General Question

ETpro's avatar

Do the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution mean anything at all?

Asked by ETpro (34217 points ) April 30th, 2012

Since Tea Party Republicans swept into control of the New Hampshire legislature in 2010, they have pushed through a series of laws that might be labeled by mainstream Americans as extreme. Currently under consideration is a law allowing concealed carry with no license. State licenses would still be available for residents who wish to carry their pistol outside of New Hampshire in states that have reciprocal license agreements with New Hampshire. The bill will also allow those prohibited from carrying firearms, such as convicted felons, to possess firearms in their homes or places of business.

The second amendment reads, ”A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The words in bold are the first 13 words, the phrase that seems to be ignored in the GOP push for more guns everywhere. What do you think the highlighted words mean? Do they have no meaning at all?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

113 Answers

jerv's avatar

New Hampshire already had pretty lax gun laws anyways, so it really isn’t that big a leap. It sounds like something I would expect from the Live Free or Die state, Tea Party or not.

That said, there are other things they’ve done recently that makes me glad I moved three years ago…

incendiary_dan's avatar

Vermont already has a similar law in place. I concealed carry whenever I’m there.

The first part is a succinct way to point out that, were the need to arise for citizenry to organize to defend themselves or revolt, it would be requisite that they have sufficient access to weaponry to do so, from the micro scale to macro.

wundayatta's avatar

This clearly has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia. Not even a rabble militia. It’s just an excuse for people to have guns for whatever reason they feel like it.

I think the tea party folks believe it is their ultimate protection against an intrusive federal government. They see the say coming when another revolution is necessary. It is a symbol of freedom for them. It allows them to fight back against being told what to do.

Whatever.

The truth is that fewer people own guns than ever, as a percentage of the population. Those who own them, own more guns, however. So on a per capita basis, it looks like the US is gun crazy. In fact, a very small minority are gun crazy. Those facts and more can be found in this New Yorker article.

incendiary_dan's avatar

This clearly has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia.

It depends on what we mean by “militia”, and even “well regulated”. A militia was the dominant form of citizen defense the people writing this were familiar with. I don’t think it necessarily means a military or para-military unit. And as Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard has pointed out numerous times, “well regulated” was common parlance for “knew what the hell they were doing”, i.e. they practiced from time to time.

Coming from someone who doesn’t actually give a damn about the Constitution per se, other than as a means to protect rights I care about, and more from the anti-authoritarian and anarchist framework, the ability of the common people to defend themselves undermines the state’s claim and control of the right to a monopoly on violence, which is fundamentally what hierarchy, exploitation, an empire are based on: the threat or application of violence used to make or keep a population dependent and therefore controlling a work force. Purposefully disarming oneself and the population is a tacit approval of state-sanctioned violence and oppression.

wundayatta's avatar

@incendiary_dan Read the article I cited to gain some clarity on what is meant by “militia” and “well-regulated.” In those days, the arms were kept in armories, not in people’s houses. It was a completely different thing than people are talking about now. Today, people want firearms for personal protection and possibly for hunting. It has nothing to do with militia of any kind. That’s about as specious an argument as you can find.

The NRA may well train people to use guns safely and if people have to have guns, I certainly want them to be used safely as they can be (given that most handguns are designed to kill other people). But the NRA isn’t training people to be involved in a militia of any kind, well-regulated or completely anarchical.

missingbite's avatar

Sure, they mean that if I ever need to join a Militia, my guns will be of even more importance than they are today. Today they protect me from criminals, someday they may be needed to protect me from an oppressive government. Stranger things have happened.

ragingloli's avatar

Or the government will use you to oppress others. And you will revel in it.
Propaganda is thorough that way.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@wundayatta If you feel the need to tell me to read something, which I just did (thanks), you might want to clearly read what I wrote, and maybe the thing you recommended as well, since it did little to clarify what you seemed to think it did.

wundayatta's avatar

This “oppressive” government thing kills me. In this country, WE are the government. It’s all of us. Fight the government and you are declaring war on all your neighbors. That’s pretty sick. And it seems to me that’s what the Tea Party and the NRA stand for: let’s get ready to kill all our neighbors.

missingbite's avatar

@wundayatta The fact that you can’t see that “our” government could get out of hand kills me! Have you ever heard the phrase “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have” by Ford? Where do you think we are headed?

incendiary_dan's avatar

@wundayatta Oh, you’re out there making legislature and declaring war on countries? Say, I’ve got some permits I need rushed through.~

If you want to have a serious discussion on oppression and hierarchy, dispense with the fantasies of democracy and citizen-driven government. Unless you’re a corporation, then that might be true for you.

Ron_C's avatar

I think that this whole gun issue has gone way too far. Every time a state makes a law about guns, sales figures increase. They also increased when we elected a partially black president. The gun lobby is made up of unscrupulous arms dealers and paranoid rednecks. They need mental health treatment not firearms.

missingbite's avatar

@Ron_C Are you a race baiter? It couldn’t be that gun sales went up because the country elected a Liberal Democrat to office could it. It HAD to be because he is partially black. BTW, he is also partially WHITE! Your ignorance on some topics is amazing.

syz's avatar

I think it’s pretty clear that the founders wrote ” a well regulated militia” when this country was in the unique position of being a brand new nation. Constitutionalists will probably argue this issue forever. But I don’t see how anyone can claim that a random number of the public at large constitutes “well regulated”.

The gun lobby is ridiculous. If we as a nation have decided to allow personal gun ownership, how is regulating that ownership an infringement of “rights”? To drive a car you must attend training (driver’s ed), pass a test, and carry a license and insurance. How is it somehow an attack on freedom to require the same for a weapon?

I’m mildly interested in owning a gun. I have taken several gun safety classes, and am qualified for a concealed carry permit. But it’s not me I’m worried about – I want to know that all of the idiotic yahoos around me have also learned to handle a gun safely.

Ron_C's avatar

@missingbite wow, I’ve been called a lot of things but never a race baiter. It is funny whenever anyone mentions race and guns they are thoroughly attacked by organizations like the NRA I guess I’ll have to stand by for more.

I live in “gun country”. Almost everyone here has at least a hunting rifle and usually more. My comment was made from experience. The day Obama was elected ammunition sales sky-rocketed. I heard complaints that some of the large caliber were in short supply. I also heard many of my rifle toting friends say that they are stalking up because the “black guy” is going to try to take our weapons. That isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact.

missingbite's avatar

@Ron_C Well, I am from the south. Lived almost my entire life in the south. Still have all of my family in the south. You need to move. ALL of my family and friends that are armed purchased ammo because Obama is a Liberal Democrat. Not because he is a “black man.”

