cop cars I would open carry every day.
How are they going to learn the law and quit freaking out if they are not forced to face the real world ?
-
How are they going to learn the law and quit freaking out if they are not forced to face the real world ?
I agree with you, but my time is too precious to be spent teaching them anything. I wish I were a rich man with time and money so i could risk spending a whole night in jail and afford a lawyer to take a few badges, but i cant.
-
I agree with you, but my time is too precious to be spent teaching them anything. I wish I were a rich man with time and money so i could risk spending a whole night in jail and afford a lawyer to take a few badges, but i cant.
I don't think "baiting" a cop to be arrested so you can take their badges is exactly the right approach. Sometimes it's as easy as educating the police and the DA in your area of the open carry laws. Hold an informative luncheon or picnic and put an ad in the paper inviting people to attend. That, in my opinion, is the best way to preserve your rights. Having people arrested for "brandishing" always looks bad on rest of the gun owners, wether it's a legitimate arrest or not. People read the headlines of the papers, not the court appearences weeks later. You may be found innocent but have damaged personal relations for the rest of us who may want to educate people on gun laws.
-
I don't think "baiting" a cop to be arrested so you can take their badges is exactly the right approach. Sometimes it's as easy as educating the police and the DA in your area of the open carry laws. Hold an informative luncheon or picnic and put an ad in the paper inviting people to attend. That, in my opinion, is the best way to preserve your rights. Having people arrested for "brandishing" always looks bad on rest of the gun owners, wether it's a legitimate arrest or not. People read the headlines of the papers, not the court appearences weeks later. You may be found innocent but have damaged personal relations for the rest of us who may want to educate people on gun laws.
Comment of the day award!
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/604777/2/istockphoto_604777_miniature_trophy_blank.jpg)
-
I think about the open/concealed thing a lot. I still conceal in public, but I am getting less and less "total conceal" at times. These last warm months, and we have not been overly hot this summer, I have quit putting on a sport coat when I run a quick errand. I just untuck the dress shirt and cover the gun (I leave the shirt tucked, but for the four or five inches where the gun is the shirt is treated like a tuckable holster which I don't have). I have had zero comments on it.
I'd rather try to keep it covered to some level, than to cause negative reaction by flaunting it. However, if it is noticed I will deal with it then.
-
My EXP with LEOs is, they don't know the law.
-
TAB,
+1 I think most LEO's know procedures and policies, they don't no case law except is some very limited applications.
They often get confusing information when regulations and the law are at in conflict from their management
-
TAB,
+1 I think most LEO's know procedures and policies, they don't no case law except is some very limited applications.
They often get confusing information when regulations and the law are at in conflict from their management
Comment of the day award!
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/604777/2/istockphoto_604777_miniature_trophy_blank.jpg)
I think Rat catcher is more deserving of the award. Obeying the law is not "Baiting a cop". "Policy" does not supersede LAW
-
Here in TN. we can OC and I do when the circumstance wont put me at risk. I like to excersise my rights so they dont get flabby. It is without a doubt in our culture a calculated risk . It does put you on the radar and on the list of those who will be targeted for any number of reasons. But IMO everyone should OC if and when they can.
-
I think Rat catcher is more deserving of the award. Obeying the law is not "Baiting a cop". "Policy" does not supersede LAW
It has to be free of typos and be somewhat grammatically correct to qualify. ::)
-
Sorry RatCatcher, next time use your spell check and proof read before you hit the save button.
I tried ;D
-
I think Rat catcher is more deserving of the award. Obeying the law is not "Baiting a cop". "Policy" does not supersede LAW
try telling that to the artesting officer... or for that matter places like NYC.
-
try telling that to the artesting officer... or for that matter places like NYC.
What part of "Obeying the law" do you NOT understand ?
As for telling the "arresting Officer" That's why I carry a copy of the state law, what happens after that is on HIS head. I've checked with a local lawyer and the LAST guy that got arrested for open carry in this state made out pretty good AFTER the lawyer took his cut.
-
I've spent a lot of time in NH and VT over the years. I've worked in NH some years back for an extended period in the Manchester area and saw people carrying every day. In restaurants, in supermarkets, on the street, everywhere! It's a non-issue in this part of the country. MA has no concealed carry laws, just a legal right to carry a firearm, period. You don't see it very often but people do on occasion carry openly. My daughter even has a regular customer at her bank that carries a 1911 once in a while. If it can be done in the Northeast, it can be done anywhere!
Personally, I won't in my neighborhood. Not that my neighbors would mind, it's just that I feel more comfortable not being conspicuous and find no reason to bother to explain myself. The local PD aren't the problem, the problem is the brainwashed frightened masses!
-
Manchester and Newington both lost in court for arresting people for open carry. ;D
-
Manchester and Newington both lost in court for arresting people for open carry. ;D
Good!
My time in Manchester was back in 86-87. Things have changed, maybe too much! We need to get back to our roots......
