Concealed carry question...

[mav]

I know there is some degree of anonymity here. That said, is it still wise to flaunt one's disdain for the current law and openly state that you have no intention of obeying it? I could be wrong, but it seems sort of foolish. I think there are better ways to go about working to change the law instead of just downright refusing to obey it.

[Currently]

Been inferred but not said outright ...

Being caught with a firearm illegally while committing misdemeanors or even a speeding ticket can elevate the charge to felony status.

Then one cannot own or be in proximity to a firearm for the rest of their life.

<SHRUGS>

Edited February 1, 2011 by Currently

[vontar]

Plain Old Dave.

Check out this story, it is about a former member that is not being very helpful at advancing gun rights.

Normally I would not link many news stories from this site, however the writer has been pretty good about being down the middle and dare I say shooting straight.

Gun-toting activist’s brazen approach hurts cause, advocates say | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

[Oh Shoot]

Been inferred but not said outright ...

Being caught with a firearm illegally while committing misdemeanors or even a speeding ticket can elevate the charge to felony status.

Then one cannot own or be in proximity to a firearm for the rest of their life.

<SHRUGS>

I guess you mean "implied" ... anyway, I'd like to see a legal reference to support any of that statement, especially the speeding ticket part.

- OS

[Guest .45packer]

The "fee" was $115 the last time I paid......

But, while the permit itself may not be a Constitutional issue, the cost of the permit is... SCOTUS has ruled over and over again that even a $5 soliciting permit fee is a violation of the 1st Amendment...

but a $150-250 'fee' to get a permit

isn't a violation of the 2nd?

You're right, you probably can't win a lawsuit using logic like that... but that is the fundamental problem with our government. It no longer respects the limits we the sovereigns placed on it.

[Oh Shoot]

The "fee" was $115 the last time I paid......

I assume he was figuring in cost of the certification class, though I've not heard of one costing over $100.

- OS

[DaveTN]

I assume he was figuring in cost of the certification class, though I've not heard of one costing over $100.

- OS

On-Target in Murfreesboro is $110. Thats the highest I've seen.

[Plain Old Dave]

Plain Old Dave.

Check out this story, it is about a former member that is not being very helpful at advancing gun rights.

Normally I would not link many news stories from this site, however the writer has been pretty good about being down the middle and dare I say shooting straight.

Gun-toting activist’s brazen approach hurts cause, advocates say | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

Read about that fellow. Not too bright; open carry tends to scare folks. I'm not intending to be some sort of gun Rosa Parks; I have never felt the need to carry a loaded firearm anywhere. All I intend to posit is if someone feels like they need to have a firearm about them, they should be able to drop one in a coat/vest/pants pocket right along with the car keys and pocketknife. That, or wear it as a belt buckle like NAA used to make their little revolver to do. No brandishing, no commotion.

[RobertNashville]

Read about that fellow. Not too bright; open carry tends to scare folks. I'm not intending to be some sort of gun Rosa Parks; I have never felt the need to carry a loaded firearm anywhere. All I intend to posit is if someone feels like they need to have a firearm about them, they should be able to drop one in a coat/vest/pants pocket right along with the car keys and pocketknife. That, or wear it as a belt buckle like NAA used to make their little revolver to do. No brandishing, no commotion.

I suspect that in general, most (but not all) folks who carry and/or who simply believe in the right of people to be armed without a government "pass" would agree with you.

It's commonly, although I think somewhat incorrectly, called "constitutional carry" and there is serious talk about changing the Tennessee Constitution to allow anyone who is otherwise legally able to possess a firearm to also be able to carry it without a permit. We may or may not see legislation to that effect this legislative session but I suspect that we will see it within either this session or the next one.

If you are interested in the subject, this very issue will be THE issue discussed at the next Nashville chapter of the TFA meeting in February...that meeting will specifically discuss the "constitutional" side of the argument including the founder's intent, etc. it should be a very interesting meeting regardless of what side of the issue one is on.

[MacGyver]

All I intend to posit is if someone feels like they need to have a firearm about them, they should be able to drop one in a coat/vest/pants pocket right along with the car keys and pocketknife.

I agree with you. I would guess that most here, agree with that statement as well.

I was thinking last night, though that the permit does serve us well in some cases in today's world. I would guess that the number of people who have carry permits for the sole purpose of exercising their 2nd amendment rights are relatively few. Most who have taken the steps to get a permit have done so because they have thought through their own defense, and felt a pistol an effective tool if they ever need to defend themselves. As many permit holders as there are, most of us don't call any attention to ourselves, and as such the only time you see guns in the news is when a thug uses one poorly - thus unintentionally throwing us in with them.

