Concealed carry question...

[Guest Red5]

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.

I'm still curious why you think this is the case. There are many here who conceal their firearm and holster quite well every day.

[Oh Shoot]

...The .38 Smith and Wesson cartridge was designed JUST for this; gentlemen that wanted to go heeled but discreetly. No need for a holster with something like that, you see.

Are you sure you're not 139, Plain Old Dave?

- OS

[vontar]

I like how we have the option to CC or OP. I also like how it is preferred to CC.

This pretty much means, if you can keep it out of sight. Out of sight, out of mind. No need to scare the anti gun people.

Since carrying a pistol by default is illegal if we OC and a LEO see's it, they have the right and good reason to ask to see our permit.

If we CC well, they will never see it, nor ask.

I carry in a way that could be argued that would be OC, but is more of a Cross between CC and OP. I carry OWB, but I use a long shirt to cover it. In general it is hid well.

I am still working on better clothing for better CC. Takes time to get everything up to par. Plus, I have not decided on an EDC yet.

I have been in line at fast food places with LEO's behind me in line like that and they have never said a word or acted like they notice. Had they seen it, I am pretty sure they would have ask for my permit.

[vontar]

However, the HCP is a defense against going armed.

[Oh Shoot]

However, the HCP is a defense against going armed.

Well, it's a defense against illegal carry or possession of a weapon, not against going armed. Difficult to ignore that you are indeed armed.

The statute name has not changed since HCP was enacted AFAIK. Charge is still referred to often as "intent to go armed", even though it should officially appear on written records as "illegal carrying or possession of a weapon" I think. Any of you LEOs or lawyers confirm that's what's on the written record?

- OS

Edited February 4, 2011 by OhShoot

[vontar]

I knew it was a defense. however I stand corrected.

[strickj]

Plain Old Dave will not be joining us any longer. There's no place here among the 'law abiding' for someone choosing to carry illegally.

[Oh Shoot]

Plain Old Dave will not be joining us any longer. There's no place here among the 'law abiding' for someone choosing to carry illegally.

He said "I have never felt the need to carry a loaded firearm anywhere".

?

- OS

[robin48]

Good job!

[Punisher84]

Plain Old Dave will not be joining us any longer. There's no place here among the 'law abiding' for someone choosing to carry illegally.

Good.

OS I think it can CLEARLY be inferred from his posts he advocates illegal carry.

[Oh Shoot]

Good.

OS I think it can CLEARLY be inferred from his posts he advocates illegal carry.

Well, okay ... I was seeing it all as more of an 2A constitutional debate, but ...

- OS

[Mike.357]

Edited February 5, 2011 by Mike.357

[enfield]

Isn't one person getting banned enough? You might want to edit your post.

[JayC]

Good.

OS I think it can CLEARLY be inferred from his posts he advocates illegal carry.

I know this won't be a popular point of view... but it seemed to me he was asking the question at what point does a 'law' which violates a basic inalienable right become null and void... which in my opinion is a very valid question...

I never felt he was advocating illegal carry, only stating that he felt no requirement to follow a law which he felt clearly violated his inalienable rights.

Punisher, at what point does a "valid" law become one you will not follow? One where you would advocate civil disobedience or out right rebellion? When they ban guns all handguns? All semi-auto rifles/shotguns? All guns? When they start herding x class of citizen into cattle cars?

Just remember the Holocaust was a legally enacted solution carried out under the color of law. So where is the line in the sand?

[Punisher84]

Punisher, at what point does a "valid" law become one you will not follow? One where you would advocate civil disobedience or out right rebellion? When they ban guns all handguns? All semi-auto rifles/shotguns? All guns? When they start herding x class of citizen into cattle cars?

Please spare me that Red Dawn "make a stand crap", Jay. I'm not going to come on an open forum and say what my "line in the sand" is.

If Plain Old Dave wants to carry his .32 or .380 in his trouser pocket as his way of civil disobedience, so be it. I'll continue to work to get the laws change. Not whine about it and advocate breaking the law on a public forum.

[JayC]

Please spare me that Red Dawn "make a stand crap", Jay. I'm not going to come on an open forum and say what my "line in the sand" is.

