Montana House Green Lights Concealed Carry Without Permit

[uncletonoose]

HELENA – The state House backed a bill Monday that would allow people to carry concealed weapons in urban areas without a permit, giving a victory to lawmakers and gun rights supporters who are pushing a slate of firearms legislation.

House Bill 271 would allow anyone eligible to obtain a concealed weapon permit to carry without actually applying for a permit. It is already legal to carry a concealed weapon in rural areas without a permit.

Gun rights advocate Rep. Krayton Kerns described the proposed concealed carry process as "self-certification." Kerns argued it's important to restore gun rights that he said had been legislated away when carrying a concealed weapon was regulated in 1919.

The bill moved forward on a 55-45 vote despite drawing the opposition of several Republican representatives, including David Howard of Park City. Howard, a former FBI agent, said he opposed the bill because it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to determine who can legally carry a concealed weapon.

"This bill puts law enforcement in a very grey area," agreed Rep. Margaret MacDonald, D-Billings.

Other supporters said concealed carry is an important right for law abiding people and the bill would make cities no less safe. The bill now faces one more usually procedural vote before heading to the Senate.

Gun-rights bills often have bipartisan backing from Montana lawmakers who say guns are part of the state's culture. However, some of the more expansive bills being considered this session have attracted criticism from some law enforcement and legislators who say the measures go too far and endanger the public.

Kerns, a Republican from Laurel, is sponsoring four other gun measures this session. His bills to allow weapons in places like bars and banks where they're now prohibited, and a proposal to allow the use of silencers while hunting have already passed the House.

His bill to bolster the Montana Firearms Freedom Act passed out of committee Monday. It attempts to prohibit federal regulation of firearms that are manufactured in Montana and remain there. The measure proposes to punish authorities who try to enforce certain federal firearms laws with up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

Supporters of the act say it's a law about asserting state's rights, while opponents say the law is unconstitutional.

A proposal to allow the governor to enter into agreements with other states to enact Firearms Freedom Acts has already cleared the House.

A bill to make allowances for guns on school property brought about by the suspension of a Columbia Falls High school student was stopped in committee Friday.

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/house_green_lights_concealed_carry_without_permit/21940/

[mick silver]

so they are giving us the right to carry without . i thought we all ready had that right . but it good to see people thinking with there heads

[Cobalt]

His bill to bolster the Montana Firearms Freedom Act passed out of committee Monday. It attempts to prohibit federal regulation of firearms that are manufactured in Montana and remain there. The measure proposes to punish authorities who try to enforce certain federal firearms laws with up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

Ha ha Right On

[sirgonzo420]

That's cool that Montana is finally starting to more fully recognize the 2nd Amendment.

[steyr_m]

Now if only more States follow Montana's lead with this and other issues. Didn't MT pass a bill that required Federal authorities to ask permission from MT authorities before operating within the State?

[General of Darkness]

I wonder how I would be welcomed with a few fiat bucks, and a knack for business in Montana?

[sirgonzo420]

Perhaps a better solution would be to REQUIRE all to carry. I have a problem with concealing things


CONCEALMENT, contracts. The unlawful suppression of any fact or circumstance, by one of the partis to a contract, from the other, which in justice ought to be made known. 1 Bro. Ch. R. 420; 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, c. 3, 4, note (n); 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 207.

2. Fraud occurs when one person substantially misrepresents or conceals a material fact peculiarly within his own knowledge, in consequence of which a delusion exists; or uses a device naturally calculated to lull the suspicions of a careful man, and induce him to forego inquiry into a matter upon which the other party has information, although such information be not exclusively within his reach.

If it is out in the open then there is no concealment. A hidden weapon is a material fact I would like to be aware of.


Should a man not have the liberty to allow his jacket to cover a weapon holstered on his hip?

An honorable man needn't be concerned if another honorable man has a weapon hidden (strategically or otherwise) on his body for his own protection.

Where's the corpus delicti?

[sirgonzo420]

I wonder how I would be welcomed with a few fiat bucks, and a knack for business in Montana?


My guess would be jobs are slim pickins there... Hoarder would be the man to ask.

[hoarder]

Less jobs every year. Cost of living is cheap, just bring your pot of silver and kick back! If you can make a living over the internet you got it licked!

No jobs means no illegals!!