-
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns?cid=examiner-email
-
Thank You Judge Black!
We need these people that look at things in the big picture.
-
Good find.
-
It has to be free of typos and be somewhat grammatically correct to qualify. ::)
ME NOKAN TYPE ;)
-
I have a question.....
One of the arguements against OC is that, if a criminal spots an OC'er's gun prior to a robbery/murder/name-a-crime, he will shoot the OC'er first. Has there been any documented cases of that happening?
Just curious.... :-\
-
Why would they NOT?!?
One draw back to open carry is it makes you a target for theives. Guy taps you with a stun gun and takes off with your weapon. :-[
Another reason I think its a terrible idea is there's WAY to many teenage / early 20's mall ninja's / gangsta wanna be's looking to show off and end up accidentaly killing a mom and the kids as a crowd comes out of the next action movie premier. Or one of your family takes a .50 cal. in the head at the park from accidental discharge when one teenager's "checking out" his buddies cool new gold plated Desert Eagle!
Sure, open carry sounds great! But it's just going to draw idiot cowboys (of ALL ages) into carrying weapons their not responsible enough to touch, much less carry in a crowd. :(
-
Why would they NOT?!?
Another reason I think its a terrible idea is there's WAY to many teenage / early 20's mall ninja's / gangsta wanna be's looking to show off and end up accidentaly killing a mom and the kids as a crowd comes out of the next action movie premier. Or one of your family takes a .50 cal. in the head at the park from accidental discharge when one teenager's "checking out" his buddies cool new gold plated Desert Eagle!
Sure, open carry sounds great! But it's just going to draw idiot cowboys (of ALL ages) into carrying weapons their not responsible enough to touch, much less carry in a crowd. :(
My solution is to add one restriction to the carry laws:
"All open carry pistols must be pink."
Should weed out all the people carrying for the wrong reason. :)
-
;D ;D ;D I think you've got something there! ;D ;D ;D
-
Why would they NOT?!?
One draw back to open carry is it makes you a target for theives. Guy taps you with a stun gun and takes off with your weapon. :-[
Another reason I think its a terrible idea is there's WAY to many teenage / early 20's mall ninja's / gangsta wanna be's looking to show off and end up accidentaly killing a mom and the kids as a crowd comes out of the next action movie premier. Or one of your family takes a .50 cal. in the head at the park from accidental discharge when one teenager's "checking out" his buddies cool new gold plated Desert Eagle!
Sure, open carry sounds great! But it's just going to draw idiot cowboys (of ALL ages) into carrying weapons their not responsible enough to touch, much less carry in a crowd. :(
What crap. They already do. The name Plaxico Burris ring any bells ?
-
What crap. They already do. The name Plaxico Burris ring any bells ?
This is the thought we need to include in every debate concerning turning nuts loose with guns! They nuts, whack jobs and criminals already do it. The only thing the laws do is keep self defense tools out of the hands of those you really want to have them.
-
Hmmm...we used to show off our guns in the parking lot all the time....even the school parking lot. I guess if you have never "eaten ice cream" you can't miss it. Years of dire predictions have caused us to think all kind of bad things are going to happen. Ever notice how there are a lot more regular people than gangsta's? Gangsta's run in packs....won't be very many gangsta's left if they get stupid...we wake up every morning with either of two turns of events to end the day...we either live or die. No need to be fearful.
Why would they NOT?!?
One draw back to open carry is it makes you a target for theives. Guy taps you with a stun gun and takes off with your weapon. :-[
Another reason I think its a terrible idea is there's WAY to many teenage / early 20's mall ninja's / gangsta wanna be's looking to show off and end up accidentaly killing a mom and the kids as a crowd comes out of the next action movie premier. Or one of your family takes a .50 cal. in the head at the park from accidental discharge when one teenager's "checking out" his buddies cool new gold plated Desert Eagle!
Sure, open carry sounds great! But it's just going to draw idiot cowboys (of ALL ages) into carrying weapons their not responsible enough to touch, much less carry in a crowd. :(
-
CC isnt going to bait nearly the kind of stupidity OC will. What is the benefit of open carry other than you can carry a weapon bigger than is needed for self defense? If you feel you need a Desert Eagle for "self defense"... You just proved my point about "stupidity".
Sorry to burst the bubble, I've yet to hear a SINGLE legitimate reason for OC in todays society! Usually its just somebody spouting off because their being told they cant do it. Pass a law saying it's illegal to shoot yourself in the foot and the same people will be in line fighting that to... Just because they can, because they need the attention, and because they want to inflict their beliefes on others for no good reason. ::)
When todays society changes / collapses / whatever, THEN the need for every citizen to carry a rifle or shotgun may exit... That time is NOT today. Who knows about tommarow.
"Zombieland" comes out next month. Just live out your apocolyptic fantasy's in the theater.
