Make it legal to carry without permit: yes or no?

[Oh Shoot]

...That may be a question they can add to the testing to determine who can carry... "Do you feel that drinking and firing weapons is a safe practice in any environment?"...;

The basic flaw in your continued argument is that that drinking x amount to stay "under impairment" is perfectly safe for driving a vehicle, but not so for weapons carry or use.

Having "a few beers" raises the likelihood of a firearm accident but doesn't do the same regarding driving your vehicle -- absurd.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Hmmmm....I guess this might be worth one more post.

You really should have let it go...that would have been following "responsible posting" guidelines.

"Responsible Drinking" is mostly a nice euphemism created by brewers and distillers to sell product while looking as if they are socially responsible...it's also a convenient crutch for those who don't have the will power to not drink at all and/or to have a designated driver if they are going to drink and be in a car afterword.

Drinking ANY alcohol and driving OR carrying a firearm is STUPID AND DANGEROUS. If I drink, which I admit isn't often I don't drive PERIOD nor would I strap on a weapon. You may think you aren't "that impaired" but even one drink will affect you and that affect, even if it's slight, may be all that's necessary to cause a lapse in judgment (whether driving or handling a firearm).

[Guest Jamie]

Hmmmm....I guess this might be worth one more post.

At least you're not a quitter.

Though in this case, I'm not sure that's in your best interest.

Has anyone here gone to an establishment restaurant or otherwise to have a few beers with friends and some food. Placed there carry weapon where ever they do inside there vehicle before entering, even if the establishment would allow you to carry it, and gone in for a few hours of food, fun and good times? Then when finished gone back to your vehicle, left your weapon where you stashed it and gone home?

Now you're changing the criteria from your initial statement.

But that's okay, we'll work with it.

I guess I need to spell out this scenerio to jamie because he didnt completely grasp why I would take my weapon off in the first place before entering any drinking establishment.

I hope you took it off because the law here says you can't go into an establishment that sells alcohol and drink while carrying it. I also hope you unloaded it before you stashed it in the vehicle, but I'll bet you didn't.

It is acceptable sound practice to do this there Jamie my friend.

You don't really need me to tell you I'm not your friend.... do you?

And since you said "there", are we speaking of Tn or Az? And yes, it makes a difference, at least in regards to this conversation.

Thats why they call it responsible drinking. Again, who is the one reading or not reading into the written content?

Who is this "they"? And do you really think "they" wouldn't question your initial statement, the same as I and others did?

You can explain and excuse all you like... you can outline scenarios 'til you're blue in the face... But it still won't change what was stated earlier.

As for my being able to detemine how much I can drink and stay under the limit. In a training environment, I was one who volunteered to be a drinker so that others could get there certification for being able to determine blood alcohol levels using sobriety testing. Any part of that training clearly involves how alcohol is absorbed and processed by the body and even using a baseline chart to show using body type, weight and time to show expected drop in B.A.C. I guess they didnt teach you that, but its cool.

Oh, I was taught all those things... it's pretty much standard curriculum, I guess. My instructor, however, went on to explain that those baseline charts and numbers are simply and agreed-upon numbers for when the average person, under average circumstances usually begins to show signs of alcohol impairment, or processes alcohol, etc.

He also went on to explain that everyone is different, and that situation and circumstances ( like adding food to the mix, which you did above )can drastically change alcohol absorption, impairment, etc., and that we ( the officers ) could not use those as a set-in-stone rule of any kind.

But if your instructor didn't teach that, I guess that's cool.

I think anybody who drinks or ever has drank has had times when they immediately felt one drink, but others where they had several and felt nothing.

( Spend all day out in the sun picking up hay, then go down a single beer fairly quickly, then tell me how you feel. Being partially dehydrated and pretty much running on adrenalin does some interesting things to how your body interacts with alcohol. )

And that's pretty good evidence that even your own body can't be counted on to handle alcohol the same way every time.

( Along those same lines, there have been times when I have drank and felt fine, but have had others tell me later that no, I wasn't. Again demonstrating that the individual isn't the best judge of their own condition. )

On the other hand, popping a top on a cold one my friend and then handling and shooting firearms has not been a taught practice in any place that I have ever gotten handgun training. Maybe its common practice in your circle.