[Libertytree]

Bearing arms is bearing arms, fuck the semantics. I like open and concealed as they both have their time and place.

[mike88]

About ******* time. Any measure which encourages Socialist Democrats to leave an area is to be applauded.

[k-os]

Less jobs every year. Cost of living is cheap, just bring your pot of silver and kick back! If you can make a living over the internet you got it licked!

No jobs means no illegals!!


Sounds great! How much snow do you get?

[Libertytree]

Less jobs every year. Cost of living is cheap, just bring your pot of silver and kick back! If you can make a living over the internet you got it licked!

No jobs means no illegals!!


Sounds great! How much snow do you get?


I was thinkin' the same thing, except then I wondered how cold it got and said probably too damn cold.

[Buddha]

Might be making a move soon!

It's cool guys, (lol no pun intended!) the cold tends to keep the riff raff out. That and an armed populace.

[Shami-Amourae]

Less jobs every year. Cost of living is cheap, just bring your pot of silver and kick back! If you can make a living over the internet you got it licked!

No jobs means no illegals!!


That's interesting since I'm looking to move somewhere and I have a business I run entirely off the Internet. I just want to be able to move in with someone I can trust. Thankfully I have some options, and Montana definitely is on my radar now. What's the best part of Montana to check out you guys think?

[willie pete]

Chuck B. moved to Kalispell

Currently: 21*° Light Snow

[hoarder]

Less jobs every year. Cost of living is cheap, just bring your pot of silver and kick back! If you can make a living over the internet you got it licked!

No jobs means no illegals!!


Sounds great! How much snow do you get?
I have never seen more than a foot on the ground unless you go way up to the high country. I've heard one year there was 5 feet everywhere. It's timbered mountains like Colorado but the elevations are much lower.
The climate west of the continental divide is much better than east. It's windy east.

[hoarder]

What's the best part of Montana to check out you guys think?
West of the divide. If you need anything that cities offer, Missoula has just about everything. Anywhere in a 100 mile radius of Missoula and northwest of there is good.

[SLV^GLD]

Bearing arms is bearing arms, fuck the semantics. I like open and concealed as they both have their time and place.
Yep, keep and bear and not to be infringed. I really don't giver a flying fuck about how somebody doesn't like "concealed things".

[sirgonzo420]

I really don't giver a flying fuck about how somebody doesn't like "concealed things".

Then you should have no objection when someone pulls one on you and produces a corpus delicti where you once stood.


Not to answer for SLV^GLD, but if someone pulls a gun on ME, we are probably already having some problem with each other anyway; whether their weapon was concealed or not is of little consequence.

If they pull a weapon and SHOOT me, then they have committed a crime. The fact that their weapon was concealed was not the crime, the fact that they shot me with said weapon is.

You imply that someone merely concealing a weapon constitutes a breach of something, a point with which I disagree, unless that person is on someone else's private property.

[Awoke]

I have some family in Michigan, and Michigan allows open carry.
I was talking to my cousin, and asked him about the whole "An armed society is a polite society" thing.

He agreed, and told me that incidences of "Road rage" are extremely rare, and if you get in a fender bender, no-one comes out screaming their face off at the other person, because you just never know who could be carrying. (He is not from detroit, where is seems laws don;t apply anyways)




I am implying the act of carrying concealed when one has the right (and even duty) to carry open makes a case for the INTENT to damage someone.


I have to disagree with you on this. I live in Canada, and we are not allowed to carry, or even shoot on private property with restricted firearms (This includes handguns)

I was talking to a younger guy who is a hunter. He shoots turkey and other small game, and when we were discussing firearms, and he found out I own pistols, he said "Oh, I don't agree with handguns. They should be illegal. Anyone who has a handgun is just waiting for an opportunity to shoot a person or commit a crime".

My jaw hit the floor. My heart sank too. I thought to myself, here is a young Canadian, a hunter, and firearm owner, and he is anti-handgun? The brainwashing truely works.

Anyways, we have talked man times since, and he is "handgun-friendlier" now. If the opportunity ever arises, I would like to get him out shooting some time, so he can try it himself and see how much fun it is.




But regarding concealment, if you can carry, (not infringed, etc etc) you should be able to carry open or concealed. The type of carry you choose does not dictate your intent with the firearm.

