I may just have to move to Arizona.

[Chief Joseph]

It seems Arizona is one of the few states who seem to get it. First very tough anti illegal immigration policy and now this.

Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_concealed_weapons_arizona)

[jocko]

It seems Arizona is one of the few states who seem to get it. First very tough anti illegal immigration policy and now this.

Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_concealed_weapons_arizona)

in the wall street journal. sure makes alot of sense to me. If they can carry open without a permit, why not concealed. Damn good state...Now we jsut need a federal law that allows carry in any state that allows legal carry, if u have your own states ccw permit..

[Bawanna]

Agreed and I'm sure a few other states in that area will follow suit. I can only hope. I'd like to reside in Wyoming myself and they think pretty correct on a few things too.

[jlottmc]

Those will do, and I like Sheriff Joe (Arpaio). Indeed they seem to get it. If they could get rid of their state income tax, and I could get my family out there, then I'd be leaving on the first thing smoking.

[ltxi]

New Hampshire is perhaps the next best thing.....longstanding liberal shall issue and no state income tax.

[TheSorb]

...I'd like to reside in Wyoming myself and they think pretty correct on a few things too.

Really? It's my understanding that Wyoming is quite anti-gun in terms of carry laws...to what specifically are you referring?:confused:

[O'Dell]

I afraid I'm going to have to take the contrary view here. Although I've had a permit for years, I think there should be some form of background check, but it should be quick and inexpensive. I know some 21+ year olds that I don't want to see carrying. There has to be some way to separate the good guys from the bad guys.

One of the good guys,
O'Dell

[jocko]

I afraid I'm going to have to take the contrary view here. Although I've had a permit for years, I think there should be some form of background check, but it should be quick and inexpensive. I know some 21+ year olds that I don't want to see carrying. There has to be some way to separate the good guys from the bad guys.

One of the good guys,
O'Dell

indeed, it should not just be an over the counter permit. here in Indiana, they do a local police check, then it goes to the indiana State Police with full finger prints etc and they do a more through back ground check, then they issue. With our new lifetime permit option, I don't mind doing that. Did it every 4 years for over 40 years and it was a P.I. A to reduplicate, Now one time in and a $100 and your set for a lifetime. Nice program IMO..

[REACT]

Really? It's my understanding that Wyoming is quite anti-gun in terms of carry laws...to what specifically are you referring?:confused:

Where does that come from? I lived in Cheyenne for 12 years and never consider Wyoming to be anti-gun.

http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/CWPFAQ.html (http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/CWPFAQ.html)

FYI, current Wyoming residents or soon to be future Wyoming residents should consider voting for Matt Mead in the upcoming election (http://www.meadforgovernor.com/ (http://www.meadforgovernor.com/)). My wife worked for Mr. Mead before he became a US Attorney and we got to know him and his family fairly well. He really is a 4th generation rancher and true conservative Republican. If ever there were an honest politician, in my opinion, he would be it.

[Bawanna]

When I visited Wyoming a couple years ago I spoke to some officers and asked about carry permits. They said most don't even bother cause nobody really cares. Said get a Wyoming driver license and your good to go. I realize that these were line troops but they are the ones that will make the difference in the real world. The populaton density at that time I believe was 1 person for every 5 miles. That's got bawanna written all over it. Love the idea of me having my own little 5 miles chunk all to myself and people that I want on it. Course I can't afford to buy it but it's there if I ever get the loot.

On the earlier post regarding 21 year olds that you would not like to see carrying, that is one of my jobs as a civilian police employee. I tend to lean way towards making it work and issueing rather than the others who lean the other way of doing everything possible not to issue. There are lots that if judged by appearance or just gut feeling I would not approve. Actually I qualify, the chief of course approves but he only signs who is qualified. But I accept the fact that its not my place to say yes or no. If they qualify, they get one, the boys will deal with them later if in fact they are up to no good. I agree with the background check, I think they should all be lifetime and taken away if your ever not qualified. I don't agree with test and competency requirements, we have none in washington. That to me creates another person, qualified or not qualified to say no and it's based on the mood and whim of someone who may be one of my dreaded drill sgt rangemasters. Up to the individual to learn how to shoot his gun.
Dang it my soap box fell over again.

[jlottmc]

I'm ok with the test and competency part provided that there is a uniform standard like there is here in TX. The 3 times I've done it for my CHL the range master was more laid back than the hound that treed the possum last night. I agree there are some people that should never know that a fire arm exists, let alone carry one. One of the fastest ways to royally tick us off during my time in the armory was to have a loaded weapon pointed at us, with the apparently obligatory finger on the trigger. Made us grouchy to say the least. I agree also that there needs to be an individual effort to learn the weapon as well, but that falls on the parents, and the person as well. I also believe that we have the right and should not need a permit. I know I just contradicted myself, but... I clear it up later.

[O'Dell]

On the earlier post regarding 21 year olds that you would not like to see carrying, that is one of my jobs as a civilian police employee. I tend to lean way towards making it work and issueing rather than the others who lean the other way of doing everything possible not to issue. There are lots that if judged by appearance or just gut feeling I would not approve. Actually I qualify, the chief of course approves but he only signs who is qualified. But I accept the fact that its not my place to say yes or no. If they qualify, they get one, the boys will deal with them later if in fact they are up to no good. I agree with the background check, I think they should all be lifetime and taken away if your ever not qualified. I don't agree with test and competency requirements, we have none in washington. That to me creates another person, qualified or not qualified to say no and it's based on the mood and whim of someone who may be one of my dreaded drill sgt rangemasters. Up to the individual to learn how to shoot his gun.
Dang it my soap box fell over again.[/QUOTE]

I certainly don't believe in judging on appearance, but when I said I know some 21+, I meant that I do know them. One of my 5 jobs is owning a piece of a restaurant, and although I'm silent, I do spend a lot of time there. I am constantly amazed at the number of young adults today that have had problems with the law, mostly with drug laws. I see it with customers and employees, and a great many of these don't have the emotional stability to carry a deadly weapon in my opinion. Of course, a background check would eliminate a lot of them.

[TheSorb]

...I'd like to reside in Wyoming myself and they think pretty correct on a few things too.


Where does that come from? I lived in Cheyenne for 12 years and never consider Wyoming to be anti-gun...

Hey guys - please accept my sincere apology. It's Wisconsin that is anti-gun, not Wyoming. I got my W-states mixed up...I apologize for maligning the great state of Wyoming...my bad!:blushing:

[Bawanna]

[
I certainly don't believe in judging on appearance, but when I said I know some 21+, I meant that I do know them. One of my 5 jobs is owning a piece of a restaurant, and although I'm silent, I do spend a lot of time there. I am constantly amazed at the number of young adults today that have had problems with the law, mostly with drug laws. I see it with customers and employees, and a great many of these don't have the emotional stability to carry a deadly weapon in my opinion. Of course, a background check would eliminate a lot of them.[/QUOTE]

I sometimes wish we could judge on appearance, I'm usually pretty good at it. But by the same token I don't always look good everyday, well I look good, just some days gooder than others. I'm sure there's lots of first class good guy citizens that if based on looks would not qualify. The problem too is you can have a clean record especially at the tender age of 21 and still not have enough sense to drive a car let alone carry a gun. Many dirt bags get past the background simply because they havent crossed enough lines to be disqualified. NOt a perfect system but its the best we got so far. I agree with the emotional stability line as well, that's a tough one to grade.

[O'Dell]

[
I certainly don't believe in judging on appearance, but when I said I know some 21+, I meant that I do know them. One of my 5 jobs is owning a piece of a restaurant, and although I'm silent, I do spend a lot of time there. I am constantly amazed at the number of young adults today that have had problems with the law, mostly with drug laws. I see it with customers and employees, and a great many of these don't have the emotional stability to carry a deadly weapon in my opinion. Of course, a background check would eliminate a lot of them.

I sometimes wish we could judge on appearance, I'm usually pretty good at it. But by the same token I don't always look good everyday, well I look good, just some days gooder than others. I'm sure there's lots of first class good guy citizens that if based on looks would not qualify. The problem too is you can have a clean record especially at the tender age of 21 and still not have enough sense to drive a car let alone carry a gun. Many dirt bags get past the background simply because they havent crossed enough lines to be disqualified. NOt a perfect system but its the best we got so far. I agree with the emotional stability line as well, that's a tough one to grade.[/QUOTE]

Now that you mentioned it, I have noticed the more tattoos and piercings they have, the more likely that they've been in trouble. But that would be prejudging wouldn't it?

[Bawanna]

Now that you mentioned it, I have noticed the more tattoos and piercings they have, the more likely that they've been in trouble. But that would be prejudging wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]

I'm ok with prejudging, we do it all the time. We can't use it unfortunately but I still prejudge every one I meet. I think it's also called situational awareness.
Often thought of getting a tatoo myself but I hate needles and now I'm gonna use the "It makes me look like a dirtbag" story.

I laugh at how we're not suppose to profile so we strip search 85 year old ladies and men and let the sheet heads thru since we don't want to profile, dang you got me going again. I'm gone, not comeing here again. It's all good.

[a.squibload]

"Many dirt bags get past the background simply because they havent crossed enough lines to be disqualified. "

(Hope I didn't mess up the QUOTE thingy.)

Sometimes the added responsibility could raise their awareness and guide 'em
away from the dark side. Hey, it could happen...

[membler]

I remember many years ago riding my motorcycle through Arizona and saw I guy riding a Harley wearing a single action Colt in a cross draw holster.

I remember thinking "man I love this state"! A guy could retire here.

Mike

[ltxi]

I afraid I'm going to have to take the contrary view here. Although I've had a permit for years, I think there should be some form of background check, but it should be quick and inexpensive. I know some 21+ year olds that I don't want to see carrying. There has to be some way to separate the good guys from the bad guys.

One of the good guys,
O'Dell

Back in the day I would have argued against this.....today, I actually very much agree.

[scoobydo]

I live in California, the unfriendliest gun state in the US.
I would like a CCW, but it is near impossible here unless your a LEO.
While I wish the laws were better here, I have to disagree with what Arizona is doing.
I think that some sort of training class and background check should be mandatory for a CCW license.
I also think that the age should not be 21.
I agree that there are several 21 yo that should not be carrying.
Somewhere more along the lines of 25 would be better.
By that age you are maturing and are well out of the young adult phase of your life. While that varies for some, for the most part it holds true.
I also feel that if you are going to be a troublemaker, 25 years is plenty of time to have already done it and be caught in a background check.

[Bawanna]

I live in California, the unfriendliest gun state in the US.
I would like a CCW, but it is near impossible here unless your a LEO.
While I wish the laws were better here, I have to disagree with what Arizona is doing.
I think that some sort of training class and background check should be mandatory for a CCW license.
I also think that the age should not be 21.
I agree that there are several 21 yo that should not be carrying.
Somewhere more along the lines of 25 would be better.
By that age you are maturing and are well out of the young adult phase of your life. While that varies for some, for the most part it holds true.
I also feel that if you are going to be a troublemaker, 25 years is plenty of time to have already done it and be caught in a background check.

I think a 21 year old who can't qualify or get a CCW will just carry anyhow. The 25 deal only cheats the good responsible guys out of a few years of legal carry. I figure you only have so many years in your life, don't waste them. How many of you drank before your were 21 even though its illegal in most states. Guys with records or who don't qualify rarely apply for a CCW, they just do it anyhow. I've been doing background checks for 11 years, I only had 1 guy who was rejected and he didn't realize that he was a felon, had been so long ago he forgot all about it.
Hate to disagree with ya but I do it with all due respect. I'm sorry you live in California, I'd say come on up to washington, it's ugly but way way better than CA. Trouble is there's so many of you coming up here that they are trying to mimick some of your insane CA laws.
I do agree with background checks so we're on the same page there.

[Chief Joseph]

I'm a little surprised by all the "only if they're qualified" statements. That view is subject and can be turned around to deny ALL of us the right to carry. The same thing that says that guy isn't qualified, is the same thing that says any of us aren't qualified. I'm just as frightened by those who feel that they have the right to deny based on qualifications not as good as themselves as those who feel no one should be armed because in their view NO ONE is qualified. While I'll agree that someone who is a felon has proved they should not carry, someone being judged by age, after adulthood is arrogant. To take the position someone shouldn't carry because you don't like it, is the same attitude that others take that you shouldn't be able to carry. And all of you know how you like being told you shouldn't be allowed to carry yourselves.

[Bawanna]

I'm a little surprised by all the "only if they're qualified" statements. That view is subject and can be turned around to deny ALL of us the right to carry. The same thing that says that guy isn't qualified, is the same thing that says any of us aren't qualified. I'm just as frightened by those who feel that they have the right to deny based on qualifications not as good as themselves as those who feel no one should be armed because in their view NO ONE is qualified. While I'll agree that someone who is a felon has proved they should not carry, someone being judged by age, after adulthood is arrogant. To take the position someone shouldn't carry because you don't like it, is the same attitude that others take that you shouldn't be able to carry. And all of you know how you like being told you shouldn't be allowed to carry yourselves.

When ever I said qualified that is exactly what I meant. YOur a felon, no deal, in Wa a DV assault conviction, no deal. No I don't like your looks or I think your a dirt bag comes into play as much as I sometimes wish it did. I disagree with people who think there should be a test or a qualification to prove your competent. Who's to say the tester is competent. I'd prefer no permits at all, no waiting period, send guns thru the mail like the old day. Probably not gonna happen.

[jlottmc]

True, to all of that. Here's why I said what I did. As a Marine Corps armorer, Marines were supposed to show a clear weapon BEFORE they could gain access to the armory. The weapon was supposed to have the bolt locked to the rear the entire time they were in the building, as well as the weapon being on safe. When they got to my little window the weapon was supposed to be handed through butt first. Fingers were supposed to be off the triggers as well. The number of times that in spite of theses regulations, that I had a loaded weapon off safe with a finger on the trigger being passed through the little window to me: no less than once or twice a week. The worst offenders were the officers and senior enlisted who only saw a rifle once every year or two. That's why I prefer the objective standard, this is only to demonstrate that you won't kill me while cleaning your weapon. Do it once and done, anything else is infringement.

[jlottmc]

Yes I know, I have mixed emotions on this.

[Bawanna]

Yes I know, I have mixed emotions on this.

Hormones?

[TheSorb]

People you need to get this straight in your heads! The right to purchase/own/carry a firearm is just that - a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. It is NOT subject to limitations, restrictions or qualifiers of ANY kind. It cannot be compared to driving, for example. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, and therefore IS subject to whatever limitations, restrictions and/or qualifiers the government (we the people) sees fit to place on it.

I'm talking here about competent, responsible, law-abiding citizens -not those who have, for whatever reason (i.e., crimes, mental health issues, etc.), lost their right to purchase/own/carry a firearm.

Did our founding fathers need a permit to purchase/own/carry a firearm? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Were there restrictions on purchasing/owning/carrying firearms anywhere in the country when the Constitution was written? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS! We, as responsible, law-abiding gun owners, need to stand up & fight for our Constitutional rights, thereby putting a stop to these self-appointed, would-be do-gooders who seek to trample our freedoms! :32:

[Bawanna]

I'm talking here about competent, responsible, law-abiding citizens -not those who have, for whatever reason (i.e., crimes, mental health issues, etc.), lost their right to purchase/own/carry a firearm.

Lets be clear here Mr. Sorb. This is what I'm talking about as well. This is part of my job description. To determine who is the law abiding good guys regardless of their looks, gender or tatooes. Determine if they have committed crimes, mental health checks, etc. Nothing more nothing less. I as stated previously lean towards trying to figure out how they can get a ccw, get their record cleared whatever. I wish there were no reason to do this part of my job, I don't like it to be honest with ya but the system is what it is. I'm all for turning back the clock to the fine days of our forefathers I truely am but until we do some serious behaviour modification and replace about 97% of our government I dont hold out much hope.
Your correct in that its a right, I see no need for the supreme court to read the constitution and try to determine what they meant. I know what it means, you obviously know what it means. There's no gray area for me. When the storm trooper make an attempt to collect all the guns from law abiding good guys, my house would be a very good place to avoid.

[jlottmc]

Well said.

[sviking]

If they could get rid of their state income tax,

Don't forget the ridiculously high 8.4% sales tax on just about EVERYTHING, too. :rolleyes:

[jlottmc]

Eh we have a higher sales tax here in TX.

[sviking]

New Hampshire is perhaps the next best thing.....longstanding liberal shall issue and no state income tax.

Uhhh...NOOO. NH is NOT "the next best thing" to AZ. Too close to NY, MA, CT and in New England. And, you have to drive through most of that crap to get anywhere south/southwest out of NE. Canada isn't an option.... High cost of living, especially energy costs, sh^tty winters... No thanks. Just left for AZ after almost five years in CT. NEVER AGAIN will I set foot in the tri-city NY/CT/NJ area or the rest of New England if I have anything to say about it. :mad:

[sviking]

Eh we have a higher sales tax here in TX.

BFD. You also do NOT have a state income tax IN ADDITION to a high sales tax. You realize that as a TX resident, right? :rolleyes:

[jtabatch]

I fail to see the need for open carry if you're not in law enforcement. The argument for open carry is " it's a deterant " and "to stop a crimnal act" but that's the job of law enforcement. Doing the "right" thing as far as preventing a crime is subjective and the down side is possibly Manslaughter worst case , and best case is civil liability . I am not saying you shouldn't do your best to prevent a crime but to start pulling a gun exposes yourself to the legal system. I open carry when hiking in the mountains but I won't do it otherwise.

[Frankhenrylee]

I wonder sometimes about if my state outlawed concealed carry. Would I still do it? The bad guys are doing it anyway. If its concealed who would know? About the only way to get caught would be if you had to use it which most of us won't. I don't know what I would do, but I don't think I could go without. I'd probably still do it just not as often. This is a great question to post. Someone who knows how to do one of those polls should post it.

[Bawanna]

I wonder sometimes about if my state outlawed concealed carry. Would I still do it? The bad guys are doing it anyway. If its concealed who would know? About the only way to get caught would be if you had to use it which most of us won't. I don't know what I would do, but I don't think I could go without. I'd probably still do it just not as often. This is a great question to post. Someone who knows how to do one of those polls should post it.

No question in my mind. I'd carry anyway. Who's gonna know and who really cares. I follow all rules that make sense to me, if they don't, they get ignored. No guns on school grounds, silly I'm keepin it. No guns on city campus except for uniformed personel, silly I'm keepin it. Unless there's a metal detector I'm keepin it. I just dont go there. Anyone wants to try and take it from me, bring it. I'm keeping it. Your poll is a good idea, I'm clueless how to do that but I'm sure some one smarter than me knows how. Actually that doesnt eliminate anyone does it. I now know what it feels like to be the bottom of the heap. Somebody has to do it I guess.

[jlottmc]

Give me a minute...And I see svikings' true colors are finally coming out. Good. What kind of answer choices do you guys want I'm thinking yes, no and on a limited basis?

[Bawanna]

Give me a minute...And I see svikings' true colors are finally coming out. Good. What kind of answer choices do you guys want I'm thinking yes, no and on a limited basis?

The phrase stand down Marine comes to mind.

[jlottmc]

I was wondering how long that would take. Very well. Answer choices? I can do up to ten.

[sviking]

Give me a minute...And I see svikings' true colors are finally coming out.

Such as? :rolleyes:

[jlottmc]

Ok I think I will do that poll after the current one closes, and the choices will be yes no on a limited basis and not sure. Think that should do it.