If I'm getting something off the top shelf at Publix and accidently expose my weapon, or I get pulled over in Georgiana, Alabama on the way to Florida, I am automatically thought of as a potential thug with a gun, and the burden of proof is on me to show that I'm not. I wish it wasn't that way, but I think in a lot of cases today, it is. Showing my permit to an officer is immediately disarming so long as I'm not doing something stupid. It shows us to be a part of a "club" that is made up of the best citizens our society has to offer.

Again, the libertarian in me wishes it wasn't this way, but we have to work with what we've got. When any of us gets up in the morning and decides to strap on a weapon, you become either an asset to society or a liability. Lord knows having a permit doesn't automatically make you an asset to society- but it shows that you are thinking about the problem and taking a personal interest in the outcome.

If only we did that about all of our country's problems.

[Jonnin]

How is the Concealed Carry Permit system not fundamentally ceding the argument to the other side? If we're requesting permission to exercise a fundamental human right, aren't we giving credence to the idea that gun use and ownership is a privelege subject to government regulation and not a fundamental human right?

Floor is open.

We follow the rules so as not to be arrested and stuff. The argument was lost when the law to have to have a HCP was made. We are not "ceding" it, we already lost it. All we can do now is work within the law while trying to change it.

[Guest SGT Bateman]

My wife is going through the carry class on Saturday and that cost $60. That is all to a private, state certified official. Then she has to go pay the state $115 for the permit. I do not have any problem with her paying those fees. I leave to Korea in a few weeks, and feel that it is a much better choice to have her able to legally protect herself when she is at home or away. For now, until she has the permit, we know that she cannot carry it outside of the house legally. We are fine with that. I am glad that TN does a check to see if someone should be allowed to carry a handgun. I feel a little safer. There are too many people out there that posses guns everyday that never should be allowed to. The whole part about carrying in Alaska is more for protection against the wildlife. There are many areas there where you can be so far secluded from anyone else, that it would be stupid of you not to protect yourself.

[Oh Shoot]

.... I am glad that TN does a check to see if someone should be allowed to carry a handgun. I feel a little safer. There are too many people out there that posses guns everyday that never should be allowed to....

That's really an anti-gun talking point. Think it through, eh? Anyone who would criminally use their gun against you/your wife would not be deterred by being refused a permit. Hell, it's only a misdemeanor to carry without one, doesn't hold a candle to the felonies they can commit with the gun. Plus, it's already a felony for a felon to have a gun, so the paltry possession penalty for non-felons doesn't even come into play.

If you're arguing that the HCP course makes a law abiding citizen a safer gun owner, I can only retort with this carefully considered and logical rebuttal: HA!

- OS

Edited February 2, 2011 by OhShoot

[7dogguy]

Consider yourself lucky I left the thread open (with or without your consent).

I edited your post this morning to remove an admission, that if performed in Tennessee is illegal. Read the Code of Conduct. I left the thread open with your edited post to see if any meaningful debate could come from the discussion. So far, I am regretting that decision.

Nonetheless, here's how I see your question:

1. I believe we as humans have a fundamental right to life.
   
2. I also believe that I have a fundamental right to defend my life, my family's life, and anyone else's where their above right is being abrogated in some way.
   
3. The application of my right to defense may not necessarily stop if I don't have a firearm. A firearm is a convenient, effective tool. But, I can assure you, that even when I am without a firearm, I still stand prepared to defend my family.
   
4. I, too would prefer to be able to carry without a permit. A Constitutional right to carry, if you will. I think there is a reason that our founding fathers placed the 2nd Amendment right behind the first. It's that important.
   
5. That said, we have to work within the system we have right now, and I think we can do that without necessarily "ceding" anything to the other side. We have process to change laws we don't agree with. Some would argue that the numbers of voting gun owners is reaching a critical mass. Look at the Firearms Freedoms Acts or the Healthcare Freedoms Acts that are making their way through legislatures and courts now. We're approaching enough dissent at the state level to reasonably call for a Constitutional Convention. Whether you think that's a good idea or not, we've got some formidable mass that we can fight some battles with.
   
6. I think the above scenario is unfortunately the only real way to proceed. This isn't going to be a Rosa Parks type issue. You strap on a gun without a permit in most states today, the public is going to brand you a criminal, thus ensuring that you lose the privileges that you can participate in today. We're not going to change the anti-gun crowd. The only end-game they're interested in is removing all guns. Since we have plenty of examples of how that's worked out in other countries (and some animous cities here in the U.S.), I don't know that it even matters what they think. We're not going to win them over to our side.
   