Elect Mayor Bloomberg to the White House and watch ammo sales. His color has nothing to do with the Fact that he is a Liberal anti gun Democrat.

I can assure you that if my “rifle toting friends” as you put it made a statement like that, they wouldn’t be my friends. You need new “friends.”

jerv's avatar

@wundayatta Just curious; have you ever lived someplace with wild animals? Any bears in your yard, or predators eating your livestock? How about hunting? This is NH we’re talking about.

Ron_C's avatar

@missingbite I would remind you that a Liberal Democrat is the same thing as a Black Democrat in the eyes of the southern and northern right.

I now live in rural Pennsylvania and gun policy and ownership is not substantially different than in the south. If the southerners do not refer to their opposition to a black president is is more likely that they have been taugtht to be more politically correct so they use code instead of saying it outright. I lived in Southern Virginia/Northern North Carolina for almost twenty years. The only thing different with prejudice is the accent.

missingbite's avatar

@Ron_C You are correct that we don’t see color as the issue. A Liberal Democrat is what we disagree with regardless of color. The Left bring up his race a lot more than the Right does.

The idea that the South, I’m from Louisiana, is more politically correct is laughable! Maybe in Virginia, but not the deep south for sure.

wundayatta's avatar

@jerv Hunting pieces are different. They are used to shoot animals of the non-human variety. At least, that’s what they are made for. They are not made for military purposes, although there is cross-over, of course. I don’t think the debate is about hunting arms. I don’t think many people want to stop hunting. I sure don’t.

@missingbite and @incendiary_dan Are you telling me you don’t elect your officials down there in the South? Are you telling me that your neighbors don’t serve you as elected officials? My goodness. I knew the South was going astray, but I had no idea you’d given up democracy so quickly. Somehow, I have a feeling you are being disingenuous.

The government is you and me and when you pretend it is otherwise, you help noone. Yes, corporations give lots of money, but corporations are made up of people, too. Indeed, most corporations seem to be on the side of Southerners, so I don’t know why you would be complaining. Corporations seem to hate the government as much as the Tea Party does.

No. It’s us Northerners you are out to get. We’re the ones who want to help people out. Help them get out of poverty. Help folks get access to health care. These are not things corporations want. These are things we have to fight the corporations and the conservatives to get. And of course, they would benefit you, too. Benefit your neighbors. A healthier population benefits us all.

But I’m not taking up arms to get the corporations out of government. That is not the way to do it. It will never work, anyway.

Bill1939's avatar

Would Libyans revolting against their government be considered a well regulated militia?

ragingloli's avatar

The lybian rebels only won because of air superiority granted to them by the UN.
Another reason why the “take up arms against the government” fantasy is a naive pipe dream.

missingbite's avatar

@wundayatta You are too funny! BTW after all the trillions we have spent trying to eradicate poverty, how is that working out for you?

Sure we elect people in the South. We even elect Federal positions. That doesn’t change the fact that a government can get out of control. That goes for either side.

Keep the laughs coming @wundayatta, your posts get better and better!

jerv's avatar

@wundayatta Not everybody carries their rifle (or wants to) when going for a walk in the woods. More often, I’ve seen hunters (and drivers!) kill a mortally wounded animal with a pistol. Pistols are as much “hunting equipment” as camo vests. Trust me, you don’t want to shoot at close range with a longarm. They also come in handy when a deer jumps out in front of your car and gets four broken legs and is twitching and suffering in the road.

bkcunningham's avatar

You know what is really crazy? I have friends who happen to be Black who have guns and are members of the NRA.

Ron_C's avatar

@bkcunningham “I have friends who happen to be Black who have guns and are members of the NRA.” I bet they’re really uncomfortable at the meetings!

bkcunningham's avatar

I seriously hope you are joking, @Ron_C.

missingbite's avatar

@bkcunningham He’s not. Sadly, he’s not. However, he is totally wrong and ignorant on the subject. Just as mayor Bloomberg and other anti gun ownership people tend to be.

bkcunningham's avatar

He has to be joking. Right, @Ron_C?

ragingloli's avatar

@missingbite
Oh the irony. It is so strong, you could forge a sword from it.

Ron_C's avatar

No I am not joking and I am not ignorant of the situation. I have been around guns and gun owners all of my adult life. I frankly don’t know any black people that belong to the NRA, several of my black aquaintences are hunters but they don’t feel the need to join a club for gun owners. The learned to shoot from their grandparents or in the military. Frankly, I wouldn’t be comfortable at an NRA meeting. I went to a Tea Party meeting once and that was pretty frightening.

missingbite's avatar

@Ron_C I bet you would feel right at home at an Occupy rally though right? I mean, at least at those compared to the Tea Party rallies you can see drug use, rape, and total disregard for public property.

Ron_C's avatar

@missingbite rape? Now you’re joking.

I will tell you what I saw at the Tea party, survivalists, conspiracy theorists, hard core libertarians that are against all government except the military, people hung up on Obama’s birth certificates, militant anti-abortionists, neo Nazis, and I am pretty sure that one of the guys was in the KKK. Then our Senator Pat Toomey told us how he was going to make sure that Obama only had one term and how the Republican party was going to pay off the debt by making sure that everyone, even the poor pay taxes. After those changes and the elimination of the EPA and the SEC the rich will create non-union jobs for us all. In other words total bullshit.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Ron_C, why did you go to a Tea Party meeting?

Ron_C's avatar

I was accidently invited by our Republican representative. It was supposed to be a Town Hall meeting but it was only advertized by word of mouth, evidently only to Republicans and Tea Party people. It is a good thing the State Police were there, it was really frightening. I didn’t know that there were so many people in my small community treading the deep water of insanity. I just wanted to ask the Senator a couple questions because he seemed reasonable in public. It turns out he talked around the subject and when I tried to get a straight answer, he cut me off.

bkcunningham's avatar

It was evidently only advertised to Republicans, Tea Party people and Pennsylvania State Police. I find it amazing you were able to discern survivalists, conspiracy theorists, hard core libertarians that are against all government except the military, people hung up on Obama’s birth certificate, militant anti-abortionists, neo-Nazis and KKK from a meeting you accidentally attended. You may want to contact the US Secret Service and report this event and the people you met there.

