Open Carry Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OldOgre wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OldOgre wrote:

While I do agree that cars kill way more people than guns, it is apples and oranges. You have to pass a test to show that you are minimally competent to get a drivers license and legally operate a vehicle on a roadway. There is no competency test to get a gun. And I sincerely apologize for implying that you are a dumbass while ago.

[/quote]

What is the difference between a right and a privilege? Tell me in your own words.

Should we have to pass a test in order to be able to worship as we please?

Should we have to pass a test in order to be able to write a letter petitioning the government?

Should we have to pass a test in order to publish a newspaper column? Or an internet blog? Or post on a muscle building website?

Should we have to pass a test in order to be able to have a jury trial?

Should we have to pass a test in order to be able to invoke our right to not self incriminate?

Answer these questions for me, kind sir.[/quote]

You are the one who started comparing cars and guns.

[/quote]

You are incorrect.

Tell me then.

Technically, you’re right. That was, or should’ve been, solved in 1789.

Yes. For instance, in my state it is entirely legal. Now a private business does have the right to ask you to leave if they wish.

With the numerous states that have allowed OC for quite some time you’d think you could cite some cases. Have at it.

Good question. I feel as a private property owner I should be able to restrict other’s rights on my property. Same goes for their First Amendment rights too. Don’t come on to my place thinking you can worship as you please. Or write letters to your congressman. Or publish a newspaper.

See, you have to learn to make distinctions. The Bill of Rights has to do with government infringement on inalienable rights.

I understand your concern about property rights. So even though I despise cigarette smoke I do not think the government has the right to enforce no-smoking bans on private property. But if the government CAN do that they CAN tell a private business to allow open carry.

Again, show me this “trouble” of which you speak in the yellow states on that map. If you can’t justify your words by pointing out all the “trouble” and “disasters” in these other states then you need to quit beating this drum.[/quote]

I don’t know anything about what goes on in the yellow States on your map. You seemed to know a lot about it so I asked you. I don’t know where your map came from or if the information depicted on it is even valid.

I do know that the Federal Courts take a rather dim view of State governments going too far in telling companies engaged in interstate commerce what they can and can’t do. The interstate commerce clause has resulted in most of our federal regulations. I don’t like the fact that my State may have possibly opened a door to allow the feds to step in and start dabbling in our gun laws even more than they already do. That is the disaster waiting to happen that I referred to. Again, I don’t know anything about Montana, NC, Virginia or any of the other places that you mentioned on your map. Perhaps that issue has been addressed.

I have been advised to avoid all contact with people associated with the Sovereign Citizens movement. Therefore I am ceasing further comment to your posts on this thread, lest you levy a fine upon me under maritime law or place a common law lien upon my home under notary seal with your name in all capital letters. This is a joke. You are obviously very passionate about this subject and are an educated man. I have grown to respect you immensely this day.

62

[quote]OldOgre wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles and in no way do I want the government to disarm us.
[/quote]

We are in agreement to this point, and either your second sentence is a lie(and you are an anti-gun guy), or the rest of your post makes no sense(since the rest of the post seems to be in support of disarming citizens).

I would think people have always been allowed to open carry on private property, and wouldn’t think a new law would supersede anyone’s property rights.

63

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.[/quote]

Known idiots were already walking around with guns. You can let it concern you if you wish, just know that they are walking around with them whether legal or not.

64

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]OldOgre wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles and in no way do I want the government to disarm us.
[/quote]

We are in agreement to this point, and either your second sentence is a lie(and you are an anti-gun guy), or the rest of your post makes no sense(since the rest of the post seems to be in support of disarming citizens).

I would think people have always been allowed to open carry on private property, and wouldn’t think a new law would supersede anyone’s property rights.[/quote]

No. Alabama has never had a law that says you cant OC. But they passed a law that says you can. We didn’t need it. And it lets you OC on OTHER peoples private property, including businesses. I don’t want to disarm anybody. I just think the new law is unnecessary and stupid and will lead to problems. The law we had was fine. That’s all.

