How many have concealed carry permit to carry a gun ?

[k0ua]

Haven't read every page of this thread... not sure if I have posted I it or not but I dont think so.

I support carry in any form... open or concealed. Just excersize your rights. I live on a farm and always carry for meny reasons. Am very careful in restricted areas like schools post office and court house and follow the rules accordingly. But I think there should be no restrictions on carry if you have CWP, due to having gone the backround check, etc. Its a hassle to un-conceal and unload, and stow my pistol (before i am within 1000' of school propety) just so I can leagelly get out of the truck to pick up my kids from school. Nut-jobs who shoot up schools dont have CWP and stand a better chance of getting stopped sooner if law abiding folks like me are armed at the right time!

I've had my CWP about 4 years and carry every place I can... hope I never need it but its there just like my Leatherman plyers and pocket knife.

Agree 100% with this. Putting up a "gun free zone" sign is insane. Think about it.

 

[bajabum]

In Oregon you have to take a class with classroom and range practice, then pass a background check. It costs about $165 plus the class costs, so call it $300 for a ccp. It's not cheap, but if you haul a handgun around with you it's a great convenience to be able to just tuck it under your coat or in a pocket.

$50 for the Sheriff, $15 for the State (OSP), NO range requireed, and class is 4 hours and costs $35.
$100 total.
Renewal is just $50 to the Sheriff, takes 5 minutes
I've had the oregon Resident CCW for 4+ years, just renewed back in June.
I don't leave home without something, and several 12 gauge pumps take care of the homestead...

 

[KiotiKowboy]

I find "Conceal Carry" laws to be an over-reach of government authority.

YOU have a RIGHT to carry. This right, perhaps more than any other, is your most important defense against tyranny. To allow the government, which is to be constrained by an armed citizenry, to limit that right seems more than a little insane to me. Government has a role in prosecuting crime - not actions that constitute Prior Restraint.

I carry when I feel a need. I have no CCW, and will likely remain free of this government interference. If citizens would exercise their other major power - Jury Nullification, which was an honored practice of our founders - unconstitutional laws such as CCW would be made impotent.

 

[MossRoad]

YOU have a RIGHT to carry.

Not if you are mentally ill or a convicted felon.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

You didn't read my comments very carefully. I stated the government had a role to play when it concerned a crime. As for mentally ill, that is an obvious exception.

Just remember ... every infringement you allow on this right ( or ANY right for that matter) is a reduction in your freedom and/or liberty.

 

[MossRoad]

By carrying concealed without a permit, you're just giving ammo (so-to-speak) to those that would like to take away carry rights for all. Should you be caught, you'll be added to the statistics of unlawful carriers, not to the statistic of partriotic son. You're picking and choosing the laws that you wish to obey or not obey, so that means its OK for everyone to pick and choose whichever laws they wish to obey or not to obey. I don't feel like following traffic laws, so I'll drive however I please, wherever I please. I don't believe in property rights, so I'll just take whatever I want, whenever I want. I don't believe in paying taxes, so I won't pay taxes. I don't believe in the rule of law, so I won't follow it. As it currently stands, CC laws are the law and per your quote "Government has a role in prosecuting crime" you are commiting a crime and should be prosecuted. We elect the people that make the laws. We are the government. If we don't like the laws we work through legal channels to change those laws. That's all I'm saying. I don't care for some laws. But without rule of law, we have bigger problems than with the rule of law.

 

[KiotiKowboy]

Mossroad - i don't have any real disagreement with your argument. However, there are such things as unconstitutional laws - thereby having only the force of authority and not the force of legitimacy. At "some" point, citizens have a responsibility to resist.

Following your argument with strict adherence, our founders would have NEVER resisted the king.

There is an old saying - "Freedom is not free." Much blood has been shed to substantiate the wisdom of that saying. I am simply appalled by the ease with which so many surrender precious rights - out of fear, out of laziness or out of twisted ideology. Our children, our grand-children and their children, will again be called upon to shed THEIR blood to regain the rights that we fail to protect.

Kids are being raised in this country to accept a police state as normal. Do you not find this an OUTRAGE? I do. It's a slippery slope. I guess the question is - at what point will you say enough is enough?

 

[houstonscott]

Not if you are mentally ill or a convicted felon.