Ron_C's avatar

@bkcunningham their positions were evident from their questions. I have to give Toomey credit, he didn’t say WTF once. I couldn’t believe the stupidity coming from my fellow citizens. It was eye opening and frightening. Some of those guys are really far far to the right.

missingbite's avatar

@Ron_C Yes rape! I’m sure it’s not on the news you are watching but it was there. You are unbelievable in your beliefs.

Ron_C's avatar

Well believe it or not, those are my beliefs based on research and experience. I’ve been doing this stuff since Carter was president. I can’t think of any president that did as much for us without doing horrendous damage elsewhere.
I refused a position on Carter’s communication team,
John’s poliicies almost got me killed in Vietnam
Reagan was a frightening fake,
Bush Sr. lied to use repeatedly,
Carter was a good Republican not such a good Democrat but he balanced the budget
Bush Jr. what can I say about that creep.

In that company Obama looks pretty good.

jerv's avatar

@bkcunningham The Secret Service already knows, as does anyone who waAstches Fox News, or has even remotely followed politics in the last few years.

@missingbite Every group has a few criminals and deviants in it. As for total disregard, I suppose public property is more sacred than Democracy, First Amendment rights, or proper police procedure (including not aiming grenade launchers at peoples heads). :/

wundayatta's avatar

@missingbite So I see you are not a serious person. The world inside your head is not one I would ever want to live in. You are one scary dude. I think you should get a med check with your shrink. Your anxiety level is a little too high. But of course, you’ve never gotten meds since to do so would probably make it harder to get a gun permit. Or do you not need those where you live?

Can you imagine the ethnic cleansing that would go on if the South tried to secede again?

Ron_C's avatar

@missingbite I saw the news article. The offenders were not part of the movement, they’re just perverts. The occupy movement is not a police organization and they don’t have much control over the backrounds of the people that attend. If you want to look at rape and perversion you should look at what happened to underage pages in congress or what people like Larry Craig did.

Proportionally, there are a lot more perverts in the GOP side of the House than there are in the Occupy movement.

bkcunningham's avatar

Sort of like that meeting you attended maybe, @Ron_C. “The offenders were not part of the movement, they’re just perverts. The occupy movement is not a police organization and they don’t have much control over the backrounds of the people that attend.”

josie's avatar

It probably means about as much as the entire 10th ammendment does, which these days, is just about nothing. The right ignores one, the left the other. Since neither side in the Federal government chooses to protect and defend the words, why does any private citizen bother to debate it? If the people in Washington don’t care, it’s all over anyhow.

Ron_C's avatar

@bkcunningham I hope you are right but it seemed that the majority were way over the edge. Since it was a clandestine Republican operation you would have thought they could have been more selective. The party members were just as cringe making. They prefaced every statement thanking the senator for visiting us. It was pathetic. I prefaced my question with “I won’t thank you for being here, it’s your job”. I really hate the way people of both parties faun over their elected representatives.

bkcunningham's avatar

Perhaps they just had good manners, @Ron_C, and you were on the defensive looking for crazy crap that didn’t exist. I mean, seriously, I think it is nice to thank people who work for you. I mean, I get what how you felt about it being his job to hold town meetings and coming to you, but it just show respect to speak to someone who comes to your town and thank them for being there; even if you are paying them. I dunno. It just seems impossible to make any change when everyone is fighting each other and not at least talking and taking the time to understand where somebody, especially your neighbors are coming from and why they feel like they feel about important issues. Just makes me feel disappointed and sad.

majorrich's avatar

It is my understanding that civilians accounted for the bulk of the American forces during the Revolutionary War. Many used personally owned weaponry more advanced than the weapons issued to others. That would be rifled barrels as opposed to smooth bore. In those days there were no standing professional Armies and each state had their own militias. The state in which I reside, Ohio, still maintains a small cadre of a Militia. Of course mostly former servicemen and people wanting to be in the Boy Scouts but are too old. Also included in a lot of state and federal code are definitions of organized and disorganized militias. It seems whether you admit it or not, you are probably in a militia. In the event of an emergency, the State (I am unclear if this is State or Federal) can call up all males over the age of 17 and under 69 or so and use them in what is called the ‘total force’. I am also unclear as to the details of this. It would probably take a full scale invasion of Rabid Zombies before that would happen, but that contingent is addressed in writing somewhere. I suppose that would be the rationale for civilians to have de-tuned versions of military weaponry. My feeling is I could probably take out a zombie or two and probably train some people with no military experience at all to operate as a unit capable of carrying out assigned missions (that would be the point the militia becomes regulated) should the need become necessary. Extrapolation of that thought indicates, should the Federal regulated be ordered to break the Posse Comatatus law, we would join with the personel that refuse to follow that unlawful order and help defend against the people who follow the order to defend these United States against enemies Foreign and Domestic. I could probably be persuaded to be in favor of a short mandatory military service for all citizens just to fulfill those first 13 words for those who question the delineation point between the baby and the bath water where the 2nd amendment is concerned.

ETpro's avatar

@bkcunningham That’s kinda how I feel after asking this. I put it in the General Section hoping to avoid it spinning off into the debate above. Thanks to all who answered on topic, and in the words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

@majorrich Thanks for an on-topic response.

@jerv Thanks for opening on topic.

@incendiary_dan Thanks for your opposing on topic thoughts.

There are numerous letters, papers and such where the Founding Fathers discussed what they understood the wording of the 2nd Amendment to mean. I was hoping this question would lead to a discussion of that rather than a left/right slug-fest. Can we have a try at that?

woodcutter's avatar

Some of this would stop if folks would finally stop trying to attach anything remotely related to hunting or any other sporting purposes to the second amendment. One has jack to do with the other. Unless we are realizing that a weapon designed for self defense/ combat will also kill game. That’s about as germane as it can be, period. We all have that right, to self defense. It has been there before there was paper to scratch a written law on. We don’t need a law to tell us we should do something to protect ourselves or those who mean something to us. And we shouldn’t need to be cornered within our homes to have that right.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter I totally agree with that, but the law under discussion is to allow concealed carry without a license. It seems to me this is a panacea for criminals. They can buy pistols on the black market, user them in crimes, and the rounds fired and shell casings are totally untraceable. If they are stopped on the street or in traffic, carrying the weapon never even gets them checked. It seems as senseless to me as legalizing driving without any driver’s license or even license plate on the car. So somebody gets run over. Their fault for playing dumb. If my logic is trampling on some inalienable right that I don’t see, I’d appreciate someone enlightening me.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro The main problem I see with licensing concealed carry holders is that your name is in a data base somewhere.

The intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow for the citizens to check the government by force if necessary when they overstep their authority.

If the government that is overstepping its authority has a list of gun owners, who do you think they will target first if it comes to an armed confrontation?

woodcutter's avatar

Ok lets look at these one at a time: Concealed carry(permit less.) The state next door has had that for a long time. Unless I’ve missed anything they seem to not have many murders there, in Vermont.

I don’t want to alarm anyone here but historically these criminals have always had access to any kind of firearm they desired. There hasn’t been any law that can stop that. Its going to happen regardless.

Ok we have to debunk the theory of safe guns. Even when working as they were designed, they are dangerous if not used responsibly. Wherever they are purchased and whomever purchases them is not going to change that. A registered gun is no different or less dangerous than a black market piece. They are the same. One is just a bit hotter than the other. Guns are dumb and the ammunition is dumb too. They don’t care who’s hand is holding them so….the idea that a registered piece is less apt to be dangerous is silly. The bad guy’s never register theirs anyway and they never will.

If they are stopped on the street or in traffic carrying the weapon never gets them checked
Really? Why not? If these people have a criminal record and have been detained because they were acting suspiciously you bet they are going to be checked. If they are a non felon then they have not been in trouble yet to make it necessary. Unless you would like to see society use pre -cogs like in the movie “Minority Report” then we all are innocent until proven guilty.

Having a DL means a person has taken a test and has an understanding of the rules of the road to safely operate a motor vehicle.A DL does not make anyone smarter or careful or even honest. Driving on a public motorway is not a right. It’s a privilege. A car is something that gets utilized every single day for most of us. And there are thousands of car wrecks and deaths by legal drivers every year, way more than gun deaths. What some would like to do is to also make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right. If we the people need to ask permission to gain access to a right, then it really isn’t a right at all. It then becomes a privilege

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat With the number of people owning firearms in America, I think our government would think long and hard before trying to pull the same stuff that Assad is up to in Syria. The US should have learned in Vietnam and then in Afghanistan how intractable a determined, armed insurgency is to put down. In the end, tanks and air superiority can be defeated by insurgency tactics.

@woodcutter Of course criminals can and do illegally obtain guns. But without a permit, when they are caught with one, they can be imprisoned. Make it legal to carry sans permit, and anyone without a prior felony conviction can carry a concealed weapon. The police are powerless to even check whether it was obtained legally or not. There have been enough spectacular murders just recently in New Hampshire to convince me it is not Vermont.

woodcutter's avatar

@WestRiverrat Well lets forget about a renegade govt confiscating firearms and just consider something like a major disaster and a decision is made from the authorities to confiscate them for the greater public safety, like what was the practice down in the gulf states after those storms a few years ago. That would be bad enough. If they had a complete list to go from it would be easy enough to go door to door and scoop them up leaving them defenseless to the looters. All list are bad. I wish more people would understand this.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro I think I’m missing something there. If they have a legal right to carry then what’s the big deal? If they have a clean record they would probably get one anyway. What permit less carry does is gets the govt out of our pockets. They don’t get a cut in this. If they have no criminal record then it can be assumed they have it legally. Murders happen Shit. we shouldn’t let the perfect ruin the good. If someone with ill will is bound and determined to do wrong they will. Places with overkill gun regulations have the most murders there. I’m just dying to hear the reason for this.

jerv's avatar

One thing to note here is that there are some years where NH has a lower rate of firearm-related violent crime than some places where firearms are heavily restricted or banned, like Japan or the UK.

Now, the proposed amendment that allows people that are otherwise ineligible to possess guns in the first place, that is a little far; while I am all for the right to bear arms, I also feel that that right should be reserved for law-abiding citizens. True, there are some good, relatively innocent people who managed to wind up with a felony record, but I think that they are the exception rather than the rule. We’ll see how the Feds take that one though; I don’t think the Tenth Amendment is strong enough for that to stand up in court… unless it was done with the intent to make the law invalid.

As for, “The US should have learned… how intractable a determined, armed insurgency is to put down?”, I notice that Iraq ran into the same problems that Vietnam did; problems I saw coming in ‘90–91 when we went there the first time. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and America never learns.

majorrich's avatar

How is it I got the idea that the law in question simply made all the concealed carry laws reciprocal? That is, law abiding citizens who went to the trouble to have their backgrounds checked and demonstrated on the range their ability and legal standing to carry a self defensive weapon cold do so all over the states that had some kind of concealed-carry permit.

bkcunningham's avatar

I was just curious what the current requirements are to obtain a concealed carry permit in New Hampshire. The proposals really don’t seem to change the current law that much. I looked up the bill to change the current law and the current law.To obtain a concealed carry permit in New Hampshire:

Requirements:
1. Be a suitable person to be licensed and has good reason to fear an injury to his person or property or has any other “proper purpose.” Hunting, target shooting or self-defense shall be considered proper purposes.

Automobile carry:
License to carry is required to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in a motor vehicle. Without a permit, handguns must be unloaded and may be carried openly or contained in gun case in the passenger compartment; rifles and shotguns must be unloaded while in a vehicle.

http://www.usacarry.com/new_hampshire_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

The proposed change in the law: I. Increases the length of time for which a license to carry a pistol or revolver is valid, and reduces the fee for nonresidents wishing to obtain a license to carry.

II. Provides that the license to carry a pistol or revolver shall be optional and that the availability of such license shall not prohibit the unlicensed transport or carrying of a firearm in a vehicle or on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, by a resident, nonresident, or alien, provided such person is not otherwise prohibited by statute from possessing a firearm in this state.

III. Requires the director of the division of state police to negotiate and enter into agreements with other jurisdictions to recognize in those jurisdictions the validity of the license to carry issued in this state.

IV. Clarifies to whom a pistol or revolver may be sold.

V. Allows a person who has obtained a license to hunt with a bow and arrow to carry a firearm if he or she is otherwise qualified under the license to carry statute.