Wanna go find where I said it was a taught practice anywhere? Or even where I said it was a good idea?

Said I'd had a beer or two - a couple, I believe were my exact words - while or before shooting on my own property. Not a few, not a six pack, not a case. And those couple couldn't have possibly had as much effect on me as those few of yours had on you.

And I didn't drive anywhere afterward. Oh, also, at the time... there were no laws at all that said shooting or handling a gun on private property after consuming any alcohol was illegal.

Can't say the same about driving and alcohol though...

if so then do your thing man. Ill continue to do mine. Thats what freedom is all about As you would have it, this seems to be only my opinion and not you and whoever finds you vialble as a source of valid information.

Oh don't worry... folks like you have very little influence on me, and certainly no ability to make me change my ways.

As I've said, I view you as only being good for a little amusement at times.

As for me saying that these folks cant comprehend reading..well again it was directed at you..please dont try and drag whoever else you were talking about into this.

I'm not the one that's made claims of talking to "other people" off the board... and I've certainly not drug anybody into any thing.

I think most here would tell you that I handle my own battles, and that my comprehension is at least sufficient to do that pretty well. But then, that's something you'll have to ask 'em about yourself, because I won't, nor will I ask anybody to speak on my behalf. Anybody commenting here is doing so of their own free will and volition.

Open another can...reload and keep on shooting bud..your foot must really hurt. If you didnt get that, I was implying that you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Just to be specific enough that you dont jump to any more conclusions about me. Im not the one who openly on a gun forum that admits your feel it safe to drink and fire or handle weapons.

Here's a little news flash for ya, Archie: I don't even particularly like beer, and only drink it every great now and then.

And I am not now or have I ever shot myself - or anyone else -in the foot.

That may be a question they can add to the testing to determine who can carry... "Do you feel that drinking and firing weapons is a safe practice in any environment?"

My answer there would be "It can be, but it isn't a wise decision under most circumstances."

Im glad that you have had fun anyway....its nice to know that people can still amuse themselves....kind of like watching a cat play with string.

You do make a pretty good string... Too bad you keep tying yourself in knots...

Edited December 29, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Archminister01]

The basic flaw in your continued argument is that that drinking x amount to stay "under impairment" is perfectly safe for driving a vehicle, but not so for weapons carry or use.

Having "a few beers" raises the likelihood of a firearm accident but doesn't do the same regarding driving your vehicle -- absurd.

- OS

If you can show me in any of my posts that i said that then reply...you are joking right..i guess what I should say is a repeat of what i just said. Our society allows for one to drive under a certain limit of BAC. I also said that it is not common practice to drink and use firearms. Is anyone wrong here...not really. Each man can do whatever he chooses within the limits of the law.

What is really amazing to me and this goes back to my original comment about reading comprehension is that I never once wrote anything about which I felt it was more dangerous to drink and drive or drink and use weapons.

I simply said that I think its funny how that was read into my post and it continued into all of this.

My handgun never left the safe under my seat until I got home if I had been out anywhere and had a drink...but somehow that was assumed...back to reading the post.

And for everyones sake on this thread it has gone to idiocy and based on forum code of conduct claiming something is an opinion and not worthy of getting Kicked for. Nor does anyone but administration have the authority to remove someone. I wasnt the one called out for name calling on the post.

I guess sometimes its time to agree to disagree. As for me leaving it alone...do a post count..get back to me when you have a final tally.

If I had more posts..Ill apologize.

Sorry Folks

[Fallguy]

This has long since gone off-topic and looks to be headed to getting people in trouble....

Got to go for now, but will check in later and see if this is still open.....or should be.....

[Guest rebelyell]

This has long since gone off-topic and looks to be headed to getting people in trouble....

Got to go for now, but will check in later and see if this is still open.....or should be.....

+1

[Guest Jamie]

This has long since gone off-topic and looks to be headed to getting people in trouble....

Got to go for now, but will check in later and see if this is still open.....or should be.....