[sirgonzo420]

You imply that someone merely concealing a weapon constitutes a breach of something, a point with which I disagree, unless that person is on someone else's private property.
I am implying the act of carrying concealed when one has the right (and even duty) to carry open makes a case for the INTENT to damage someone.

People would be much friendlier if they had a good view of a hogsleg on your hip.

Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi. Truth fears nothing but concealment.


Yes, but the strategic value to concealment trumps any presumption of "intent to damage someone", in my opinion.

It can also be said that someone with a "hogsleg on their hip" is a target, in that a criminal could see their weapon openly, and might target them first because of their open weapon.

Someone who conceals his protection keeps the "element of surprise" on his side.

The point is, unless someone is INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, they may carry their weapon in the manner in which they please.

[hoarder]

Anyways, we have talked man times since, and he is "handgun-friendlier" now. Another example of how the truth is more powerful than lies. It's never a waste of time to politely try to change someone's mind. Good for you (and him).

[hoarder]

A local guy who gathers firewood on USFS land (with a permit) for his own use told me that a USFS ranger had been nitpicking him for quite a while. When he gathered wood in an area in which a problem grizzly resided, he strapped a 44 mag on his hip. When the nitpicky USFS agent drove by, he waved and kept on going...happened twice.

Cops might be another matter.

[VX1]

Great development, just hope it doesn't go down like how the Feds strong-armed them on speed limits.


EDIT:
I don't want to derail the thread, but as far as the argument that things could be less safe with this new gun allowance, I though this report was interesting, on how safer the highways were by removing the daytime speed limit: http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox


Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

This is an obvious call to action. Something must be done. We need more laws, more money for enforcement and more citations written - Speed Kills!

Not so fast says a follow up study just completed by National Motorists Association. The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.
.
.
.
The lower–than–US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana's experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake. It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural by product of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.

The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, “people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”

The study on the effects of no daytime speed limits in Montana is clear. Traffic safety, if anything, actually improved without posted limits or massive enforcement efforts. Highway safety wasn't compromised nor can the lowest fatality rates recorded in modern times be ignored. Something happened, it was positive, and it needs further research to analyze what worked and why.

[JDRock]

you can already carry ANYWHERE in my state anytime ( WY).....but the state is making way for CC w/o permit here as well. i hope its a trend that continues.

[SLV^GLD]

The Nuge says it best:

Keep means its mine, you can’t have it. Bear can only mean one thing; I’ve got some on me right here, right now. Shall not be infringed also needs no interpretation, unless you just don’t get it. Get it. And get it right.

If it is mine and mine to bear then I can damn well bear how I see fit. No amount of moaning gets to infringe that. You can construe my concealment as intent to damage but I would say pulling the fucking trigger should be construed as intent to damage. Concealment is about keeping a target off my back, about protecting my investment and it could very well be about having more damn guns on my person than you can see.

The 2nd amendment is cut and dried and it boggles my mind that there is even any discussion surrounding it much less infringing statutes that deserve to be civilly disobeyed all the time.

I don't need permission to exercise my rights. Get it? If not, too bad for you.
All a permit means is that your rights are being infringed.

[SLV^GLD]

The prohibition against going armed goes way back. Agreed, and the blatant ignoring of this repugnant prohibition goes back just as far. Prohibition of this sort is a tactic of the mind because the statute can no more stop a man from packing a gun than it can stop a bullet from hitting a target.


If you intend to base an argument on the 2nd amendment then the reason you are carrying is to prevent usurpation by the government yet most of the arguments presented in this thread seem to address the self-protection issue. If it is a change of government you desire then why dance around the issue?


My argument is based on the 2nd amendment simply because the constitution actually contains verbiage that should negate any attempt to enact legislation that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms. The fact is, I'd keep and bear with or without the 2nd amendment because no one can tell me how I can or cannot protect myself or my family or even you.
The government acts are jedi mind tricks, they are useless when an actual, physical gun is produced. Gun laws do nothing more than put fear into law abiding citizens. They don't stop outlaws and they don't stop free men who scoff at statutes that pretend to protect the populace. Whether the government changes or not is immaterial to me. If the government tries to enforce their silly statutes they, too, will realize how futile the statute actually is. I'm not dancing around it, I'm simply stating that anyone, government agent or not, can do nothing about whether or not I will arm myself and whether or not I will do it in a concealed manner. Anyone who does try to do something would inevitably be treading onto the personal protection issue that you are trying to delineate as somehow being separate from the government usurpation issue. One is a mirage and one isn't. Don't waste ammo on mirages.