7. We need to participate lawfully within the system we have, show ourselves to be upstanding citizens, make a case for our beliefs, and work to change the laws we have for the better. And, the laws really are getting better. It's a long, slow slog we've got ahead of us, but we are making progress.
   

Well stated and I agree with you down the line.

[7dogguy]

That's really an anti-gun talking point. Think it through, eh? Anyone who would criminally use their gun against you/your wife would not be deterred by being refused a permit. Hell, it's only a misdemeanor to carry without one, doesn't hold a candle to the felonies they can commit with the gun. Plus, it's already a felony for a felon to have a gun, so the paltry possession penalty for non-felons doesn't even come into play.

If you're arguing that the HCP course makes a law abiding citizen a safer gun owner, I can only retort with this carefully considered and logical rebuttal: HA!

- OS

Well said and a specious line of thought if anyone thinks "checks" are effective in keeping bad guys from having or using guns. But law abiding people, like HCP holders, will obey the law and work for changes within the system.

I think the original post was just a pot stirrer (my humble opinion).

[JayC]

I assume he was figuring in cost of the certification class, though I've not heard of one costing over $100.

- OS

Cost of certification, and ammo required to complete the class... It might be a few dollars high.. lets say $200 even still an absurd amount of money that does very little to stop bad guys from carrying guns.

[RobertNashville]

Cost of certification, and ammo required to complete the class... It might be a few dollars high.. lets say $200 even still an absurd amount of money that does very little to stop bad guys from carrying guns.

It might well be that keeping bad guys from carrying guns might have been how they sold the HCP process to the anti-gun zealots in the legislature and anyone with an ounce of common sense and the ability to reason knows how absurd that concept actually is. However, I suspect that there was also some consideration given to trying to keep the truly gun-incompetent from carrying as well and the HCP process may (and I do stress the word may) have some impact on that.

I think the price of the process should come down (although nothing we can do about the cost of ammo of course) and I think the process can also be improved substantially.

[MacGyver]

Am I to interpret this as 'we should obey the law because it's the law'?

My comment here was intended as a pragmatic one. Certainly you can come at it from two other perspectives. Depending on your belief set, these may hold different weight.

First, many people, Christian and non-Christian alike quote Romans 13:1-7 when saying that Christians are to follow the law of the land. As follows

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment,<SUP> 1 </SUP> and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority<SUP> 2 </SUP> resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities<SUP> 3 </SUP> but also because of your conscience.<SUP> 4 </SUP> 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities<SUP> 5 </SUP> are God’s servants devoted to governing.<SUP> 6 </SUP> 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

This passage seems to tell the Christian that human governments are "appointed" by God and that they should obey those laws. Fine and good, but that's tough to level set with any number of dictatorial governments around the world, or even ours when a people is oppressed somehow. Does civil disobedience come into play at all for someone of Christian faith?

There are some notable examples of Christian civil disobedience, most notably Martin Luther King, Jr., who use Acts 5:27-29 as a basis for their civil disobedience. As quoted below:

5:27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the council,<SUP> 70 </SUP> and the high priest questioned<SUP> 71 </SUP> them, 5:28 saying, “We gave<SUP> 72 </SUP> you strict orders<SUP> 73 </SUP> not to teach in this name.<SUP> 74 </SUP> Look,<SUP> 75 </SUP> you have filled Jerusalem<SUP> 76 </SUP> with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood<SUP> 77 </SUP> on us!” 5:29 But Peter and the apostles replied,<SUP> 78 </SUP> “We must obey<SUP> 79 </SUP> God rather than people.<SUP> 80 </SUP> 5:30 The God of our forefathers<SUP> 81 </SUP> raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.<SUP> 82 </SUP> 5:31 God exalted him<SUP> 83 </SUP> to his right hand as Leader<SUP> 84 </SUP> and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.<SUP> 85 </SUP> 5:32 And we are witnesses of these events,<SUP> 86 </SUP> and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey<SUP> 87 </SUP> him.”

So, here Paul and John are clearly stating that when it comes down to it, they will obey the laws of God as opposed to the laws of men. There is a case then, for civil disobedience.

Clearly, both of these perspectives, both the "obey the law because it's the law", and the "civil disobedience can be warranted" viewpoints only hold weight if you are coming with a Christian background. Otherwise, I would argue that both of these are meaningless.

All of the above exegesis aside, my suggestion above that we participate lawfully in the system we currently have was based fully in the pragmatic idea that participating outside of the system, while maybe in line with the Constitution and what our founding fathers intended, has significant consequences both to the person practicing it and to the RKBA community as a whole if you are caught. While someone could probably take a test case through the court system, who wants to be the person with their very liberty at stake?