Well, threads don't get people into trouble... they do that all by themselves.

And as to the current derailment... it does play into the "permit or no permit" topic, since it demonstrates all too clearly that training has no real effect on behavior sometimes.

So, worrying about someone having or not having what you'd consider to be adequate training is an exercise in futility, given that their behavior may not even conform to that training, in the end. Or even your own view of what that training should have taught them.

Their judgment and general outlook is much more important, since that is what is likely to govern their actions. And how do you test for that?

So when it comes right down to it, is a test and a permit really anything other than a false sense of security? How do you decide?

Edited December 29, 2010 by Jamie

[RobertNashville]

I suppose what surprises me in all this is how vehemently some folks believe that exercising such as basic human right (i.e. carrying a tool to aid in defending your life) is something that should require permission from a government bureaucrat.

I DO believe in training and STRONGLY ENCOURAGE everyone who possesses, let alone carries a firearm to engage themselves in training at every opportunity...I would even add that while not "great", the training" for my HCP was not without some redeeming qualities and I very much enjoyed my instructor. However, while the HCP class resulted in me receiving permission from the state, I can't say it actually made me safer or more competent with a firearm in any measurable way.

Bottom line is this...we don't have to have "permission" to travel from state to state to state nor to express our opinions nor to take a breath of air (at least not until Obamacare kicks in in full force)...in fact, I can't think of any other "right" that requires government permission to exercise so why do we need permission to carry a firearm for our own protection??? Until someone can answer that question for me in a reasonable and well thought out way, I have no qualms with "Constitutional Carry" nor should anyone else (in my always humble opinion).

[Oh Shoot]

If you can show me in any of my posts that i said that then reply...

Agree now way off topic, but since you say that, my last post on the matter:

...If i were going out to have a few beers, my weapon would stay in my vehicle. Just like driving, certain things shouldnt be done while under the influence of alcohol.

I guess that depends on if your assuming that by having a few beers means getting legally drunk. I dont know what your mindset about drinking and I wont assume to know what it is, but me having a few beers means just that...and that is usually over a long enough period of time that my blood alcohol content would not be over the legal limit when I drove.

Just make sure you fly a flag so that when you are drinking and handling firearms folks can steer clear. ..

..Has anyone here gone to an establishment restaurant or otherwise to have a few beers ... Placed there carry weapon where ever they do inside there vehicle before entering, even if the establishment would allow you to carry it,... Im not the one who openly on a gun forum that admits your feel it safe to drink and fire or handle weapons...

Just a quick sampling to show the obvious, that you will drive with whatever YOU consider "unimpaired" alcohol intake (usually, according to one post) but that handling firearms is a zero alcohol tolerance situation. I don't question your gun/booze stance, just your hypocritical car/booze stance.

Over and out,

- OS

[Guest KCSTEVE]

Drink responsibly, shoot straight and drive carefully.......Ain't that something.

[Fallguy]

I suppose what surprises me in all this is how vehemently some folks believe that exercising such as basic human right (i.e. carrying a tool to aid in defending your life) is something that should require permission from a government bureaucrat.

I DO believe in training and STRONGLY ENCOURAGE everyone who possesses, let alone carries a firearm to engage themselves in training at every opportunity...I would even add that while not "great", the training" for my HCP was not without some redeeming qualities and I very much enjoyed my instructor. However, while the HCP class resulted in me receiving permission from the state, I can't say it actually made me safer or more competent with a firearm in any measurable way.

Bottom line is this...we don't have to have "permission" to travel from state to state to state nor to express our opinions nor to take a breath of air (at least not until Obamacare kicks in in full force)...in fact, I can't think of any other "right" that requires government permission to exercise so why do we need permission to carry a firearm for our own protection??? Until someone can answer that question for me in a reasonable and well thought out way, I have no qualms with "Constitutional Carry" nor should anyone else (in my always humble opinion).

Well said.

[The Legion]

My answer at this time would be NO. If you do not have a permit to carry in Tennessee then you would not be able to carry in the states that have a reciprocity agreements with Tennessee.