If Plain Old Dave wants to carry his .32 or .380 in his trouser pocket as his way of civil disobedience, so be it. I'll continue to work to get the laws change. Not whine about it and advocate breaking the law on a public forum.

Punisher, it was meant as a set of rhetorical questions, instead of trying to put you on the spot

[vontar]

[Guest Grudgie]

I would like to voice my opinion, but does anyone else besides me feel afraid to?

First the mods tell us this is the internet. We don't have 1A rights here.

And then they ban someone on the internet for saying they will violate laws of a country.

I smell a hint of irony.

[strickj]

I would like to voice my opinion, but does anyone else besides me feel afraid to?

First the mods tell us this is the internet. We don't have 1A rights here.

And then they ban someone on the internet for saying they will violate laws of a country.

I smell a hint of irony.

The only irony here is your misuse of the word "irony", Marine.

[Guest Grudgie]

Irony= Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.

The irony is that for such a right-wing, pro constitutional forum, it feels more like we aren't allowed to say anything the moderators don't agree with. Which is fine with me. But don't go preaching about how this is a lawful forum when it doesn't even abide by the mosic basic of our laws, the first amendment of the Constitution.

[DRM]

Irony= Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.

The irony is that for such a right-wing, pro constitutional forum, it feels more like we aren't allowed to say anything the moderators don't agree with. Which is fine with me. But don't go preaching about how this is a lawful forum when it doesn't even abide by the mosic basic of our laws, the first amendment of the Constitution.

I hear ya, man... but the discussion of clearly illegal activities puts the forum as a whole in jeopardy, and shines a pretty bad light on things. Were I the owner - it is one area I too would keep a tight lid on, so to speak.

It is one thing to discuss - in abstract - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of certain laws, it is another entirely to discuss active participation in illegal activities.

[Punisher84]

Irony= Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.

The irony is that for such a right-wing, pro constitutional forum, it feels more like we aren't allowed to say anything the moderators don't agree with. Which is fine with me. But don't go preaching about how this is a lawful forum when it doesn't even abide by the mosic basic of our laws, the first amendment of the Constitution.

Boy, you have got alot to learn. This isn't a public forum. This is David's little Internet house and he, and his representatives, decide what is to be said in the virtual living room.

I've been here a long time and I can't recall anyone being banned just for disagreeing with a mod. You seem to have faster fingers than you have the ability for thought, poolee.

[RobertNashville]

Irony= Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.

The irony is that for such a right-wing, pro constitutional forum, it feels more like we aren't allowed to say anything the moderators don't agree with. Which is fine with me. But don't go preaching about how this is a lawful forum when it doesn't even abide by the mosic basic of our laws, the first amendment of the Constitution.

Despite the fact that I see examples of it all the time, I'm always amazed that so many folks seem to think that the First Amendment right of "free speech" is a guarantee of a platform from which to speak (i.e. an internet forum that the person doesn't own).

One IS a right; the other is a privilege.

[strickj]

Irony= Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.

The irony is that for such a right-wing, pro constitutional forum, it feels more like we aren't allowed to say anything the moderators don't agree with. Which is fine with me. But don't go preaching about how this is a lawful forum when it doesn't even abide by the mosic basic of our laws, the first amendment of the Constitution.

Irony: A "Marine poolee" that doesn't understand the document that he will be fighting to protect.

The Constitution is a document that protects your rights from being taken from the government.

It is not a document giving you the right to say anything, anywhere, that you damn well please.

This forum is not run by the government. You can not say whatever you wish here. If someone wants to advocate breaking the laws, then they will be removed. Simple as that.

Now, that said, it seems that you are trying your best to bring negative attention to yourself here. Almost troll like. I would strongly suggest that you do what others told you in the 1911 thread and stfu about stuff you have no knowledge on.

[Guest Grudgie]

Like I said, it's fine with me how you run your own show. The internet is not the government. I'm just pointing out the irony that you violate 1 man's rights while claiming he is unlawful.

I really don't want to get banned so I'm trying to be sweet as possible. I love open discussion.

Please unban the original poster. If he was trolling or trying to cause strife, then he deserves to get banned. But he clearly has a moral code of values and he sticks to them. I think we need more members like this.