[hoarder]

For those who promote conceal carry:

I suppose you have no objection if I go around dressed in full body armor? I have yet to hear of any fatalities being committed by ARMOR!
No objection from me sir, carry on.

[JDRock]

The right to bear arms is one of the ONLY rights that you can still have untouched IF you are willing to live in a free state.

[sirgonzo420]

For those who promote conceal carry:

I suppose you have no objection if I go around dressed in full body armor? I have yet to hear of any fatalities being committed by ARMOR!


No objection here.

[Awoke]

While my personal preference regarding the carrying of firearms is open-carry, I have spoken to Americans regarding the 2A on X-Box live while gaming, and many of them have expressed that they would prefer concealed carry over open carry.

They justify it by saying that "If you don;t know who has one, you suspect that everyone deos", but people who are nervous of firearms will not be bombarded with the visual of people wearing a firearm on their hip everytime they leave their residence.

You may not agree with concealed carry, Palani, but a lot of people do. I wish that Canadians were allowed to lawfully carry, and wouldn't care if it was concealed or open. I know I would feel a lot better if my wife could carry with here everyday, and "concealed VS open" is of no consequence to her personal security.

[Libertytree]

I think people would be quite surprised by the pleasant interactions they've had with folks who were concealing a side arm, but seeing as there was never a threat present it wasn't an issue. The nuances of it all can be debated and squabbled about all day long but at the end of the day in a shitty situation you'd want me and my pistol around, concealed or open.

[Awoke]

I wish that Canadians were allowed to lawfully carry
Free Canadians are allowed to carry. Statutes control the un-free.

LEGAL. That which is according to law.

LAWFUL. That which is not forbidden by law.


Legal, lawful, blah blah blah. That kind of talk only works on internet forums.

The bottom line is, if a person is caught carrying a firearm, they are looking at an immediate sentence of 5 years minimum (If memory serves) federal time.

Come up here and try it.

[Awoke]

Legal, lawful, blah blah blah. That kind of talk only works on internet forums.

The bottom line is, if a person is caught carrying a firearm, they are looking at an immediate sentence of 5 years minimum (If memory serves) federal time.

Lunacy abounds. The ACTION of carrying a firearm creates a person. The other two ways of creating a person are representation (as in politician or attorney) and words (as in libel). The 5 years would be a benefit I would surely decline by way of counter-offer [as in ... Would you like to pay me $50,000 for wasting my time?}



Come up here and try it. Are you willing to be responsible for my expenses?





Not a chance. You're a dreamer. You are living an internet forum fantasy. This is all very reminicent of my other post on this subject (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/if-you-live-in-a-gun-friendly-state/msg179092/#msg179092). Your fancy wannabe-legaliese isn't going to get you anywhere if you try to carry a pistol in Canada, other than jail. You guys that buy into this line of thought are going to be on the recieving end of a tazer and a beating, followed by a lengthy stay in a publicly funded facility.
If you think the corrupt cops and corrupt courts and the mislead public opinion is going to keep you untouchable because you're using big fancy words, you're screwed.

But I welcome you to try it.

Anyways, I'm guessing that based on your logic, you wouldn't have any expenses, because money isn't real. I guess you would have to work out some sort of trade for intrinsically valuable items with the airport or gas stations to make your travel possible, but no need to worry about "expenses".

[Awoke]

Oh, OK, so you're telling me to find some flint-struck pirate pistol and I can walk around with that?

Whatever Panali. If you don't want to admit that you're wrong, I'm OK with that. You do your thing. All I know is that I am prepped, and WTSHTF I will be walking around carrying whatever preps I feel I need to be carrying at the time.

[sirgonzo420]

Found in a comment at the following blog:

http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/like-beauty-treason-is-in-the-eyes-or-venue-of-the-beholder/#more-5264
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Up in Montana a lady, just for the hell of it, decided to compare the 1889 original state constitution with the 1972 new constitution. The first difference she found was in Article 1. Article 1 in the 1889 version states the boundaries of the State of Montana but in the 1972 constitution they have been removed.
She notified the press and stated she wanted to get a amendment to the 1972 constitution to add the boundaries but the powers that be ignored this and swept it under the rug, hoping that nobody would notice.

I believe that the problem that STATE OF MONTANA found themselves in was the fact that they have no jurisdiction on any matters.With out legal land boundries the STATE OF MONTANA has either no jurisdiction anywhere or it has jurisdiction over the entire universe.

How can a prosecutor/judge claim jurisdiction over the roads, streams and land if it dosen’t have a legal land discription of its boundries that it is operating in?

I’ve looked up a couple of other states constitutions and sure enough the legal discription of its boundries has been removed when they rewrote their constitutions. I always wondered why there was a big push to have the states rewrite their constitutions.
I suspect that this was done to move the State into THE STATE which moved the State into a Territory where the central goverment (USA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA….or whatever you calll it) has control over.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

Now exactly WHY do you suppose the legislature and People of Montana would remove the metes and bounds of their territory?

They can pass any laws they like in this day and age. These laws do not apply anywhere as can be seen from a lack of limits on the venue they claim.


In Kentucky, the boundaries are not in the Constitution, but in Title I, Chapter 1 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes.

You'll likely find the boundaries of other states in their respective collections of statutes.

[hoarder]

Dialy quiz:

Which tribe is behind obliterating boundaries and borders?

Which tribe is behind centralization of power?

Which tribe is behind incremental world government?


???

[uncletonoose]

:boohoo

[Book]

I have a problem with concealing things...

...A hidden weapon is a material fact I would like to be aware of.



Treat everyone respectfully as if they ARE armed.

:)

[sirgonzo420]

So palani, do you not think people should be able to carry a weapon in their pocket?

[Awoke]

Palani, why do you insist on complicating things all the time?
If you (and everyone else) would just conduct yourself like every person you see has a firearm, life would be peachy.

All book is syaing is the old quote. "An armed society is a polite society".

[sirgonzo420]

So palani, do you not think people should be able to carry a weapon in their pocket?


God is great, beer is good, people are crazy.

I have known people who are level headed enough to carry weapons either concealed or open. Others I would not trust with a fly swatter. So there should be no general rule. I would say the action that is accomplished with the weapon should be judged. And if the weapon was pulled from a place of concealment the act should be judged under common law with swift and positive action that might otherwise be considered HARSHER than otherwise.



There are strategic advantages for concealed carry... If I open carry, I may become a target because a criminal could see that I have a weapon and shoot me from behind. If I conceal my weapon, the criminal wouldn't mark me as as much of a threat.

Me concealing a weapon, in and of itself, is no crime (no victim).

Me drawing a concealed weapon to fend off an attacker is no crime either; it's me merely acting on my right of self-defense.

[mick silver]

i dont have the right to say who can carry are not carry . all people should be able to carry if they wish . once you start telling who can carry or not then you become the king . just leave me alone an i will do the same . that all i ask for

[sirgonzo420]

i dont have the right to say who can carry are not carry . all people should be able to carry if they wish . once you start telling who can carry or not then you become the king . just leave me alone an i will do the same . that all i ask for


Absolutely right, mick.

And if we don't have the right to say who can carry and how, then we cannot delegate that right to the gov't to let them decide who can carry and how.

[Awoke]

Palani, why do you insist on complicating things all the time?
If you (and everyone else) would just conduct yourself like every person you see has a firearm, life would be peachy.

All book is syaing is the old quote. "An armed society is a polite society".

Your argument might have more weight in the country than in the inner city. I expect the Krypts (sic) view "polite" in a different context than most of civilization.


I agree, based on current circumstances.

However, on the flipside of that, if every single person was able to (and actually DID) carry a firearm, I would assert that you wouldn't have a Blood and Crip problem like you do today.

It never should have gotten this far.

[Book]

And if the weapon was pulled from a place of concealment the act should be judged under common law with swift and positive action that might otherwise be considered HARSHER than otherwise.



Imagine the surprise of some guy holding a gun when Palani whips out his trusty concealed weapon (http://www.harvard2003.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Law-Dictionary.jpg).

:D

[sirgonzo420]

And if the weapon was pulled from a place of concealment the act should be judged under common law with swift and positive action that might otherwise be considered HARSHER than otherwise.



Imagine the surprise of some guy holding a gun when Palani whips out his trusty concealed weapon (http://www.harvard2003.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Law-Dictionary.jpg).

:D



If palani were to carry such a "weapon", it would certainly not be that new. Definately not any later than Black's 6th....

If anything, he probably carries a Bouvier's.

[Libertytree]

As the old saying goes.....I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[sirgonzo420]

Me concealing a weapon, in and of itself, is no crime (no victim).
Lawful is that which is not forbidden. Legal is that which is permitted. A person is an action, word or representation. Concealing a weapon is an action. Such an action as concealing a weapon MIGHT be described as a crime in statute law. If you can get to common law more power to you (the no injured party approach).

Where did you get that "a person is an action, word or representation"? I still don't fully understand that phrase...




Me drawing a concealed weapon to fend off an attacker is no crime either; it's me merely acting on my right of self-defense.
I knew of a man several years ago who helped out the girl friend of drug addict. Several confrontations later he was seated in his car with his window open and the drug addict started beating on him through the window. To fend off the attack the man in the car reached into his back seat, got ahold of a machete he had there and proceeded to use the handle of the machete to beat back the attacker. As the operation was successful he called 911 and when the policy men arrived both parties were arrested. The drug addict (being well known and a good customer of the policy men) was out on bail within 2 hours. The man who was attacked was permitted to occupy a jail cell for the next 10 days.

Fists against a machete evidently is not viewed by court as a fair battle even though the sharp edge was not employed.

Use your arguments at your own risk.


I don't generally carry a weapon concealed, because I don't really feel like fighting a weapons charge in court right now, should I be "caught". So I carry openly, or leave my pistol in my truck.

Even so, concealing a weapon is not, in and of itself, a common law crime. Of course, the common law doesn't seem to count for much these days...

[Awoke]

Here are some clips from a couple blogs by Massad Ayoob on New Mexico and Wisconsin, dated March 9th and 5th respectively:





There are some unique laws in New Mexico. A lawyer friend tells me it’s illegal to carry any deadly weapon except a handgun, the latter either openly or – with a permit – concealed. This means it’s technically illegal to carry a pocket knife. Unfortunately, I didn’t discover this until late in my stay. Fortunately, the law is not widely enforced.

Carrying a second handgun for backup is a safety practice that has much to recommend it, but is not allowed in The Land of Enchantment, pistol permit notwithstanding. For pistol-packers, most of the better restaurants are off limits because they have liquor licenses. You can carry in a restaurant that serves only beer and wine, so long as the gun is legally concealed and you don’t consume any alcohol. However, even a teetotaler can’t enter an establishment that sells hard liquor if he or she is armed, regardless of concealed carry permit. And the guy or gal with a gun openly worn can’t step into the beer and wine premises, either.

Hell, we found it easier to order pizza, buy a six-pack, and eat in my hotel suite.






One item on the table for the crippled Wisconsin legislature this year is shall-issue concealed carry, which would end a longstanding situation in which only Wisconsin and one other state, Illinois, have absolutely no provision for law-abiding citizens to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public for defense of self and others. Twice in the past, the Wisconsin legislature has passed the concealed carry bill…and both times then-Governor Jim Doyle vetoed it...

...Gun owners’ civil rights activists have a brilliant answer: simply pass permitless carry. Called “Constitutional carry” by some, such a law allows any law-abiding citizen with a clean criminal record to carry loaded and concealed in public. It will entail only a cost-free vote and a stroke of the Governor’s pen. That model has worked for Vermont for as long as any living citizen can remember, and every year Vermont is one of our lowest crime states per capita, some years THE lowest. It has worked for years in Alaska. It is working in Arizona, and will undoubtedly work in Wyoming, which just became the fourth state to pass permitless carry.

[Awoke]

Also from Massads blog site, provided by Jeff Dege



http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

[Awoke]

:oo-->

[uncletonoose]

:o

[SLV^GLD]

So, choosing not to carry a gun is also an action. When the day comes, you will reap your rewards for that action even if you chose to believe it was an inaction.


If you have any rights they are only expressed by word or action. By these words or actions you either have rights or you have none.Precisely why I carry a gun.

[Awoke]

Meh. You know how I feel about your pseudo-technical legaliese talk.

All the mumbo jumbo in the world won't do you any good if TPTB decide to take interest in you.

It won't stop NWO pigs from tasering you, or government agents from rendering you off to guantanimo, if they choose to.

[Awoke]

Palani, don't get me wrong. I like you. I respect you.

But dude, what you don't seem to understand here is the most basic and simple truth regarding laws and words:
They already don't care.
The NWO pigs don't respect the modern laws we have now, and they wouldn't respect the psuedo-tech law talk from hundreds of years ago either.

You can talk all the shit you want on this internet forum, but the truth is, if the NWO pigs decide to beat you or shoot you, your fancy-legaliese and talking in your sleep will not stop them.





You're dreaming if you think a couple assholes like these guys are going to listen to what you have to say:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mYqOBKC7Gqw/0.jpg
http://www.examiner.com/urban-social-in-philadelphia/cop-beats-teenage-girl-cell

[SLV^GLD]

If you are going to start classifying as actions the decision to not carry a weapon then you must also classify as an action the decision to be absent from places where the carrying of such a weapon is necessary.
The fundamental problem in your statement there is you cannot choose when and where you may have to defend yourself. Therefore, it becomes impossible to be absent from places where carrying a weapon becomes unnecessary. I carry in my home just the same as I carry on the street. No amount of word twisting or legal insult will deter me from it, either. Call it what you want but when the hand is forced I will be armed and I presume you will not be.

[SLV^GLD]

I can see why you could be confused. No insult intended.
I never said I was confused. You are calling me confused. Are you sure no insult is intended?
Let me be clear. I am not confused about my god-given right to self defense. I am not confused about the potential for deadly force to arrive upon me at any time. I am not confused about meddlesome, trifling man-made legal speak that would otherwise try to convince me I should abrogate my god-given rights to self defense to the advantage of someone who doesn't have the balls to just try to take them by sheer force alone.

[Awoke]

Man, you're way out there.

You're in total denial of the satanic reality around you.


Say what you will.

[sirgonzo420]

I can see why you could be confused. No insult intended.
I never said I was confused. You are calling me confused. Are you sure no insult is intended?
Let me be clear. I am not confused about my god-given right to self defense. I am not confused about the potential for deadly force to arrive upon me at any time. I am not confused about meddlesome, trifling man-made legal speak that would otherwise try to convince me I should abrogate my god-given rights to self defense to the advantage of someone who doesn't have the balls to just try to take them by sheer force alone.

See now you might be one who would care to re-evaluate going around ready to pull a weapon and pull a trigger. Too hot headed. In addition you CHOOSE to be confrontational. My statement was "I can see why you COULD be confused." Not ARE confused. You mention insult, I say no insult intended and yet you CHOOSE to be insulted.

I predict a bad outcome.


I don't think SLV^GLD was being confrontational.

You are just coming across as if you don't believe people have a right to carry a concealed weapon if they so desire.

[SLV^GLD]

No, I wasn't being confrontational at all, I was being direct to avoid confusion. My references to "word twisting and legal insults" were not to be directly related to what palani had to say but more to the fact that when it comes to protecting myself and my family and even anyone else in my vicinity I really don't give a shit what anybody has to say on the matter least of all the state. As such, any amount of debate on the topic isn't going to arouse any reactions of anger.

I accept full liability for my actions. I hope to NEVER EVER have to use my gun for the defense of myself or anyone else. I accept that I very may well get caught committing such an atrocious act as being armed without permission by some gun-fearing pansy who will run and tell the mommy state. I expect that day to mark the beginning of a landmark case that will solidify the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed". However, I hope that my exercising of rights without man's permission is NEVER EVER a forced issue.

If the day comes that I have to use my gun I should hope to employ the 3 "S"s but lacking those options I certainly prefer to be judged by 12 than to be carried by only 6.

I am open to hearing how it is that I am accused irresponsible through my preference for limited liability when I have presented the above stance on the issue.

[Awoke]

Cute.


Realistic.

[Neuro]

If you are a criminal, and you don't know with certainty whether your intended victim or a bystander carries a weapon, you'ld hesitate. I can't really see an argument against concealed carry vs open carry...

[Awoke]

I can't really see an argument against concealed carry vs open carry...


That's because there isn't one.