CC vs OC

[Pocono]

I dunno. I tend to agree with Justice Thomas, that carrying a firearm pre-existed any rights stated in the Constitution. Rather, the 2nd only made formal that the government is not allowed to abridge the people's right to carry. Or do any other thing with a firearm that they dog gone want. I believe we should have the right to own fully automatic firearms - it's what the military has, and IF we are all a "well regulated militia" then we should have the same armament. Certainly taking out a tyrannical government would be simpler if we had the same weaponry the military has.

I am not a "militia-in-the-woods" type. I don't believe in practicing "military maneuvers". But I DO believe there are essential rights that are God given, and not the result of "granting" from any government. One of those is the right to KBA. I am not sure I would accept ANY restrictions to carrying. ?Why is it that I am not "allowed" to carry in a government building. ?What is so special about a government building. I am a citizen and that ought to be more powerful than any darn bureaucrat.

Agree 100% which is why I stated we don't want the fed "granting" us anything. It's all about restoring the rights which the Constitution was written to protect.

I would like to see restrictions lifted on carrying inside of government buildings. We can carry into the sheriffs' office and police stations but not in other citizen owned buildings? What are lawmakers afraid of that law enforcement is not? (Rhetorical question.) That really burns me up.

[Migo]

I just finished writing a letter to my senators and representative about my anger towards the TSA's use of the new invasive back-scatter x-ray and millimeter wave body scanners and how they violate our Fourth Amendment Right. I proposed instead that the Federal Air Marshal funds be increased and that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act be amended to allow all LEO, active and retired, to carry concealed firearms loaded with frangibles aboard the aircraft. My arguments suggest that two armed people on board provide a balance of power against one of them going nuts during the flight (to allay the anti-gunner's fear).

My dream is that if this could ever become reality, then it could eventually allow trained citizens with CHL's to conceal carry aboard domestic flights. National Reciprocity would most likely need to exist before this could happen, just to smooth out the logistics.

I am absolutely convinced that United Airlines Flight 93 never would have crashed if at least one of those that fought back was armed.

[Bob Mayne]

I just finished writing a letter to my senators and representative about my anger towards the TSA's use of the new invasive back-scatter x-ray and millimeter wave body scanners and how they violate our Fourth Amendment Right. I proposed instead that the Federal Air Marshal funds be increased and that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act be amended to allow all LEO, active and retired, to carry concealed firearms loaded with frangibles aboard the aircraft. My arguments suggest that two armed people on board provide a balance of power against one of them going nuts during the flight (to allay the anti-gunner's fear).

My dream is that if this could ever become reality, then it could eventually allow trained citizens with CHL's to conceal carry aboard domestic flights. National Reciprocity would most likely need to exist before this could happen, just to smooth out the logistics.

I am absolutely convinced that United Airlines Flight 93 never would have crashed if at least one of those that fought back was armed.

+1

National reciprocity is probably a realistic dream.  But trained citizens with CHL's to CCW on board domestic flights?  That would be nice...but it will never happen.

[Devereaux]

Never say never (or always). We are certainly in a serious fight over defining firearm rights. BUT the nation was in a similar fight back in the mid-1800's over defining just what "freedom of speech" was. Lots of attempts by states to infringe upon those. Only difference is that back then we had a Supreme Court that at least had SOME notion of rights, what the Constitution actually said, and how to apply law. Today it altogether is "results" oriented, and that's basically loss of liberty, as no one knows what the rules are until a particular judge states them - in THAT case. Could change in the next. It ought to be part of our objectives that we get serious people on the SC. We need to replace at least ONE of the current liberals with a serious conservative, and then replace any conservatives with other serious conservatives.

[Bob Mayne]

OK, I will change the word never to ...highly unlikely.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be excellent if CHL licensees could carry aboard a plane.  But I won't hold my breath. However I will agree with your Supreme Court analysis.

[Devereaux]

OK. I accept your gracious gesture. And I do believe holding one's breath would lead to asphyxiation, at the rate things are changing.

The new back-scatter x-ray is a real PITA. You now HAVE to remove your belt - and wallet, and anything else that you may have, which previously didn't ding the bell, but now causes "anomolies". Personally, I understand that you DON'T have to remove your belt, but then you get a more detailed search. I have decided that I am simply going to push that envelope and make them DO a more detailed search. It's just irritating, and it gets more and more irritating each day. ?How many terrorists have they actually CAPTURED. My sense is ... NONE. They have certainly harrassed a whole boatload of citizens, but even that clown in NYC managed to get past the TSA onto the airplane, and only quick action by the cops got him caught.