Can you reference constitutional authority for someone to limit or eliminate a 2nd amendment right or any other right protected in constitution. HS

 

[Bird]

By carrying concealed without a permit, you're just giving ammo (so-to-speak) to those that would like to take away carry rights for all. Should you be caught, you'll be added to the statistics of unlawful carriers, not to the statistic of partriotic son. You're picking and choosing the laws that you wish to obey or not obey, so that means its OK for everyone to pick and choose whichever laws they wish to obey or not to obey. I don't feel like following traffic laws, so I'll drive however I please, wherever I please. I don't believe in property rights, so I'll just take whatever I want, whenever I want. I don't believe in paying taxes, so I won't pay taxes. I don't believe in the rule of law, so I won't follow it. As it currently stands, CC laws are the law and per your quote "Government has a role in prosecuting crime" you are commiting a crime and should be prosecuted. We elect the people that make the laws. We are the government. If we don't like the laws we work through legal channels to change those laws. That's all I'm saying. I don't care for some laws. But without rule of law, we have bigger problems than with the rule of law.

Well said. And I sometimes wonder about the people who talk about "losing" gun rights, when they're becoming more liberal all the time instead of more restrictive. When I started in law enforcement 50 years ago, there was no such thing as Concealed Carry permits; it was illegal to carry concealed or otherwise, at least in Texas. Naturally, there were some exceptions, but the instructor at the police academy said, "If you catch someone carrying a handgun, you put him in jail and let him prove he meets one of the exceptions."

Even when I retired 25 years ago, Texas had no CHL. Then in later years we got such a law. I checked into it and decided it was too expensive, take too much time to obtain, etc. Then in 2004, we got a Federal law that made it legal for "honorably" retired law enforcement officers to carry, as long as they qualified on the firing range annually at the department from which they retired. At my wife's and friends' insistence, I did that.

And now . . . for anyone, not just law enforcement retirees, the length of time required for the CHL class has been cut in half, the cost and inconvenience of submitting fingerprints has been reduced, no renewal or re-qualification required for more than 4 years, and the cost of the application process has been reduced.

So . . . I decided instead of having to call the police range once a year, give them name, badge number, social security number, date of birth, etc. at least a week or two in advance, then drive all the way out there on a date on which they are having qualifications, maybe finding they have so many active duty officers shooting at that time that retirees get bumped to a later time, that I'd see first hand what it's like to get a CHL.

So I did the application online, didn't have to wait on the USPS mail service, went and got electronic fingerprints made and sent to the state Department of Public Safety (no ink, no mail), and a week ago Saturday attended the class and did the firearms "proficiency" test on the range.

And I can tell you this much. If you can read and write and can load a handgun and point it in the general direction you want to shoot, I don't know how it would be possible to fail the class or shooting test. Of course I easily scored 100% on the written test, but I was a bit embarrassed by a couple of low shots that made me only score 97.2 on the proficiency test. And I DO NOT consider myself to be a particularly good shot!

I don't understand why anyone would carry illegally when it's so easy to get a CHL and be legal.

 

[rtimgray]

At the risk of being a shill for the system, here's my thoughts on a citizens responsibility to resist: I've got no problem with it; However, it comes with it's own set of rules, and I think that deliberately and flagrantly disobeying established laws is the LAST resort, not the first.

In this case, if someone wants to overturn the existing CCW permit laws, then I feel their first stop should be at their county or city attorney's office to find out what the proper steps are to enact a new law. I suspect it would involve having meetings with lawmakers/congressman/aldermen/whatever is in effect at the area where someone lives, and you would then have to convince them that this is a cause worth taking up. That might take the form of a petition with 10,000 signatures or 100,000 signatures or something like that. At that point, it would be up to the "lawmakers" to carry your request forward.

Now at that point, if the request goes no further, the next course of action would depend on why it didn't go further? Was there lack of support from other lawmakers, or was there lack of support from the general populace? Again, if the proposed changed failed via a democratic process, and a majority of constituents still felt it was unjust, I think the next step would be some sort of organized protest to show lawmakers that there is indeed of a large body of the populace that does not agree with the status quo. In any given situation, an assembly of some sort might take place earlier rather than later.

After all of these steps are exhausted (and this would be an exhausting and lengthy process, no doubt), then and only then, when you have a clear majority of the population (not a vocal minority) that wants a change would I agree with open rebellion.

I am casting no aspersions about folks that have posted in this thread; however, I would guess in most cases, people that complain about unjust laws do very little to change them. Flaunting an existing law without taking proper steps to rectify it is nothing more than a criminal act, that as someone pointed out earlier, usually serves to hurt the cause rather than further it.

I do personally know people that carry weapons with their CCDW; I don't agree with their position. I thought that the process to become legal was easy and cheap enough, and it was even a little fun and enlightening at the class that I took, so I have no problem with it.

Good luck and take care.