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/hb0536.html

jerv's avatar

Like I said, not a big leap.

woodcutter's avatar

I hope we get a law like that in my state. I keep a small pistol in my truck and am taking a big gamble I don’t get in trouble for it, much less have to use it for defense. Would such a law make me less of a criminal?

bkcunningham's avatar

Is it illegal in your area to carry an unloaded firearm in your vehicle, @woodcutter? I don’t understand what you are asking when you say would such a law, meaning not requiring permits, make you less of a criminal? Are you a criminal now?

woodcutter's avatar

Am I a criminal now? Theoretically yes because of a law. but not because I’m doing anything. We can carry unloaded firearms in a case in plain view in the vehicle. Fat lot of good that is. I’m not about to leave a gun out in plain view in a vehicle. I keep a full magazine in with me so technically it’s not loaded. About a 70 dollar fine if discovered loaded. So. If concealed carry is adopted here it really won’t change much for my situation except I won’t be a ruthless outlaw any more. Which will help me sleep much better at night~

jerv's avatar

@woodcutter My experience is that Concealed Carry of a properly licensed firearm in NH is enforced about as widely as marijuana laws here in WA where medical marijuana is legal… which puts it a small step above jaywalking.

Of course, unlicensed firearms are a different story…

WestRiverrat's avatar

It is my understanding of NH law that it is legal to openly carry a firearm unless you are prohibited by law from doing so. You do not have to be licensed, nor does the firearm in question.

The only difference the concealed carry makes vs open carry is the nervous nelly antigun people are less scared to be around someone who is armed. If they don’t see a gun, they don’t get all hysterical.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter I take your point very seriously. The lawless period after a major disaster is the last time I’d want my firearms confiscated. To me, the ides of doing that is as ridiculous as confiscating driver’s licenses at a time when everyone needs to evacuate. Yes, it would eliminate traffic and accidents that might result, but the cure is worse than the malady. I’d suggest that the legislature deal with the direct threat though. Just pass a law telling local officials they can’t decide to confiscate everyone’s arms. In the absence of that, it there are no lists and they decide to confiscate weapons, they just kick everyone’s door down.

Regarding permit-less carry, the issue is that then nobody checks who can and can’t legally carry. You don’t do that for the same reason you don’t allow permit-less driving. Through the driving permit process, we at least verify that a person knows the rules of the road, can operate a motor vehicle, doesn’t have a string of DUI or vehicular homicide convictions that preclude their driving, and does have the required liability insurance. That does not mean that a criminal with 10 DUIs can’t get behind the wheel. But it does mean that if they are stopped by police even if sober, they will get nailed for their crime of operating without a license. Same goes for concealed carry licenses. Hand guns are every bit as deadly as automobiles, so it seems reasonable to me that going out in public with one be governed in a similar fashion.

@jerv Do you have a link to that murder rate comparison? I’d like to take those statistics into consideration.

There have been a whole string of gun violence events in New Hampshire that were spectacular enough to make the 6 O’Clock news here in Boston. Particularly noteworthy was the murder of Police Chief Michael Maloney just 8 days before he was scheduled to retire. Four other officers were seriously wounded in the drug raid. The shooter and his lady were found dead inside the house. It was unclear whether it was murder/suicide or a double suicide.

@majorrich I don’t know how you came to that understanding, but let it stand corrected.

@bkcunningham Again, my concern with unlicensed carry is the same as it would be with unlicensed driving. There is NO check and no enforcement till AFTER something goes terribly wrong. It seems to me to be a singularly bad idea.

@jerv As BK’s review of current law shows, that’s true.

@woodcutter It sounds like to me you’re in compliance with your state’s laws now. Where’s the problem. Please don’t answer though if it’s something you might get into trouble about. The Internet is an incredibly poor hiding place for secrets.

@WestRiverrat I’d much rather know somebody is packing heat thant get into an altercation with them and find out the hard way.

bkcunningham's avatar

@ETpro, your comparison of licensing drivers made me think of something. Try to follow my way of thinking, please. I’m not arguing for or against licensure of people to carry concealed; just discussing the issue.

If I have a concealed handgun, how would anyone know that? What would be the reason that a law enforcement official would ask to see my permit if the object of my license is concealed? I understand the point of pre-screening, but how does anyone know who is or isn’t carrying a “concealed” weapon after the fact?

Think about your statement, “That does not mean that a criminal with 10 DUIs can’t get behind the wheel. But it does mean that if they are stopped by police even if sober, they will get nailed for their crime of operating without a license.”

There is more wrong with this situation than driving without a license. lol If you have 10 DUIs and are still able to get into a vehicle and drive, the same logic would go for someone who is prohibited from legally carrying a concealed weapon. Right? Except, in my mind, how would anyone know the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

missingbite's avatar

@ETpro Since you brought up the license and driving I have to wonder how you feel about my new state of AZ and the illegal immigrant law? Why should I have to prove that I am lawfully caring a firearm but police can’t ask someone to prove they are in the states legally?

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro I don’t see how any permit or lack of permit would have changed the outcome for Chief Maloney. The criminals in question were prohibited from owning guns already, how would law abiding citizens not needing a permit have changed the outcome?

monorob's avatar

Multiculturalism is the issue, not gun laws. I’ll give you 1 example and you can look up the rest. I’ll compare Vermont & Arizona since both of these states have no gun laws. As of 2010, firearm homicides in Vermont was a staggering 1 death. In Arizona, firearm homicides was 152 deaths.

Now look at the demographics. As of 2010, Vermont has a 94.3% white (non-Hispanic) population. Arizona has a 57.8% white (non-Hispanic) population. Hispanic or Latino are 29.6% of the population.

You said you lived in Massachusetts? Well as of 2010, Massachusetts had 52 firearm homicides while New Hampshire had 2. Massachusetts has a 76.1% white (non-Hispanic) population and a 16.2% black and Hispanic population. New Hampshire has a 92.3% white (non-Hispanic) population.

For greater detail, you can look at the demographics of specific cities. Cities with more racial mixture have higher firearm homicides. For example, you can look at Tuscon, Arizona which is more diverse and has more homicides than a city like phoenix which is less diverse.

As of 2010, Washington D.C had 73 firearm homicides, while Maine had 4. Demographics of Washington D.C has a 34.8% white (non-Hispanic) population, a 50.7% black population, and a 9.1% Hispanic or Latino population. Maine has a 94.4% white population.

monorob's avatar

Robert D. Putnam did a 10 year study on diversity and concluded that the more diverse an area is the less people trust each other.