[Jonnin]

My answer at this time would be NO. If you do not have a permit to carry in Tennessee then you would not be able to carry in the states that have a reciprocity agreements with Tennessee.

Alaska does this. They provide a "permit" if you want to travel (which is accepted by the other states), or you can carry without a permit and stay home. Your choice. I could accept that from TN, but would likely get a permit on paper just to have it as I am near the Ga and AL borders.

[RobertNashville]

My answer at this time would be NO. If you do not have a permit to carry in Tennessee then you would not be able to carry in the states that have a reciprocity agreements with Tennessee.

While there has been no legislation crafted at this point; no one is talking about doing away with the HCP system in Tennessee..."Constitutional Carry" would be in addition to the current system, not a complete replacement of the current system (at least that is what I believe most people would want for the exact same concern you raise).

[Fallguy]

Alaska does this. They provide a "permit" if you want to travel (which is accepted by the other states), or you can carry without a permit and stay home. Your choice. I could accept that from TN, but would likely get a permit on paper just to have it as I am near the Ga and AL borders.

While there has been no legislation crafted at this point; no one is talking about doing away with the HCP system in Tennessee..."Constitutional Carry" would be in addition to the current system, not a complete replacement of the current system (at least that is what I believe most people would want for the exact same concern you raise).

What they said.

[Oh Shoot]

Alaska does this. They provide a "permit" if you want to travel (which is accepted by the other states), or you can carry without a permit and stay home. Your choice....

Same with Arizona. Matter of fact, you must have permit to carry in bars there.

However, Vermont does not issue permits at all; though everyone lauds their constitutional carry, that would be a real drawback for many.

- OS

[Mason]

If you have the money to buy a gun (and are not prohibited to do so) you should be able to buy it. If you have a gun and want to carry it, I say go for it.

I will reply to this when I am not sitting in a hunting blind and looking at TGO on my phone.

[Guest mosinon]

Bottom line is this...we don't have to have "permission" to travel from state to state to state nor to express our opinions nor to take a breath of air (at least not until Obamacare kicks in in full force)...in fact, I can't think of any other "right" that requires government permission to exercise so why do we need permission to carry a firearm for our own protection??? Until someone can answer that question for me in a reasonable and well thought out way, I have no qualms with "Constitutional Carry" nor should anyone else (in my always humble opinion).

I wish you were correct. To get from say, Tennessee to Kentucky you'll probably have to drive. If you have to drive you'll need a drivers license. If you want to fly you'll have to be okayed by the TSA. If you ride the bus I guess you're okay. For now.

I'm good with everyone exercising their rights. I'm good with carrying without a permit but I am not so good with the notion that the only rights that have been infringed on are gun rights.

[Guest Opie Coyote]

I didn't read all the posts, but one thing I have thought of is that by the cost being nearly $200 for the class and permit, isn't that using money to infringe on constitutional rights? It doesn't cost anything to vote, why should it cost to carry?

[Jonnin]

I didn't read all the posts, but one thing I have thought of is that by the cost being nearly $200 for the class and permit, isn't that using money to infringe on constitutional rights? It doesn't cost anything to vote, why should it cost to carry?

It is. Other laws are in place to prevent the poor from owning a firearm, including a tax on ammo, bans (in some places) on a poorly defined "saturday night special" type of gun (its a ban on cheap pistols, effectively), and more. Its just like a poll tax, and the paper test is a literacy test. So you have to have *some* money and *some* education to own a firearm, which would cause outrage and lawsuits if the same rules were applied to the right to vote, or the right to speak, etc.

No matter if they make sense, even the most sensible laws such as no gun in court is an infringement, however in court, your right to speak is also infringed (the judge can have a number of things done to you if you are vocal during a court session).

[RobertNashville]

I wish you were correct. To get from say, Tennessee to Kentucky you'll probably have to drive. If you have to drive you'll need a drivers license. If you want to fly you'll have to be okayed by the TSA. If you ride the bus I guess you're okay. For now.

I'm good with everyone exercising their rights. I'm good with carrying without a permit but I am not so good with the notion that the only rights that have been infringed on are gun rights.