My suggestion was that we have a way to change laws we don't agree with, and that by operating as a united group, we can do it.

[Punisher84]

To respond to another point, I saw mention of someone having concern about their holster showing if they decided to carry sans permit. The short answer to that would be a gun large enough to need a holster is not a suitable arm for CCW; the old Savage automatics, the Remington 51 or the Colt 1903 in .32 or .380 are about the only automatics suitable for what I posit, and there are a trainload of small frame .32s and .38s that would answer remarkably well.

Do what now????

[JayC]

It might well be that keeping bad guys from carrying guns might have been how they sold the HCP process to the anti-gun zealots in the legislature and anyone with an ounce of common sense and the ability to reason knows how absurd that concept actually is. However, I suspect that there was also some consideration given to trying to keep the truly gun-incompetent from carrying as well and the HCP process may (and I do stress the word may) have some impact on that.

I think the price of the process should come down (although nothing we can do about the cost of ammo of course) and I think the process can also be improved substantially.

Again, show me examples of at least 1% of people who attend a HCP permit course who don't pass said course.

We're spending all this money, time, and effort into the permitting process when a simple NICS background check would accomplish 99+% of the current result.

We already have laws in place making the ownership illegal for criminals... why do we need a law to prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying a gun unless they're willing to dedicate 12 hours of their time, and $150-200 of their money to the process? Where 99+% of those who apply get the permit.

[RobertNashville]

Again, show me examples of at least 1% of people who attend a HCP permit course who don't pass said course.

I thought when I stressed the word MAY, that my intent was clear but apparently not.

I don't know how many fail or if even enough fail that it would amount to a whole percentage point...I do know that some do fail (one in my class did) and I think it's at least in the realm of possibility that some folks may go home at the lunch break and don't finish the course and/or "pass" the course but decide, because of the course, that maybe they really aren't ready/capable/shouldn't carry a firearm and don't actually follow through with getting their HCP.

We're spending all this money, time, and effort into the permitting process when a simple NICS background check would accomplish 99+% of the current result.

We already have laws in place making the ownership illegal for criminals... why do we need a law to prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying a gun unless they're willing to dedicate 12 hours of their time, and $150-200 of their money to the process? Where 99+% of those who apply get the permit.

Was my prior post really THAT unclear about what I think of the effectiveness of the background check process of the HCP or are you trying to argue for the sake of arguing???

EDIT: I'll tell you what IS worth the "absurd amount of money" you mention and that is me being able to legally carry in 30+ other states without landing my ass in jail...the little $200 or so cost for the HCP is peanuts compared to a retainer for an attorney (or worse which would be traveling and being unarmed because I can't legally carry in that state sans a TN HCP when my life might depend on it).

Edited February 3, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

...my suggestion above that we participate lawfully in the system we currently have was based fully in the pragmatic idea that participating outside of the system, while maybe in line with the Constitution and what our founding fathers intended, has significant consequences both to the person practicing it and to the RKBA community as a whole if you are caught. While someone could probably take a test case through the court system, who wants to be the person with their very liberty at stake?

My suggestion was that we have a way to change laws we don't agree with, and that by operating as a united group, we can do it.

That is one of the best reasoned comments I have read on this forum.

[Lumber_Jack]

To respond to another point, I saw mention of someone having concern about their holster showing if they decided to carry sans permit. The short answer to that would be a gun large enough to need a holster is not a suitable arm for CCW; the old Savage automatics, the Remington 51 or the Colt 1903 in .32 or .380 are about the only automatics suitable for what I posit, and there are a trainload of small frame .32s and .38s that would answer remarkably well.

Now thats just silly. I dont like carrying **** in my pockets let alone my life saving weapon. I believe you are in the minority on this point, among others

[Lumber_Jack]

Bottom line here is the consensus appears to be that laws should be obeyed just because they are the law, and that's OK. I don't happen to agree, but disagreement is what makes good horse races.

I follow the law because I dont want to pay the consequences. You can still follow the law and try to change it at the same time. However remember when we try to change laws it might not be for the better

[robbiev]

Well, it just seems to me that a CCW arm should be, well, concealed. A Colt 1903 in .32/.380, Remington Model 51 in .32/.380 or a "Lemon Squeezer" (S&W Safety Hammerless Revolver in either .32 S&W or .38 S&W) can easily be dropped in a pocket and concealed. I knew a fellow that carried a .38 Lemon Squeezer in a holster that resembled a wallet in his back pocket more to not scratch the piece up than anything. BUT we digress.

Well, it seems to me that concealed just simply means unable to be seen. Easily dropped in a pocket is NOT the only way to accomplish that.