In addition, lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

_“Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one’s own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”._

missingbite's avatar

@monorob I have a strange feeling you won’t get along with most people on fluther but welcome!

monorob's avatar

I wrote something inappropriate?

By the way, those stats were only for handguns. Total deaths are much more if you include rifles, shotguns, & unknown type firearms. FBI – 2010 Firearm Homocides By State

Above I wrote Washington D.C had 73 deaths, it’s actually 99 total deaths by firearm.
Arizona is 232 deaths by firearm, not 152 and Massachusetts is 118 deaths, not 52.

The demographics by state can be found at the U.S Census Bureau

missingbite's avatar

@monorob Nothing inappropriate, just facts that don’t lean left politically.

Uberwench's avatar

@monorob Those are interesting statistics. I’ll spare you the “correlation doesn’t imply causation” routine, but I will say that I think it would be helpful to see the statistics corrected for population and population density. There could be a confounding factor making diversity seem more important than it really is (not the least because racial diversity does not necessarily correspond to cultural diversity, and your point is framed in terms of the latter while giving statistics concerned with the former).

@missingbite People get along with others on Fluther due to their behavior, not their beliefs. Not all right-leaning people are rude and unable to take criticism, so I see no reason why @monorob shouldn’t be able to get along with us all (if he is actually right-leaning in the first place).

I also don’t see how any of the facts @monorob mentioned are right-leaning (or non left-leaning). Facts just are. They don’t lean in any direction. The Putnam study just tells me that there’s a long way to go when it comes to integrating diverse populations. Hell, if someone wanted to spin the numbers way off to the left, they could argue that the statistics show that we should have stricter gun laws because we want an integrated society and therefore need to keep it from destroying itself before it’s done coalescing. I wouldn’t say that because I’m all for private gun ownership. The point is just that the numbers themselves don’t lean in any direction.

woodcutter's avatar

@WestRiverrat Thank you that was what I have been trying to communicate right there. Just couldn’t seem to break through. If someone with a clean record passes NICS it will be the best thing we can use to make a safe estimation that the buyer is good to go. If a person knowingly sidesteps an FLL because they know their app will be flagged and buys from the black market then there is no way to change that outcome. The only downside to permitless carry is if the person has no common sense or any gun sense and gets into trouble that way. I ‘m a member of a practical shooters club and I have the drill down. Some of these carry instructors have a good thing going now and is often the big bottleneck to honest people getting their permit because it can be expensive to take their classes, as well as the money the state wants to file. Stuff like this shouldn’t cost so much. Anyway in NH that permitless carry is only good within that state. If a resident wants to carry elsewhere they will need to get the regular carry permit to get the reciprocity.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Since the weapon is unloaded it is good to go. Loaded weapons are really frowned upon. As long as a small piece of the pistol case is somewhat visible I have met that criteria. However the ammo is suposed to be in another part of the vehicle that makes it necessary to go through some effort to retrieve it. That’s where we all run afoul. Most cops around here tend to not be anal about it if you are good to go otherwise. The only way it might get dicey if there is an accident or some other reason that I would even need a cop near me. Hey It’s woked for about the last 6 plus years without incident. I do plan on going through with the real permit one of these days when I get the time. Not planning on waiting for permit less carry to come true here although I may since the make up of our legislators changed last election. Not planning to even need that piece either but who does?

jerv's avatar

@ETpro I am well aware. One of them wasn’t terribly far from where my folks live. Most of my friends back there are like, “What the fuck?!”, since violent crime in and of itself is uncommon there outside of the tri-city area in the Southeast corner of the state.

ETpro's avatar

@jerv I am pro 2nd Amendment, but what’s it going to take to introduce some sanity? A gunkight at the OK Coral where hundreds of people die in the crossfire?

Brian1946's avatar

If the proposed bill in NH would allow for the unlicensed carrying of a gun, in that case how would the authorities or anyone that sees someone else packing heat, know that the person carrying wasn’t a convicted felon?

jerv's avatar

@ETpro If that link I just posted is any clue, I think it will take the international community declaring the GOP a terrorist organization and going after them the way we did Al Qaeda. Kind of unfair to the decent Republicans out there, but look how many innocent Muslims did in our little quest to end terrorism. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Sorry for the lateness of my jumping back in. I’ve been rather busy teaching and sleeping in a cabin without electricity.

@wundayatta If you genuinely believe that electing a stooge every couple of years constitutes democracy, your conception of civics is way off. Even if I couldn’t point to myriad laws that now make voting a farce (Citizens United, NDAA 2012, etc.), this doesn not equal the people being the government. Unless you live in another country than I do, you’re either disingenuous or not in touch with reality (and I can only think of one country that comes close to direct democracy).

As for the larger conversation:

@ETpro I know I’ve asked you this before, but do you really think laws against violence stop them? They don’t, and laws against guns do the opposite. The vast majority of people who are convicted of violent crimes say their primary concern is an armed victim, and that they were emboldened by stronger gun laws. 550 rapes are prevented each day by a woman pulling a firearm on her attacker. Oppressed minority groups, like these fine people have accurately identified an empowering way for them to fight oppression.

Sanity? Sanity is not putting up obstructions that keep only oppressed and working class people from being as well armed as the dominant majority. Sanity is realizing that violence is not caused by access to a small machine, but culture, economy, and ecology. The OK Corral had little to do with lax laws, and everything to do with the fact that the “Wild West” was the periphery of a dominating, hate-filled empire set on expansion, the place that the violence of the center of empire is exported to to keep the whole death machine going.

Edit now that I’ve done slightly more than skimming: In terms of rapes and sexual assaults in various Occupy camps, it shouldn’t be denied, but several of them had enacted harsh ways to deal with rapists. These, I feel the need point out, were often the Occupy groups populated more by radicals anarchists and feminists rather than those dominated by mainstream liberals. The mainstream left always seems to have a problem dealing with male privilege in their own midst.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@Brian1946 Anyone in NH can carry a gun now without a license if they carry it openly. The only thing the new law would do is allow people to carry that gun out of sight, in which case you would not know they are carrying anyway.