[iowasurfer2]

I don't believe that National Reciprocity will ever be an enforceable issue for the federal government.  That would be an infringement upon the very nature of states rights.  Not that the fed is opposed to trampling the rights of states to govern themselves, but it would have to be an issue they so strongly support, that they would be willing to endure the backlash.  In the current situation of the world and the U.S. in particular, (PRO)gun rights are not something either party is going to pursue. We all know what the Democratic Party's platform is on gun control (not every individual democrat) and we know what we hear from the Republicans now that they have no real power.  They are firing up the gun rights advocates, (people like you and me) to get the votes in November.  But what kind of rhetoric will we be hearing after the R's get control of the congress again?  My guess is the same thing we heard before........not much.  I don't believe either of the parties want to rock the boat too much in this area, because they are afraid of backlash. I think the most important things we can do, as individuals, is to work on the state and local level to promote more permissive gun laws at the lower levels of government.  As the politicians begin to see the movement among their constituencies toward more gun friendly city and county ordinances and laws, it will force them to move in the same direction or fear losing the votes of those districts.  As long as our local cities and counties continue to have strict gun control measures on the books, and none of the citizens seem to mind, the state reps will continue along the same path as well.

[Bob Mayne]

We have national reciprocity with our drivers licenses and they are issued by the State.  What's the difference?

[Devereaux]

Your comments and interpertations of the Constitution are correct, but unfortunately we have a way to go just to get people BACK to the concept of a republic of states. The 17th trashed much of the power of the states, and since then, the SC and its collective judicial system has been out there trashing many of the other aspects of what we once had (a rule of law, not of men). Just see how many different legal rulings have been on the basis of "results" ideology and not "rule" ideology. All the affirmative action stuff is simply application of someone's idea of what the "distribution" of the nation is, or ought to be. Companies are chased for not having some magic "%" of this or that group, regardless of how or why the people who are where they are got there. We have cities confiscating private property because they can find a developer who will build something that will generate more tax revenue. So we have government taking private property and then giving it to another private entity - so that the government will make more money! ?IS it any wonder we find the government acting like there is no end to the power that they have.

[iowasurfer2]

I agree completely, but the representatives we have won't stand up to do anything until they see a sea change in the constituency.  These are career politicians, they aren't in the business of making changes, they are in the business of getting re-elected, and therefore staying employed.  They will only make a move if they feel certain it will result in more votes.  Which is why I said we need to start locally.  By all means, join the NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, Your state rifle assoc.  if you have one, but get involved personally on the local level and try to affect changes there.  I am running for a spot on my local city council. Our city council has passed anti gun ordinances preventing CHL holders from carrying into city council meetings, even though it is legal to do according to state law.  They also had a man arrested for holding a political sign on a public sidewalk on election day, even though he was in compliance with all state and federal electioneering laws. (the case was recently dismissed, and now he is filing suit against the city)  My point is, the constitution is being trampelled on by every level of government all over the country.  If the legislators on the federal level begin to see a revolt in the lower levels of government, they may begin to open their eyes and move along with us.

[gitt1]

The states have had several opportunities to exercise their rights. They choose not to because the federal government threatens to withhold the precious funding they so desperately slobber over. That's how we get things like speed limits and seat belt laws.
Larry

[Devereaux]

First and foremost, kudos to you for running. THAT is real "involvement".

Can't disagree with you that government at any level can be nasty. I moved outside of the little village I lived in, in part because it had been taken over by a crowd of goodie-two-shoes. They were adding taxes on businesses, confiscating property for "gazebos", and all manner of typically fascist behavior. Just didn't seem to be enough people that actually cared to get them levered out. You start a discussion at a social event, and next thing you know, you are the lone defender of things like constitutional law.

On the other hand, we may finally get rid of our leftie dem fed representative. She has voted for all the big tickets, and needs to be taken down for that. Now she is going around claiming to be for the "business man" -- not with THAT record! I have seriously considered working for the guy running against her.

[Devereaux]

The states have had several opportunities to exercise their rights. They choose not to because the federal government threatens to withhold the precious funding they so desperately slobber over. That's how we get things like speed limits and seat belt laws.
Larry

Well, a lot of that is because the feds collect more money than they actually ought to, then hand it back for this or that, which they shouldn't be doing either. So when we can get the fed to shrink to a more "legal" position, we will have less of that. The other issue is obviously the 17th amendment, whereby the states lost their one serious input into the federal government. The Founding Fathers created two houses not for the sake of having the people vote in two different guys, but so that the people had control of one, and the states of the other, keeping the fed responsive to both. ?Now how do the states affect legislation -- especially stuff that is inimical to them (like unfunded mandates). That kind of stuff should never have passed the Senate, but since the state doesn't control the Senate anymore, whoopee!

[Pocono]

My dream is that if this could ever become reality, then it could eventually allow trained citizens with CHL's to conceal carry aboard domestic flights. National Reciprocity would most likely need to exist before this could happen, just to smooth out the logistics.

No No No!!! - you got it all wrong...all we need to do is place signs in the boarding area saying "No Terrorists Allowed" - after all, look how well it works for the No Gun / Defense Free Zones.

[Migo]

One point on CC vs. OC that helped me to remain CC is something Massad Ayoob wrote in one of his books about he and friend visiting a store in an OC state and some troublemaker approaching his weaker looking friend and harassing him about his gun almost to the point where it looked like the troublemaker was going to take the gun away from him. Massad stepped between them and stopped it from going further.

I'm sure Mr. Ayoob can clear any discrepancies in my retelling of his story...

The point is, I would hate having to get into a fight that was precipitated by OC, just because some crackhead moron wanted to see if his pair were bigger than mine. That just wouldn't be good publicity for the gun community at large.

I'll still OC when I'm out hiking in the woods and away from urban areas though.

[iowasurfer2]

I would not open carry myself, for the sake of avoiding being targeted, and to maintain the element of surprise if I were to be the target of an attack.  However, I am pro-OC for the fact that I believe any expansion of our rights as gun owners in the eyes of the law is a plus.  We must always seek to advance our legal standing, one step at a time.  Small victories add up over time.  Plus if I am carrying concealed, and a wind catches my shirt, exposing my firearm, I would not be legally culpable. 

[Migo]

I absolutely agree OC should be legal and practiced by those that can pull it off. I support the OC movement. OC'ers will rattle that segment of society that believes that an ordinary person can't possibly have that much discipline and personal responsibility -- and they need to be rattled. The more people get acclimated to the concept of good people owning guns, the easier it will be to shift their myopic focus away from the object and onto the societal problems that are the real threat.

Oddly enough in Portland, OC is illegal unless you have a CHL, so even though I try very hard not to print or unintentionally reveal it, I'm not going to jail for it. http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=15437&c=28514

[Bob Mayne]

I've gotten off the fence and now support OC rights.  However, if it get's passed in Texas some day, I still don't think I will OC.  It's so easy to conceal and I've been doing it so long, with the right holster, belt, I prefer not to make myself a target, or a challenge to some druggie who want's to take me on.

But I support the right of people to OC and I think it should be legal in all 50 states.  Boy...isn't that a dream?

[Aaron L]

Welcome to the OC side Bob, glad to have you aboard. I have always been pro OC and wish it were legal here in TX. Hopefully will be sometime in the near future. It would be perfect here due to the strict printing laws. I for one would love to be able to carry in an OWB holster with a button down shirt over it instead of having to wear three shirts in this 105 degree weather we've been having here lately. It's always argued as OC vs CC and it really should be OC in addition to CC. It gives us another option to carry without removing the CC part. Why argue over one or the other when if we play our cards right we can have both? Just my $0.02

Aaron

[Migo]

I for one would love to be able to carry in an OWB holster with a button down shirt over it instead of having to wear three shirts in this 105 degree weather we've been having here lately.

Why so many shirts?

It's been 100+ in PDX recently and I just wear my Milt Sparks VM2 IWB holster directly against my skin and drop a flimsy t-shirt over it. The holster has horsehide on the body side for moisture resistance, and puts a flap between the slide and skin, so no skin-metal burns or sweat on the pistol. The XD-SC grip is smooth so it won't grate my back. The VM2 is also cut so you don't need to readjust your grip on the pistol after your first grab.

My OWB Axiom holster holds a 1911 so tight against my body, I think I could easily conceal it with a looser fitting button down shirt that was mostly unbuttoned, although now I need to wear a t-shirt underneath. The Axiom pulls the 1911 much tighter to the body than say a Safariland Model 567. I don't want to carry my 1911 though, so I haven't tried this yet.

Honestly, I'm not trying to sell this stuff, nor do I know anyone at Milt Sparks. I just love being so comfortable and yet so secure. Gotta watch yourself on a motorcycle with IWB and a flimsy t-shirt though...