65

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I am saying that MS just increases the potential. You already have NC, AZ, VA, ID and others. As the pool of open carriers increases so does the likelihood that something will happen. I do have a feeling that this will be one of those things where the idiots carry for a little while when its new then they will lose interest and stop and maybe the same thing has happened in other OC states. So maybe we will dodge that bullet (no pun intended). However, if other states have some of the same caliber of people running out to start toting their .357 wheel gun like a real cowboy, then they have just been lucky. Like I said before, I know some of these people and is the right situation occurs then the people around them are actually in danger. [/quote]

If you already have all these others and you’re getting no problems WHY do you think MS will all of a sudden swing the pendulum the other way? Is it something in the water?

In other words if there is no ebola virus epidemic in Nevada, Montana, Arizona, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, North Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, New Mexico and Kentucky, why might there be such a potential for one in Mississippi? I. Don’t. Get. It.[/quote]

I am saying that MS increases the possibility because the possibility of an incident as more people are involved and if given enough time, then even an unlikely possibility will likely occur. Its the chimps typing Shakespeare theory essentially.

But to be blunt, yes some of these people that I know, they are acquaintances of mine, probably increase the possibility for incident because they are totally incompetent.

66

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.[/quote]

Known idiots were already walking around with guns. You can let it concern you if you wish, just know that they are walking around with them whether legal or not. [/quote]

I know this, which is why I conceal carry and make dang sure that I am competent and efficient with my weapon. However, the people that aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with that right are going to screw it up for the rest of us when they kill someone for something they had no business drawing a gun over.

67

[quote]OldOgre wrote:
No. Alabama has never had a law that says you cant OC. But they passed a law that says you can. We didn’t need it. And it lets you OC on OTHER peoples private property, including businesses. I don’t want to disarm anybody. I just think the new law is unnecessary and stupid and will lead to problems. The law we had was fine. That’s all. [/quote]

Of all the oceans of completely ridiculous laws out there, one that clarifies what is legal and SHOULD help prevent people from being hassled by the police and other authorities is the one that concerns you?

If the law does not let a private property owner restrict who has access to his property, then I am in total disagreement with it. However, that does not appear to be the case unless I’m misunderstanding what little I have read about this law.

If you are arguing the new law is unnecessary, then how will it lead to problems? If Alabamians have always had the legal ability to do what is written in this new law, then it seems there’s no reason to expect any change with its passing.

68

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I know this, which is why I conceal carry and make dang sure that I am competent and efficient with my weapon. However, the people that aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with that right are going to screw it up for the rest of us when they kill someone for something they had no business drawing a gun over.[/quote]

Then your fight is with those who believe in collective rights instead of individual rights.

69

A fundamental question that nobody seems to want to answer or ask is, should a policeman have more rights than a private citizen, and if so, why? Not [i]do[i] they, should they.

Policemen open carry all the time, and I think that they are probably the only openly carrying demographic that regularly shoots and kills people who didn’t necessarily need killin’. So if we’re worried about death and mayhem resulting from a firearm carried visibly on the person, I don’t think it’s private citizens we should be worried about.

If cops can be trusted with firearms strapped to their hips or sling over their shoulders, then an adequately-trained citizen can too.

70

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A fundamental question that nobody seems to want to answer or ask is, should a policeman have more rights than a private citizen, and if so, why? Not [i]do[/they], should they.

Policemen open carry all the time. I think that they are probably the only openly carrying demographic that regularly shoots and kills people who didn’t necessarily need killin’.

If they can be trusted with firearms strapped to their hips or sling over their shoulders, an adequately-trained citizen can too. [/quote]

This x10,000,000. Police officers also train with firearms only about once or twice a year and are trusted to walk into chaotic situations while openly carrying, so surely a free person should be able to go through his or her day-to-day life while carrying a firearm.

72

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If they can be trusted with firearms strapped to their hips or sling over their shoulders, an adequately-trained citizen can too. [/quote]

I agree with this. But open carry requires no such training. Hell, adequate training and job application doesn’t even do that good of a job weeding out the idiot cops (see story) but we expect people without any training to perform better?

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_22544264/police-suspecting-christopher-dorners-arrival-shoot-3-innocent

76

I have said this before in these types of threads.