This law is actually more likely reduce the number of guns people are likely to see on the streets.

bkcunningham's avatar

That is my point too, @WestRiverrat. How do you know someone is carrying concealed to check for their permit in the first place?

missingbite's avatar

@bkcunningham Since it is legal to carry open in NH right now only the criminals are carrying concealed. No one is stopped and asked for paperwork if they are open carrying because they aren’t breaking the law.

bkcunningham's avatar

I thought you had to have a license to conceal carry or open loaded carry in a vehicle in New Hampshire. Regardless, if it is a state that requires a license to conceal carry, how is someone going to know you are carrying a concealed weapon?

missingbite's avatar

@bkcunningham The way I read the law is that open in public you can open carry loaded and it is legal. In a car it must be unloaded. (doesn’t make sense but…)

You wouldn’t know if someone was carrying concealed. However, who are you worried about, someone who is legally carrying concealed with a permit or a criminal that won’t have a permit but will be carrying anyway. After all, they intend to commit crimes so carrying a firearm is no stretch for them.

The permit only makes it more difficult for someone that was obeying laws that are already on the books. More laws are not the answer.

WestRiverrat's avatar

You can open carry in NH walking on the street, once you get out of your vehicle you can lock and load and strap it to your hip if you want to. The gun must be unloaded in a vehicle whether concealed or not if you are not a concealed carry permit holder.

FAQ on NH gun laws.

bkcunningham's avatar

Maybe the unloaded in a vehicle is meant to give a little feeling of security to a law enforcement official walking up to the window of a vehicle. I wouldn’t be worried about either person, @missingbite. I get your point though. It is like the saying, “Locks are for honest people.”

WestRiverrat's avatar

All my Law enforcment friends say they treat each stop like the person they stopped is armed and doesn’t like cops.

Rock2's avatar

The second amendment is why we have the first amendment.

ETpro's avatar

@incendiary_dan Do I think laws against violence stops violence? I would have to be obstinately oblivious to the obvious to think that. What laws do is allow us to stop those who break them. Laws aren’t needed to stop rational thinkers. Rational thinkers realize that the Golden Rule is actually a natural law called the Law of Reciprocity. What goes around comes around. Irrational people sometimes have to be restrained to limit the harm their irrational behavior wreaks on the rest of us. That is what laws permit us to do.

@missingbite “The permit only makes it more difficult for someone that was obeying laws that are already on the books.” I don’t agree. If a police officer stops someone for ANY reason and finds they are carrying a weapon without a permit, that’s immediate reason to arrest them so long as concealed carry requires a permit. If it doesn’t reguire a premit, then when an officer stops someone and finds they have a concealed firearm, a complete background check would be required before arresting the criminal. Realistically, that won’t happen. THe officer doesn’t have time for it. So permit-less carry means criminals who should not be able to possess a firearm can do so with no fear of detection.

@bkcunningham Further to my comment to @missingbite, that’s more flawed thinking. Locks are not for honest people. Honest people don’t need a lock to keep them out. Do you go down the street trying every door to see which you can walk into and loot if you are honest? Locks are to make it easier to apprehend criminals when they attempt to loot someone else’s property.

bkcunningham's avatar

The point of the saying, @ETpro, is that a locked door would stop an honest person entering, but have no effect on someone who doesn’t respect the locked door.

In your explanation to @missingbite about the police officer stopping someone for ANY reason…here is the perfect place to try and make the point I can’t get over. If someone is stopped by a police officer for ANY reason and they have a concealed weapon, the police officer will never know that fact unless they have probable cause to search the vehicle/person (if they aren’t in a vehicle) or the person carrying is honest and tells the officer.

The officer can’t search without a warrant unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

When you are pulled over or stopped and the officer asks for your license, registration or ID, if you are driving a vehicle the officer’s already run a check on your license plates to see what type of vehicle the plates are registered to and who is the owner of the vehicle. Then, when he looks at your license, it should match up or you need an explanation why you are driving someone else’s vehicle.

When you give over your license or ID, the officer runs a “criminal background” check in a matter of minutes through their local, state and national crime information check systems. I don’t believe that the crime information systems keep records of who has a concealed permit.

If everything checks out in the police stop, you and your concealed weapon will drive or walk away with the officer never knowing you had a weapon. If something doesn’t check out, say you have an outstanding warrant or the officer smelled alcohol, that is reason to search the vehicle.

Laws that require permits to conceal carry or allow concealed carry without permits make no difference in the real world scenerio of getting pulled over by the police. Help me out here guys. What is wrong with this logic?

ragingloli's avatar

“The point of the saying, @ETpro, is that a locked door would stop an honest person entering, but have no effect on someone who doesn’t respect the locked door.”
It would stop someone who does not respect the locked door, but does not have the means or knowledge to overcome it.

missingbite's avatar

@ETpro I have to ask again, what is the difference between your example and AZ wanting someone pulled over for ANY reason to prove they are a legal citizen?

Hypothetically, if I have a weapon without a CC permit and get pulled over, I simply pull the gun out and place it on the seat before the officer walks up. Now it’s not concealed and I am legally transporting a firearm. Cop leaves, gun gets concealed again. The permit simply made an honest person go out and obtain a permit. The crook doesn’t.

Almost all if not all states allow transportation of unloaded firearms. Otherwise you couldn’t purchase one and get it home or to the gun range.

Crooks will always find a way to circumvent the law while law abiding citizens have to go out of their way to follow the laws.

As a side note, I’m not against CC permit laws per se. I have one and have never needed to offer it to anyone. Nor have I ever had to use my handgun. (except for rattlesnakes)

jerv's avatar

@bkcunningham One little error there; the police can search without probable cause if you live within 100 miles of the US border… which about ⅔ of Americans do. You forgot that 9/11 caused us to negate the Fourth Amendment, or at least weaken it to the point of irrelevance.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv Great point.

bkcunningham's avatar

Don’t even get me started, @jerv.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETproWhat laws do is allow us to stop those who break them”. Really? Exactly how does that work? What is the mechanism of compliance for these? Fear? All a law is…is an idea, a regulation, a rule, effective only if they are taken seriously. All gun laws, designed to stop crime are not expected to really do that. Even among the authors of such laws. It is the intention of the authors of such laws to con their constituency into believing they have a handle on the situation. And what better way to expect more votes next time is to have the voters believe the candidate has a handle on the situation. A law that penalizes otherwise honest people for the greater good is not helpful at all. It is a form of tyranny masquerading as something honest.