-
From BM's post : "I've yet to hear a SINGLE legitimate reason for OC in todays society! "
You could say the same about freedom of speech or the women's vote, and sound just as stupid.
From BM's Post "What is the benefit of open carry other than you can carry a weapon bigger than is needed for self defense? If you feel you need a Desert Eagle for "self defense".
How about Handgun hunting ?
"You just proved my point about "stupidity".
You and TAB should start a club,
-
From BM's post : "I've yet to hear a SINGLE legitimate reason for OC in todays society! "
"You just proved my point about "stupidity".
He's got enough of it for everybody.....................lets try not to make him prove it.
-
At least in MI open carry was fine for hunting. I carried a .44 mag. in a holster for black bear and deer several times. Do I or anybody have need to carry that gun in public for self defense? NO!
Another reason NOT to have open carry is people WILL be toteing .44 mag.'s in the mall, and even if they by 1 in a million had legitimate reason to fire it, they'd likely take out 3 more innocent people with the same bullet that went through the first guy.
Still only seeing a bunch of spouting! No reasoning! Watch you go! ::)
-
At leaste in MI open carry was fine for hunting. I carried a .44 mag. in a holster for black bear and deer several times. Do I or anybody have need to carry that gun in public for self defense? NO!
Another reason NOT to have open carry is people WILL be toteing .44 mag.'s in the mall, and even if they by 1 in a million had legitimate reason to fire it, they'd likely take out 3 more innocent people with the same bullet that went through the first guy.
Still only seeing a bunch of spouting! No reasoning! Watch you go! ::)
YOU are as bad as the anti's. Who are you to tell anyone what they do or do not "need" to carry? Who are you to say a .44 is too much gun in a SD situation? It's called freedom, anything less is unacceptable!
Am I going to open carry? Probably not, but that's my choice and nobody elses.
My previous thoughts on you still stand.
-
YOU are as bad as the anti's. Who are you to tell anyone what they do or do not "need" to carry? Who are you to say a .44 is too much gun in a SD situation? It's called freedom, anything less is unacceptable!
Am I going to open carry? Probably not, but that's my choice and nobody elses.
My previous thoughts on you still stand.
+1
-
Soooooo, your point is we should have no laws at all, applying to anything, and function under free will at all times in all situations?
Pull the stick out of your butt! I'm not disagreeing, or argueing, just trying to understand! And waiting to hear a fair reason for me / you / anybody to tote a 12 gauge into an elementry school.
-
Still only seeing a bunch of spouting! No reasoning! Watch you go! ::)
Well....you haven't used reason yet....why should we?.... ;D
-
Only a few of the reasons that come to mind:
Along with your own reason of. Making yourself number 1 target of bg's.
Why would they NOT?!?
One draw back to open carry is it makes you a target for theives. Guy taps you with a stun gun and takes off with your weapon. :-[
Another reason I think its a terrible idea is there's WAY to many teenage / early 20's mall ninja's / gangsta wanna be's looking to show off and end up accidentaly killing a mom and the kids as a crowd comes out of the next action movie premier. Or one of your family takes a .50 cal. in the head at the park from accidental discharge when one teenager's "checking out" his buddies cool new gold plated Desert Eagle!
Sure, open carry sounds great! But it's just going to draw idiot cowboys (of ALL ages) into carrying weapons their not responsible enough to touch, much less carry in a crowd. :(
-
If people are going to be irresponsible or negligent, they are going to do so regardless if they are open carrying or concealed, legal or illegal. Deal with problems as they arise and on an individual basis.
Do not fall into the antis trap of punishing everyone because a few might do something stupid.
-
If people are going to be irresponsible or negligent, they are going to do so regardless if they are open carrying or concealed, legal or illegal. Deal with problems as they arise and on an individual basis.
Do not fall into the antis trap of punishing everyone because a few might do something stupid.
Well said and I totally agree. we are always punishing the masses for the misdeeds of a few.
-
Sorry to burst the bubble, I've yet to hear a SINGLE legitimate reason for OC in todays society!
The Second Amendment ... Use it or lose it!!!
-
If people are going to be irresponsible or negligent, they are going to do so regardless if they are open carrying or concealed, legal or illegal. Deal with problems as they arise and on an individual basis.
+1!
Problem is life has taught me we can count on people to be irresponsible and negligent. For this reason I think crime rates, and gun related accidents would soar if OC were legal. :(
Open carry being legal wouldnt change my carrying concealed. I just see no benefit to making myself a target by putting a firearm out where other people are even thinking about it. I'm not sure a good reason exists is my whole point. The best I can think of is that I wouldnt need to worry so much about getting in trouble for. "Oh crap. My shirt pulled up and revealed my gun for one second there!" ::)
-
Point in case: As popular and impractical as they are, if OC were legal do you think for ONE second you could ever again go to a mall and NOT see several idiots walking around carrying AR's!?!?! And you KNOW they'd be peeing their pants waiting and looking for an excuse to open fire!!! Admit it. People ARE that bad. :(
-
Point in case: As popular and impractical as they are, if OC were legal do you think for ONE second you could go to a mall and NOT see several idiots walking around carrying AR's!?!?! And you KNOW they'd be peeing their pants waiting and looking for an excuse to open fire!!!