You have the "right" to travel...you have the right to peacefully assemble and to peacefully protest...to speak freely. You DO NOT have a right to transportation (be it a car or a plane or a bus) or a free meeting room...you don't have a right to free poster board on which to write your protest slogans nor do you have a right to a platform from which to speak.

[Links2k]

I like having the permit for traveling out of state.

[Guest EyeOfMidnight]

Same with Arizona. Matter of fact, you must have permit to carry in bars there.

However, Vermont does not issue permits at all; though everyone lauds their constitutional carry, that would be a real drawback for many.

- OS

If I lived in Vermont and wanted to travel, I'd just apply for a Florida non-resident permit. Problem solved there.

And I didn't read the whole thread, but we need Constitutional Carry in TN. Also need the Guns in Parking Lots law.

[RobertNashville]

Obviously, this is a subject that many people have strong feelings about. Unfortunately, it also appears that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what might be proposed in Tennessee with regards to "Constitutional Carry".

We all have "opinions" but I would encourage all of you who want to improve your knowledge to consider attending the January meeting of the Tennessee Firearms Association (Nashville chapter).

Details here: Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc. • View topic - No December Meeting / January Preview

The Nashville Chapter will not hold a meeting in the month of December...we will resume monthly meetings in January 2011, on the 3rd Tuesday (18 Jan 2011). In addition to discussion of the new legislative session, there will be a point/counter-point discussion of Permitted (Bob Pope) vs. Permit-less Carry (Andrew Asnip).

Some points to be discussed include:

• Arizona/Alaska style carry
  
• Vermont style carry (and the differences among them)
  
• Tennessee's style of permit
  
• Reciprocity
  
• Qualification requirements - good or bad
  

I plan to be there...hope to see some of you there as well!

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I like being a little behind you people... It's much safer back here.

You people?

Since I am still a noob here and not yet considered part of the inside crowd, you must be talking about the multiple Me's. In that case I really need for you to talk with my Docs on my behalf. I have been telling them for years that there is more than one of me but they dont want to believe me.

Now from what I can gather from your "discussion" in this thread....

Someone feels that if they have a few drinks and then drive their vehicle that they are not endangering any of the other citizens on the roads because they have been trained in how to detect those who are impaired. They dont feel that they are any danger at all to others because of this training and their low amount of consumption.

But you.... on the other hand sitting on your own back porch while drinking a few drinks and shooting your guns on your own property are some how a danger to someone other than yourself or your family:confused:

I have read some entertaining things here in the past but this has to be some of the best. And because the both of you, if I have read correctly, are former or current LEO's just makes it that much better.

IMHO you both should realize that the BAC numbers dont really mean squat.

If a 300 pound man has but one alcoholic drink it still has some effect on them whether or not they actually feel it. At the same time some 150 pound people can consume triple the Legal Amount and function just fine without any outward signs of impairment. The fact is that ANY amount of alcohol has an effect on a person no matter how minimal it may be or the persons tolerance level to it.

The BAC numbers that are used to determine if one is "under the influence" are simply some bogus PC type stuff to say what amount of alcohol one can have in their system before all of society and our legal system considers them impaired.

IMO this side-discussion directly relates to the original OP's question.

Here we have two people who have had very similar training yet have come away from it with two very different ideas of what it all means. One would drive on public streets after drinking without any thought for the general public but would not touch their firearm. While the other would not even consider driving anywhere after drinking but would feel safe on their own property shooting their gun after drinking or while doing so.

Personally I feel both acts are unsafe in their own ways but given the choice I would rather a person stay on their own property and not involve the general public.

It all just proves that no matter what the subject matter that any training is going to have different effects on different people. When this is applied to our state's required handgun classes it shows just how useless they really can be. Very few people learn anything from them.

And just to clarify something else I have read in this thread....

TWO out of 13 people in my HCP class did indeed fail it. Both failed the initial shooting part and then one went on to pass during his re-fire only to then fail the written exam. It does happen. And given the pairs appearance and demeanor I did not feel bad that they were leaving without the legal right to carry a gun, but also do not believe that little detail was going to stop them from doing so anyway.