In Arkansas I have to pay $147.25 to the State Police for application and background check (non-refundable)

plus $80-$120 more for the training class.

So a total approaching $300 for a supposed right.

Where is the outrage from all the Dems? It sure is a fucking big deal to require an ID to vote. I constantly hear how it will affect poor people and will keep them from being able to exercise their right to vote. But nothing but silence on the ID for CCW.

77

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If they can be trusted with firearms strapped to their hips or sling over their shoulders, an adequately-trained citizen can too. [/quote]

I agree with this. But open carry requires no such training. Hell, adequate training and job application doesn’t even do that good of a job weeding out the idiot cops (see story) but we expect people without any training to perform better?

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_22544264/police-suspecting-christopher-dorners-arrival-shoot-3-innocent[/quote]

Then you’d have no problem requiring training before exercising your right to worship, speak critically of the government, publish a blog or column, request a jury trial, not self incriminate, demand no search and seizure without a warrant? Would you require training before all those rights could be exercised? If yes, then you are being consistent.[/quote]

Technically push my friend, while you know that I agree with you, what you posted above isn’t necessarily true regarding consistency. All of the rights you listed, even when abused, are not capable of killing another person. You cannot physically harm another person by publishing a blog or speakign critically of the government. You cannot harm another person by requesting trial by jury or warranted search. Etc., etc. Even if abused, the right to free speech only insults and degrades; it does not kill or maim. Neither does worshipping as you choose.

The basic difference between these other inalienable rights and the one under discussion is that none of the others can physically infringe on a person’s body, maim or kill them. This means that you can hold a different opinion, if able to support that opinion, and still be consistent.

78

[quote]dk44 wrote:
I have said this before in these types of threads.

In Arkansas I have to pay $147.25 to the State Police for application and background check (non-refundable)

plus $80-$120 more for the training class.

So a total approaching $300 for a supposed right.

Where is the outrage from all the Dems? It sure is a fucking big deal to require an ID to vote. I constantly hear how it will affect poor people and will keep them from being able to exercise their right to vote. But nothing but silence on the ID for CCW. [/quote]

Complete agreement here.

79

[quote]dk44 wrote:
I have said this before in these types of threads.

In Arkansas I have to pay $147.25 to the State Police for application and background check (non-refundable)

plus $80-$120 more for the training class.

So a total approaching $300 for a supposed right.

Where is the outrage from all the Dems? It sure is a fucking big deal to require an ID to vote. I constantly hear how it will affect poor people and will keep them from being able to exercise their right to vote. But nothing but silence on the ID for CCW. [/quote]

Of course because fighting for something that doesn’t garner them a large portion of votes is just out of the question! You only stand up for the inalienable rights that benefit you. It is the politician way!

80

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Technically push my friend, while you know that I agree with you, what you posted above isn’t necessarily true regarding consistency. All of the rights you listed, even when abused, are not capable of killing another person. You cannot physically harm another person by publishing a blog or speakign critically of the government. You cannot harm another person by requesting trial by jury or warranted search. Etc., etc. Even if abused, the right to free speech only insults and degrades; it does not kill or maim. Neither does worshipping as you choose.

The basic difference between these other inalienable rights and the one under discussion is that none of the others can physically infringe on a person’s body, maim or kill them. This means that you can hold a different opinion, if able to support that opinion, and still be consistent.
[/quote]

All the news stories about kids who have killed themselves due to online bullying must be made up then, right? People seem to be trying to make the case that abuse of free speech CAN physically harm someone. What if someone is able to destroy all evidence of a prior serial killing spree during the time spent obtaining a search warrant for his or her home? That maniac may then go free and continue killing. Giving up freedom for safety is a slippery, slippery slope, so it’s best to stay on the flat ground up top.

A firearm also can not physically infringe on a person’s body, maim, or kill them. When I walk into my bedroom and look at my firearms, they are just laying there totally defenseless. I may be wrong, but I have never heard of a firearm coming to life. The “right” to bear arms can’t physically infringe on person’s body, maim, or kill them. A firearm CAN be employed to do the above. The “right” to vote can be employed to rob, imprison, and kill people; it’s far more dangerous than any firearm could ever be.