That means that you have actual CASES of this happening. Can you show me some examples of this from where open carry is legal? I would like pictures please. Since open carry is legal in some places, I guess you shouldn't have too much trouble.
Don't just make things up or wish things were a certain way just because it is something you might do.
-
I apologize, and am VERY glad that NO I dont have actual instances, though its only because OC is still illegal!
-
Point in case: As popular and impractical as they are, if OC were legal do you think for ONE second you could go to a mall and NOT see several idiots walking around carrying AR's!?!?! And you KNOW they'd be peeing their pants waiting and looking for an excuse to open fire!!!
Given some of the retards I've seen at the local ranges, yeah, maybe, for a short while. Until good people intervene and show them the error of their ways. But I attribute that to a fundamental lack of training in most recreational shooters these days.
OTOH, I would open carry for 3 reasons:
1. Part of an OC protest
2. If I were coming off a hunting trip with a pistol attached, or perhaps off the range wearing a sidearm for defense
3. If I wanted to.
None of these should be illegal.
-
Soooooo, your point is we should have no laws at all, applying to anything, and function under free will at all times in all situations?
Pull the stick out of your butt! I'm not disagreeing, or argueing, just trying to understand! And waiting to hear a fair reason for me / you / anybody to tote a 12 gauge into an elementry school.
The elementary school is attached to the High School; the schools allow use by Scouting, 4-H and FFA (actually a part of the educational system); shooting sports is a part of all of these; and use of firearms in both education and participation used in these buildings.
How many fewer shootings do we have in schools today (per capita) with all the restrictions on our rights as compared to up through the 70's when we had guns and ammo in our cars and even put our guns in our lockers or the school office for safe keeping during school hours.
-
I apologize, and am VERY glad that NO I dont have actual instances, though its only because OC is still illegal!
It varies from state to state. If you don't know what you are talking about STFU.
I'm going to watch the Steeler game now. Later.
-
this year with in 1 month a small town in Utah had two NDs. so they do happen, both of them were 100% avoidable.
so lets not pretend that every one that Carrys is perfect. ( these were CCW holders) luckly no one was hurt.
like it or not, gun owners as a whole will be judged on the actions of a few.
-
TAB is 100% right. The whole will be judged by the few. Well said!
Still just waiting for a good, legitimate reason... Is anyone else surprised I havent seen one?
The ones getting all pissy and spouting off here are doing a PERFECT job proving that people in this country dont have enough self control to even consider legal OC. ::) Good job. ::)
-
I apologize, and am VERY glad that NO I dont have actual instances, though its only because OC is still illegal!
Did you not see open carry in AZ and NH on the news recently when they showed up at the Obama rallies carrying?
TAB is 100% right. The whole will be judged by the few. Well said!
Still just waiting for a good, legitimate reason... Is anyone else surprised I havent seen one?
The 2nd Amendment is the legitimate reason.
-
I'll agree with the 2nd ammendment being a reason to change the law. And it's a GREAT REASON!
Because "it's legal to", or because "I want to", arent very good reasons to OC though.
I dont mean to question why do we not get rid of the law, I mean to question peoples reasons for wanting to OC.
Though seeing how little control people here have over their emotions makes it REALLY easy to see why the law is needed.
-
Substitute Drivers License issuance for OC... There are folks throughout this country, that CAN'T DRIVE. They are an accident waiting to happen, and have no business on public streets. BUT if you meet a very minimal threshold of competence, you get a DL.
And Driving is a Privilege, NOT a Right.
So in regards to guns and OC, malls post signs, and any establishment that posts "NO FIREARMS BEYOND THIS POINT" have to be obeyed..Or one is in Violation of the law.
Is there a MINORITY of idiots and untrained yahoos that have guns? Of course,... but the Minority cannot infringe on my Right, not privilege, to carry openly or concealed.
Once that happens , the Second Amendment become relegated to a privilege! Decided by political asshats on how, what, when, and in what manner.
All we can do is encourage new gun owners to get training, practice, recognize bad habits, and responsibility. The anti's warned of Cowboy Shootout's on the streets when CCW laws were passed, when in fact, crime went down...
Give individuals more credit regarding OC, the yahoo's will realize that violating the law whether OC or CC, will get them prosecuted.
I obey the law, and exercise my right to do so. If Fl. passed an OC law, stores that were uncomfortable would post a sign that has to be followed. Banks, schools, malls, gov't bldg's etc,.... are gun free zones, anyone who violates that SHOULD be arrested.