ETpro's avatar

@bkcunningham I understand the meaning of the saying. You and @missingbite seem determined to debate with what you think I must believe based on what you mistakenly think I am, liberal on every issue. I don’t fit convenient labels. If we are going to discuss this in a meaningful way, you’re going to have to confine yourselves to what I’ve actually asid, not what you think I meant. To quote the old say, “I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

You can’t get the point over about the “stop for any reason” because it isn’t true. There is NO need for a search warrant for an officer to pat someone down when they stop them for any valid reason. There never has been such a requirement in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Searching their car or house is an altogether different matter.

The Obama Administration is suing Arizona over their Papers Please law. I am not the Obama Administration. I can see some problems with the law as it’s written, but I’m generally supportive of state’s rights to enforce Federal laws. I just want to see Arizona’s law written in such a way that:
A—It doesn’t lead to racial profiling.
B—We don’t all have to carry passports or the original copy of our long-form birth certificate to prove we are here legally.

@ragingloli Locks let us see and hear the commotion when someone tries to defeat them. They aren’t needed to keep honest people out, and they also make it FAR easier for police or neighbors to spot when a crook is trying to get into space where s/he doesn’t belong.

@jerv Good point. Thanks.

@woodcutter Come on, man. Police can legally arrest someone when they catch them breaking the law. I sure hope you don’t want to live in a police state where you and everyone else can be arrested for no particular reason at all. This really isn’t rocket science.

jerv's avatar

@ETpro That last comment reminds me of a joke about Massachusetts; Everything is illegal, all that matters is whether they feel like arresting you for it. It’s a dig on some of the often antique laws there, like the one that prohibits, ”...any garment that leaves the arm bare”. I don’t know if that one is still on the books, but my point is that the law is such that they can find a valid reason to arrest you if they want to; some jurisdictions merely require more creativity on the part of the arresting officer.

Scary, eh?

majorrich's avatar

I believe anybody can make a citizens arrest in the event of a felony to detain a person until police arrive. Of course the arrester had better have their dots and crosses before making a citizens arrest to prevent legal and civil difficulties.
In a way, I can kinda sorta see how the NH laws could be relevant to the first part of the 2nd amendment in that adults who would be qualified for the unorganized militia are not being infringed on to have and bear arms. Even though I am very pro 2nd, I still think some sort of training should be a pre-requisite. A firearm handled responsibly is the aim here that would mean the firearm stays safely in it’s holster unless specific conditions are met. A firearm handled irresponsibly is my cause for concern, although I suspect if a citizen is arrested for irresponsible use of their right to carry a concealed firearm, that right/privilege will be revoked.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro You are so right…about this not being rocket science. We seem to be in agreement here but neither of us wants to admit that. A person is a criminal because he or she has been adjudicated as such. They don’t get guns at all, on their person or in their homes. A person who is carrying a firearm who has not been adjudicated as such is innocent. Prove me guilty. The burden of that is on the state. I shouldn’t have to prove my innocence in order to exercise my rights. A cop runs a tag before he approaches the vehicle during a stop. He will know if you have been naughty or nice. If I’m walking around town with a j-frame in my pants the cop is more than welcome to run a check while he’s confronting me. Either way, still not a criminal. Now, that guy over there in the alley also with a gun just may be a criminal and is going to do anything practical to not have that cop need to talk to him at all. Laws or no law, there have been people walk right by you within the last 24 hours who legally can’t carry guns who were. And there is nothing anyone can do about that.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@majorrich where I live we cannot use force to detain a person if we attempt to make a citizens arrest. If you use force, actual or implied, to detain someone you can and will be charged with kidnapping.

majorrich's avatar

Yup, __ked up isn’t it? Here they call it wrongful imprisonment. Until the person is charged with their Felony you are vulnerable for doing what you are supposed to do. Even if you defend your home and call 911 and retreat as they tell you, if you discharge your firearm a grand jury would still have to clear you. Even then, the family can try to get their pound of flesh with a wrongful death civil suit. The deck is certainly stacked in favor of the criminal isn’t it?

woodcutter's avatar

Yes the deck has always been stacked in favor of the assailant. They get the benifit of the doubt before anyone else. And they have every right to bring the full force of the law, criminal and civil, against those they intended to harm in the first place. The tide has been trying to turn against this status quo for decades and it is starting to get some traction. Possibly due to the aging of the voting general population who are wiser for it.
I think its fair to say those who are against people having the capability to really defend themselves have never truly been in a situation like that. And it is general practice for all elitists whether they be from the left or the right to always suggest people do and tollerate things that they themselves would never consider.

Ron_C's avatar

I don’t know why people equate “concealed carry laws” with the right to bear arms. As far as I know it is legal for a person over 21 to carry an unconcealed gun anywhere. I think that if I felt that a gun would keep me safe, I would want it in plain sight as a deterrent. Concealing it only gives people a chance to make a mistake and mess with an armed person and the armed person an excuse to shoot someone. The people I’ve met that had concealed weapons seemed anxious for a chance to really shoot someone.

jerv's avatar

@Ron_C The people I’ve met that had a CCW permit often had large sums of money (like their store’s nightly deposit bag) and were just generally anxious. C’est la vie.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@Ron_C There are some people that seem anxious to shoot people, the majority have no desire to shoot anyone. Projecting the image that you are anxious to shoot someone may cause a would be crook to pick another target. Most crooks want a victim that won’t fight back, if someone gives off the vibe they are looking for a fight, they will look somewhere else.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter My earlier point was that it’s easy for law enforcement to determine who has been adjudicated to be “a criminal carrying” when concealed carry permits are required. Don’t have the permit and you are armed, that’s a problem. No background check is necessary.

But recent information about the possibility of DOD plans to confiscate guns and move dissidents into “reeducation camps” has enough ring of truth to it to turn the tide for me. I now think that being off-list may be important enough to make it worth the pain that armed criminals may be able to exact on genteel society due to the change.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Well that becomes one of the main complaints about lists of any kind when it comes to gun ownership. One, they don’t physically do anything to stop crime, Two, they tip the game in favor of the criminals who never intend to participate in any name keeping efforts.Even if you go through all the hoops to be legal to carry, you will still be on a list which are extremely usefull if some kind of executive order comes down to confiscate. They won’t stop with that small pistol you have the Concealed carry for. Nope they are going to wipe you out of all the weapons you have at that location. What kind of dick would hope for that? I have a few ideas about the type of person that would applaud this.

majorrich's avatar

It looks like we are all pretty much in agreement about firearm ownership and the implications of CCW. Just knowing that the legislation of that right cuts in two directions, mostly on the side of the law abiding, again.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther