Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry?

[buckstopshere]

Man, I am over this thread. I honestly can't believe that this is even being debated on INGO. Seriously?!?

As Americans, it is not a privilege or a prerogative to bear arms. It is our RIGHT to do so and I don't need a State (regardless of what State I physically find myself to be in) or Federal agency giving me permission to do what I already have the right to do and I'm not sure how this could be debated - especially on a forum such as this.

We live in a country that has an unbelievable amount of crime. I shouldn't have to take extra steps to protect myself. In fact, if more people were armed, maybe we wouldn't have as much crime as we do now.

We are barely hanging on to our 2A rights as it is. We are literally 1 conservative supreme court judge's retirement away from possibly losing it. Yet, here we are, a supposed collection of like minded individuals (at least as it relates to 2A), debating the requirements of a having a bs permit instead of trying to rally more support for 2A.

If we can't be on the same page in this forum, where/when will we be??

 

[Jeremiah]

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?, by L. Neil Smith

I think that guy sums up my beleifs on the subject.

 

[KDUBCR250]

I think it's pretty stupid that we have to pay for the right to bear arms. Can you really consider it a right if you have to pay for it?

QFT

 

[Eddie]

this seems to be touchy subject. while i do agree that it would be nice to not have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape in order to carry a sidearm, i believe that that such inconveniences are necessary for public safety. without such rules every idiot and their brother would be wearing their gun like a badge of honor. this might not be a big deal in a rural area, but in the larger cities it would pose a problem. not to mention it would be a lot easier for the left to lump gun owners into one large category (although they already do). without permits there would be no way to prove that less than .10%(if even that) of gun crimes are committed by licensed gun owners. i for one do not want to be compared to your run of the mill thug.

That's an opinion but our Constitution specifically says that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". We need to be cautious any time we allow the government to take away any of our rights because once they are taken we may never get them back. The 2nd was put there as special kind of check and balance to protect our freedom. I would rather we err on the side of individual freedom over public safety.

 

[rjstew317]

[quote/] Defend your assertion that everyone wearing their firearm "would pose a problem". So you are saying only a select few that YOU feel comfortable with should be afforded the privilege to exercise their rights[/quote]

i don't mean responsible gun owner like the majority of us on INGO, i am talking about the gang bangers and thugs that plague most urban areas that would be running around with their guns swing because they think it makes them hard, as if we don't have enough of that already, it would be 10x worse.

 

[PatriotPride]

[quote/]

i don't mean responsible gun owner like the majority of us on INGO, i am talking about the gang bangers and thugs that plague most urban areas that would be running around with their guns swing because they think it makes them hard, as if we don't have enough of that already, it would be 10x worse.

I really don't think it would make it worse. Many "thugs" have already proven that they disregard the law. Regardless, even "thugs" have the right to carry a firearm, like it or not.

 

[infidel]

I can't bear to look at threads like this anymore.

Why are so many "Americans" afraid of freedom?

WHY?

 

[beararms1776]

The license itself, in no way, deters criminal actions with firearms. I think it's criminal actions by firearm that has made our right more difficult. If a person has it in their mind to commit a crime with a firearm, they'll do it regardless of a license. People should be allowed to protect themselves from these crimes without having to pay for it. Why should anyone with no firearm convictions be required to have a ltch. It makes no sense.
IN. needs to change the law and not require a ltch. At the very least allow citizens to safety train and/or practice at a range.

 

[ryknoll3]

it's a slippery slope, that's all I'm saying

I would much rather that slope slip in the direction of freedom than in the direction of tyranny.

Also,
We can watch Arizona, as they just passed Constitutional carry. So according to some on this thread, things are about to crazy there, as "thugs" and other undesirables are allowed to go about armed now without their government tax receipt/permission slip.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Maybe one of these days some Indiana legislator will have the courage to introduce such a bill. Not going to hold my breath, tho.

I tried, darn you!

Where were you in '96 to help with the Early campaign?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I read it. And it doesn't change a thing. Not only is he projecting his opinion on what constitutes a superior choice, but he's proposing making exercise of the right contingent on making *his* choice.

I reject both assumptions.

I took it differently. When I was still looking, still trying to decide what kind of gun I wanted, I went to my local range which was also a gun store (still is, under new management now, and an INGO Advertising Supporter!) I told them I'd never shot a pistol before. First gun they handed me was a Glock 19. They took the time to explain that it did not have an external, manual safety. They took the time to go back into the range area with me and ensure I knew how to load the rounds into the mag (I did) and taught me a little bit about stance, grip, and such things as slide bite.

Had I not had someone willing and able to show me these bare-bones basics, I might have never come back, never gone on to buy a handgun, never gone for my LTCH, and never become active in this community. I'd not have written letters to all of our mutual benefit to my legislators, not gone to Indy to lobby for the passage of a very good bill...

I'm reminded of the poem, "All for the want of a horseshoe nail.

The guys who come in, too proud and too full of themselves to admit to a lack of knowledge, are our enemies just as much as Chucky Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, perhaps worse, because it is they who will make stupid mistakes that any of the people here could warn them against, and those mistakes will be ammo for the Feinsteins, the Schumers, and the McCarthys to use against us. Those are the people who will get POd at someone at work and not have been taught, as self-evident as it is, that their gun is not a go-to tool to resolve any argument.

A business-neighbor of my daughters is forever talking about the fact that he carries and uses that fact as a pseudo-intimidation when someone has something to say that he doesn't agree with. I've not heard him make a comment myself yet, but when I do, I fully plan to call him aside and point out what he's doing and in what horrible light he's painting gun owners.

If I see someone seeming to have trouble while I'm shooting, I'll offer to help. If they reject the offer, that's their business, and I don't get hurt feelings over it. I made the offer and that's all I can do. Hell, at NFA Day this last weekend, I saw someone trying to load rounds into an AR mag without a loader. He was trying to push the rounds down from the front and slide the next one in along the length of the previously fed rounds. I just showed him that he could push them straight down from the top. I got a "Cool, I didn't know you could do that!" response. All is well. Was it "mandatory training" because I didn't ask him if he wanted a hint? I suppose you might call it that... but the only thing contingent on his learning what I had to teach was that it would make his loading go more easily.

I see where the issue you have with this is. I agree that the RKBA should never hinge on whether or not you've met someone else's criteria to allow you to do so. I cannot argue with the promotion of the idea that gun owners should (not must, just should) receive some kind of education. I won't back my should with any kind of force of law, just recommend and even incentivize it. As long as we have the LTCH in place, I think that a person showing reputable handgun training should receive theirs at a discount or even free. (The ideal would be that the LTCH would go away in favor of Constitutional Carry, but I don't see that happening any time soon in Indiana. Why would the state voluntarily give up a revenue stream?)

More training is the only thing government can never take from you.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry, paraphrase from an H. Beam Piper novel. It means that if a person is killed while committing a crime of violence against another, the person who kills him is not liable for any censure, suit, or punishment as a result of his death. In other words, the old "he had it coming to him".

Thanks for clarifying. Apparently, our state legislature and governor agree with Piper's thoughts:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
[...]

(emphasis mine)

FWIW, I agree also. Thanks again for clarifying it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[beararms1776]

I think some of us are also a bit conceited and do think, I should be able to carry, but I am not so sure about the rest of you.

I agree with this to and any citizen that inteferes with anothers right in a negative preventive way is a crime in itself.

 

[DarkRose]

I think that you are both way off base. We should never have to buy a permit from the government to exercise our rights. Our rights aren't based on proving competency or capability; they are about being human beings and having a right to defend ourselves from harm.

Your philosophy is often used by anti-gunners; let's have a permit, let's charge for a permit, let's have a test for a permit, let's make the test really hard, let's only give the test once a year, let's charge money to take the test...

We have to guard all of our rights by pushing back hard at anyone trying to take them away, that might mean filing a lawsuit, writing a letter to an elected official or sounding off on the internet whenever someone advocates taking away freedom.

Well, like I said, now that I've typed it out, I might be a lot less in agreement with permits than I originally thought.
I agree permits have a LOT of cons, such as certain jurisdictions severley limiting who gets one, even in a "shall-issue" state, and I've seen what Chicago and DC have come up with to limit access even more...
And with the phone-call NICS check when buying a handgun, it's easier then ever to see who has a record (even though the system has flaws).

I think what it might boil down to (in my mind) is narrowing the field down to people who make a conscious decision to protect themselves and their families/friends/etc. Getting a permit takes initiative, and maybe, JUST MAYBE that keeps people who have NO idea what they're doing from carrying a gun "just because I can". Maybe the slight check (as in check and balance, but monetary check fits also I suppose...) of getting a permit (showing initiative) helps the responsible owners put their best face forward so to speak.

I hope I've expressed my opinions in a manner that makes sense now that I've gone back and thought about it a bit more.

I don't agree with the system as it stands, and it's even worse in a lot of places than it is here, but I'm not sure complete de-regulation is an answer... Yes, the system is broken, but I keep thinking "what if" the system was removed altogether?

 

[Mrkeller]

You don't have to pay for the right to bear arms. You can carry a shotgun or rifle with you all day long....you don't need a license. In fact you don't even need a license to carry a blackpowder wheel gun pistol. You don't need a license to carry a regular pistol with you on your property or in your home.

So are you saying that a modern pistol is not an arm? So there for I don't have to right to keep and bear them without big brother saying so. I have read the 2nd amendment over and over again and have never read anything about being able to keep and bear certain arms.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Dark, I understand your concerns, but answer me this: why should there ever be a barrier to entry for a constitutional right?

Should there ever be a prior restraint on speech? Or, do we punish misuse? Should we not do the same for the RKBA?

 

[printcraft]

The constitution does not say "You have the right to only bear a rifle"

Permitless carry either concealed or open is the only constitutionally acceptable option.

You don't need to go any further than that.

See above, that guy is spot on.

/thread

 

[infidel]

You give me rep, and then tell me to QFT. Doesn't make sense.

Quite ****ing True

 

[printcraft]

You give me rep, and then tell me to QFT. Doesn't make sense.

QFT

(quoted for truth)

 

[mrjarrell]

I tried, darn you!

Where were you in '96 to help with the Early campaign?

LOL. Living in a completely different state. One where I didn't need a permission slip to carry a firearm to the range or in my car. Shoot, I could even OC and drink coffee without being proned, if I wanted.