-
thats just it, people don't obey the no gun signs, I'm not talking about crimals, I'm talking about gun owners, and many members of this forum. They have said, time and time again that its not illegal for me to ignore the signs I will. Every time they do that, they are violating some one elses right to what is brought on thier property( I'm not talking about public parking lots, but inside places of biz) Thats why I love laws like TX 30.06, it makes it crimal trespass.
So if gun owners don't respect the rights/wishs of others, why should other respect thier rights/wishes?
-
thats just it, people don't obey the no gun signs, I'm not talking about crimals, I'm talking about gun owners, and many members of this forum. They have said, time and time again that its not illegal for me to ignore the signs I will. Every time they do that, they are violating some one elses right to what is brought on thier property( I'm not talking about public parking lots, but inside places of biz) Thats why I love laws like TX 30.06, it makes it crimal trespass.
So if gun owners don't respect the rights/wishs of others, why should other respect thier rights/wishes?
7 pages.
-
I like the comparison with having a drivers license in that at least to drive a car you DO have to meet the "minimal threshold of competence". OC would probably go fine so long as some kind of training proceeded it. Similar to hunters saftey and getting a hunting license.
And so long as establishments and businesses retain the right to post, and legally enforce "no guns allowed". Yeah, I've got no problem with OC.
Going without regulation at all is just a bunch of bad news. American's arent ready for that much responsibility. We've been hand fed sheep for to long now, and have become to self centered, and greedy for complete freedom. SAD.
TAB sure seem's to be the voice of intellect and reason today... :-\ ;D
Yet another sign of the apocolypse?!? ;D
-
Open carry is already legal in many states, even California. (However, we can carry open, just not loaded. ???)
People shouldn't have a problem with others carrying on school grounds. Utah is a good example. In Utah, you can carry how you want, even into a school. They still haven't had any school shootings. Also, any business that is open to the public, cannot prohibit firearms in Utah - I know Tab and some others may have a problem with that, but that's how it is. They also allow carry into the State capitol - still no shootings.
Like has already been said, driving a car is a privilege, not a right. The government uses the licensing scam to tax the people with a front of training. Same with hunting licenses and CCW. If I drive up to East LA, I know that many individuals I come across are packing without a CCW. The state isn't checking their training levels.
It is not up to the government to license rights. If they suddenly decided that we needed licenses to vote (which would seem to make sense for certain individuals ;)), the ACLU would have a fit. Individuals in a free nation are responsible for their own actions when they exercise their rights, including dumbass things that they do with firearms. I don't need a license to use my first amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater, but I will be held accountable if I do so. Are we going to license people to carry a mouth in public. Here in California, muslim women who wear a facial covering aren't required to remove it for their driver's license, or when stopped by an officer. Do they need to get trained and licensed for a CCM (concealed carry mouth)?
-
Open carry is already legal in many states, even California. (However, we can carry open, just not loaded. ???)
People shouldn't have a problem with others carrying on school grounds. Utah is a good example. In Utah, you can carry how you want, even into a school. They still haven't had any school shootings. Also, any business that is open to the public, cannot prohibit firearms in Utah - I know Tab and some others may have a problem with that, but that's how it is. They also allow carry into the State capitol - still no shootings.
Like has already been said, driving a car is a privilege, not a right. The government uses the licensing scam to tax the people with a front of training. Same with hunting licenses and CCW. If I drive up to East LA, I know that many individuals I come across are packing without a CCW. The state isn't checking their training levels.
It is not up to the government to license rights. If they suddenly decided that we needed licenses to vote (which would seem to make sense for certain individuals ;)), the ACLU would have a fit. Individuals in a free nation are responsible for their own actions when they exercise their rights, including dumbass things that they do with firearms. I don't need a license to use my first amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater, but I will be held accountable if I do so.
Sounds like Utah has very sensible rules!
-
Sounds like Utah has very sensible rules!
Yep! I just got my Utah CCW license in the mail. Now, I have to figure out how to actually carry concealed, since I live in California and am very green on the actual how-tos. The cushion is that I can't use it, until I get to at least AZ.
-
Substitute Drivers License issuance for OC... There are folks throughout this country, that CAN'T DRIVE. They are an accident waiting to happen, and have no business on public streets. BUT if you meet a very minimal threshold of competence, you get a DL.
And Driving is a Privilege, NOT a Right.
I obey the law, and exercise my right to do so. If Fl. passed an OC law, stores that were uncomfortable would post a sign that has to be followed. Banks, schools, malls, gov't bldg's etc,.... are gun free zones, anyone who violates that SHOULD be arrested.
Not everyone is of your opinion that driving is a privilege and not a right.........
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT from Aid&Abet Newsletter
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of
another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.
-
BM is an ignorant ass, OC is perfectly legal in NH, and we have yet to have an AD in a mall, nor does one see any one toting AR's.
As for "need" I want to ask , is there something about "Shall NOT be infringed" that you can't comprehend ? It isn't about NEED, it's about Rights and if I want to carry a 45/70 BFR that's between me and my hernia and nobody else.
You and TAB sound just as stupid as the anti's opposing CC in every state by saying "it will turn every fender bender into the OK corral". They've been wrong 48 times so but they still keep saying it.
Bad news David
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252620396
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308 (1997). While such suspicion is not an "irreducible" component of reasonableness, we have recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply.
For example, we have upheld certain regimes of suspicionless searches where the program was designed to serve "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." ... We have also upheld brief, suspicionless seizures of motorists ... at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). In addition, in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979), we suggested that a similar type of roadblock with the purpose of verifying drivers' licenses and vehicle registrations would be permissible. In none of these cases, however, did we indicate approval of a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing....
In Sitz, we evaluated the constitutionality of a Michigan highway sobriety checkpoint program. The Sitz checkpoint involved brief suspicionless stops of motorists so that police officers could detect signs of intoxication and remove impaired drivers from the road. Motorists who exhibited signs of intoxication were diverted for a license and registration check and, if warranted, further sobriety tests. This checkpoint program was clearly aimed at reducing the immediate hazard posed by the presence of drunk drivers on the highways, and there was an obvious connection between the imperative of highway safety and the law enforcement practice at issue. The gravity of the drunk driving problem and the magnitude of the State's interest in getting drunk drivers off the road weighed heavily in our determination that the program was constitutional....
We further indicated in Prouse that we considered the purposes of ... a hypothetical [license and registration verification] roadblock to be distinct from a general purpose of investigating crime. The State proffered the additional interests of "the apprehension of stolen motor vehicles and of drivers under the influence of alcohol or narcotics" in its effort to justify the discretionary spot check. We attributed the entirety of the latter interest to the State's interest in roadway safety. We also noted that the interest in apprehending stolen vehicles may be partly subsumed by the interest in roadway safety. We observed, however, that "[t]he remaining governmental interest in controlling automobile thefts is not distinguishable from the general interest in crime control." Not only does the common thread of highway safety thus run through Sitz and Prouse, but Prouse itself reveals a difference in the Fourth Amendment significance of highway safety interests and the general interest in crime control....
So highway checkpoints aimed at interdicting threats to highway traffic themselves are generally constitutional (which may also help explain airport searches). But suspicionless highway checkpoints aimed at catching people who commit other crimes, whether drug trafficking or illegal hunting, are generally not constitutional (unless some other exception kicks in, and none of those would apply here).
UPDATE: But while that is still my view of the best reading of Edmond, Orin pointed out to me that other cases have generally upheld hunting checkpoints. Some of these (State v. Sherburne, 571 A.2d 1181 (Me. 1990), and People v. Layton, 552 N.E.2d 1280 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)) are pre-Edmond, and strike me as inconsistent with Edmond's reasoning. But the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in United States v. Fraire likewise upheld a hunting checkpoint at the entrance to a national park:
-
I could not have said it better Tom.
-
Can't speak for all states, but in Minnesota it is legal and allowable to carry past a posting. You are not in violation of the law until a person of authority associated with the property knows you have a firearm and asks you to leave and you do not. As long as they do not know I am carrying there is no breaking of the law, and if they address me with a request such as "If you are carrying you must leave" I do not need to leave because it is a general statement without knowledge. The only time I am in violation and subject to a citation is if I allow them to know I have a firearm, and am asked to leave, and I do not.
-
We have lost so many freedoms over the years.
Here are some legal cases that decided that driving is a right.................
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
-
Can't speak for all states, but in Minnesota it is legal and allowable to carry past a posting. You are not in violation of the law until a person of authority associated with the property knows you have a firearm and asks you to leave and you do not. As long as they do not know I am carrying there is no breaking of the law, and if they address me with a request such as "If you are carrying you must leave" I do not need to leave because it is a general statement without knowledge. The only time I am in violation and subject to a citation is if I allow them to know I have a firearm, and am asked to leave, and I do not.
so whats the diffrence between some one telling you something, and a sign telling you something?
verbal and written froms of communications are legally binding. Why is it diffrent for Firearms?
-
so whats the diffrence between some one telling you something, and a sign telling you something?
verbal and written froms of communications are legally binding. Why is it diffrent for Firearms?
The difference is that the State of Minnesota recognizes our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. However, the liberals in office left a PC loophole that will give some a false sense of security and safety.
From talking to my local legislators this is something that won't change, because everytime the anti's approach this subject we have gained more ground.
-
so whats the diffrence between some one telling you something, and a sign telling you something?
verbal and written froms of communications are legally binding. Why is it diffrent for Firearms?
TAB,
You come to a sign on a bridge that reads............Stop, Turn Right, Jump.
there's ya sign!
-
So why are guns diffrent from everything else?
Smoking for example. Non smoking signs carry the wieght of law behind them. Smoking is a 1st amendment right.(yes it is) why does a non smoking sign carry the wieght of law, yet a no gun sign does not?
They are both choices you make, both could harm those around you, both you don't need to survie...
My point is you can't having things both ways, either a written notice is good for everything or its not.
-
So why are guns diffrent from everything else?
Smoking for example. Non smoking signs carry the wieght of law behind them. Smoking is a 1st amendment right.(yes it is) why does a non smoking sign carry the wieght of law, yet a no gun sign does not?
They are both choices you make, both could harm those around you, both you don't need to survie...
My point is you can't having things both ways, either a written notice is good for everything or its not.
You can smoke. It's when you don't stop or refuse to leave when asked is when you have problems.
Does being illiterate make one an automatic criminal?
-
it depends on the state, in many states you can and will be cited. The sign is warning enough.
-
My point is you can't having things both ways, either a written notice is good for everything or its not.
As I said before.................
there's ya sign. :)
-
so whats the diffrence between some one telling you something, and a sign telling you something?
verbal and written froms of communications are legally binding. Why is it diffrent for Firearms?
It's an evil conspiracy to baffle Califoricators.
" Smoking is a 1st amendment right.(yes it is"
How do you figure ? And why 1st A ? ???
-
Sheep like TAB are why traffic can be controlled with painted lines and lights.
-
smoking is a form of free expression. Thats a 1a right.
-
Freedom of expression is not a Constitutional right.
-
The USSC disagrees with you, its viewed as speach.
-
"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."
Please explain how smoking fits in there....I didn't have a right to smoke indoors the last few years I was a smoker! Where was my right to express my stupidity and smoke?
-
explane how burning a flag in protest is a 1a right....
its the same deal, the SC said it was.
-
I've found that people in CA do think a little differently than other places i have lived.
Not saying good or bad, just wierd.
This is the CA law concerning firearms on/near school grounds:
It is unlawful for any person to possess or bring a firearm upon the grounds of, into, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or a campus of the University of California, California State University, or California community colleges. (Penal Code § 626.9.)
Yet, I can legally carry on school grounds.
And these are the exceptions:
Exceptions
• Any person authorized to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Penal Code section 12050.
• A person who has the written permission of the school district superintendent, designee, or equivalent school authority.
• Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
• If the firearm is an unloaded handgun in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle, or the otherwise lawful transportation of an unloaded long gun.
• The possession or transportation of firearms by a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, wholesaling, repairing, or dealing in firearms and who is licensed to engage in that business or the authorized representative or
authorized agent of that person while engaged in the lawful course of business.
• Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other financial institutions while actually employed in and about the shipment, transportation, or delivery of money, treasure, etc.
• Transportation of unloaded firearms by a person operating a licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof when transported in conformance with applicable federal law.
• The carrying of unloaded handguns by duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading or the members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their respective organizations.
• Any peace officer pursuant to Penal Code section 830 who is carrying out official duties.
• Any person summoned by such peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace while actually so engaged.
• Members of federal or state military forces while engaged in performance of duty.
• An armored vehicle guard while engaged in performance of duty pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7521.
• A security guard authorized to carry a loaded firearm pursuant to Penal Code section 12030.
• An existing shooting range at a public or private school or university or college campus.
• An honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm.
-
explane how burning a flag in protest is a 1a right....
its the same deal, the SC said it was.
Then quote the case and file so you can prove your contention. I don't believe you!
Burning a flag is not endangering lives with second hand smoke and Tom's right, the USSC upheld this case in error. The 1st does not guarantee freedom of expression! Period
-
So, this thread is a good example of the lack of consensus on OC even among veteran gun owners and carriers, right?
This is a tough question...as I've said a bunch lately, I'm in philosophical agreement, but I'm not carting an open gun just yet (except on hikes on USFS land where OC is legal).
There is an immediate benefit for all of us in the OC debate — the old hysteria about "brandishing" by just accidentally revealing a concealed weapon is pretty much yesterday's news.
As to whether anyone is emotionally mature, adult, smart enough, whatever to carry a gun, I don't think that's a discussion we need to be having on a public forum that's regularly read by our sworn enemies. You might not like the way Brady spins your comments...
Michael B
-
Thank You Michael!
-
The USSC disagrees with you, its viewed as speach.
...as is the works of Larry Flynt and Robert Maplethorpe. Should the 1st Amendment be infringed and curtailed because of a few reckless individuals like these?....
-
I think a big part of the OC debate has to do with how you live your life.
Some people just "have to have thier voices heard" it does not matter what the out come is( good or bad). I am not that kind of person. I try very hard to blend in and put "my best foot forward". Most of you know what I do for a living, I fight sterotypes every time I go out on a bid. The last thing gun owners need is to be though of as self surving A holes. Sadly, many gun carryers( OC and CC) are putting that image out there. There have been countless threads/posts on gun sites about how people force "thier rights" on others and how it leaves a 'bad taste" in the publics mouth. Even on this site, while I've not seen in OC threads, there have been countless threads/post saying that "concealed means concealed". Don't think for one second that the Sarah Brady... let me rephrase. Republican Sarah Brady, and her "gang" don't see that and say: " see they don't care about other people, they are putting us in danger against our wishes. we need to stop them from carrying"... Now some here will disagree with me, but I see knowingly walking past a no guns sign, while armed as a disrepect. You are thier guest, you should act like you were a guest in thier home. Trust me, small biz owners spend more time at work then they do at home. Last year I spent atleast 2 nights a week asleep on my couch at my shop.
Now before some one says" but the gays did it" Yes they did, and it worked for a long period of time. Guess what, it backfired on them recently in CA. Not only did they push the public too far, they lost thier court case, and will most likly lose thier next court case, which will void all of the marriages that were legal at one point. they won some battles, but they ended up losing the war. The micro stamping in CA, is a perfect example of this, Arny signed the Microstanping bill strickly becuase a "gun rights" group, went way overboard challenging the lead hunting ban in certin parts of CA. Thats not to say you should not fight ever battle, which you should, just don't make an ass out of yourself fighting them. That will always work against you.
-
I don't think that's a discussion we need to be having on a public forum that's regularly read by our sworn enemies. You might not like the way Brady spins your comments...
If Eric won't, that's a comment of the day award....
Thank's MB.
We are trying to regulate and place "restrictions" on a Constitutional Amendment, that has already been twisted into shall issue and may issue, and open carry is legal vs. brandishing to the terror of the public...
Traditionalists would tell you to piss up a rope, Modern views state we can't have untrained, yahoos walking around with a SERBU, or whatever in open carry, cause it "scares people"....
There is no gray area with the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, it usually applies. Criminals don't give a crap either way,....
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 1798 - Sam Adams
There in lies the premise that if you are an idiot, untrained and undisciplined, with NO CONSCIENCE, and have a firearm, you will be subject to the fundamentals of Common Law, and be asked to leave, arrested, or ostracized.
We can self govern. Imagine that!!! We don't need the Gov't to nit pick with Constitutional Rights, and regulate it more than it already is.
"The job of bureaucrats is to regulate, and left to their own devices, they will try to regulate everything they can."
Steven den Beste
-
...as is the works of Larry Flynt and Robert Maplethorpe. Should the 1st Amendment be infringed and curtailed because of a few reckless individuals like these?....
A liberal court decided that Flag burning and pornography were "protected expression", this is as misguided as their decision in Dredd Scot.
The 1st A expressly protects speech, and press. Expanding that to encompass "expression" is another example of Govt usurpation of unintended powers just like the abuses of the 10th A and the "Commerce Clause". Originally intended to oversee taxation on goods transferred between states it has been used to justify almost any intervention the Govt wishes to make in your life.
Fools worry about the Patriot act, While the REAL danger lurks in activist judges.
-
A liberal court decided that Flag burning and pornography were "protected expression", this is as misguided as their decision in Dredd Scot.
The 1st A expressly protects speech, and press. Expanding that to encompass "expression" is another example of Govt usurpation of unintended powers just like the abuses of the 10th A and the "Commerce Clause". Originally intended to oversee taxation on goods transferred between states it has been used to justify almost any intervention the Govt wishes to make in your life.
Fools worry about the Patriot act, While the REAL danger lurks in activist judges.
Thanks, Tom.
That was what I've been rolling around in my noggin' trying to word right.....and you said it briefly and well.
-
Thanks, Tom.
That was what I've been rolling around in my noggin' trying to word right.....and you said it briefly and well.
Nice,.... now Tom's going to get a big head, after I said the same thing..... ::)
Thanks Tom....
-
Thanks, Tom.
That was what I've been rolling around in my noggin' trying to word right.....and you said it briefly and well.
Nice,.... now Tom's going to get a big head, after I said the same thing..... ::)
Thanks Tom....
Sorry 'bout that, TW.........you said it well also.......I just meant that Tom summed it up in such a simple statement. ;) ;D
In reality, the simplest statement regarding the whole issue would be:
“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."
-
Just dont disagree with him or he gets all pouty and starts calling names. ;D
-
Just dont disagree with him or he gets all pouty and starts calling names. ;D
Referring to you as an ass is not "name calling, it's a descriptive adjective. If they didn't teach you that in English class you can probably double check with FQ.
-
Printed just for tommy?!?
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=9781886230194&ourl=Creative%2DTherapy%2Dwith%2DChildren%2Dand%2DAdolescents%2FAngela%2DM%2DHobday
-
I see BM is maintaining his usual standards of intelligent debate. ::)
-
I see BM is maintaining his usual standards of intelligent debate. ::)
We have standards?... ???
-
We have He has standards?... ???
Yes, we do. ;)
-
Yes, we do. ;)
yes we do... no posting pics of fat chicks and people not posting pics of thier new guns will be shot with said new gun ;D
-
Okay guys, this one has run its course and is heading to the archives.
-RJP