Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

A conflict of interest

Gene LGene L Senior MemberPosts: 11,467 Senior Member
In GA, there is a bill introduced for Constitutional carry.  I'm not sure how I feel about this; I'm all for it if people are law abiding, but there's a helluva lot of rogues in GA and I question if it's OK to give them the right to bear arms without a background check.  Any thoughts on this?
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.

Replies

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,446 Senior Member
    Seems to be working pretty well in those states that have Constitutional Carry...I doubt that GA has any more bad guys than any of those states.
    Still illegal for a felon to own or carry a firearm...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 22,984 Senior Member
    All CC does is makes it easier for law abiding citizens to carry. Criminals are going to carry - or not - regardless.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,367 Senior Member
    If its illegal for someone to own a firearm because of prior criminal conviction, then how much leverage can additional charge add?

    If its a problem, I can't see what it is?
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,467 Senior Member
    As I said I'm conflicted.  Today, in Dekalb County, a LEO was killed during a traffic stop and a K-9 was critically wounded. The perp's name and record has not been released, but I would hate to know he legally owned the weapon.  He's in critical condition, or was.  He was shot as well, but  may survive.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    I don't have a problem with Constitutional Carry, be it open or concealed. Mandatory concealed carry came about as a way for lawful citizens to carry for self protection as open carry caused  SOME people to get a case of the vapors seeing a firearm on someone obviously NOT a LEO. Constitutional carry has been the law in several states for some time now, and they haven't degenerated to 'the shootout at the O.K. corral' because of it.

    Think about it. A robber walks into a store with intent to rob it. First thing he notices is like 30 Constitutional Carry folk in the store. Would be thief says, 'Aw HELL NO!' and exits store. An openly armed could be a safer and more polite society.


      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • rberglofrberglof Senior Member Posts: 2,619 Senior Member
    Constitutional Carry only affects the law abiding, as was said some one that cannot legally carry will do whatever they want to do ether way. Has worked just fine here in North Dakota.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,505 Senior Member
    Quick devil's advocate point from a LEO perspective. Leo stops a suspicious vehicle full of young men. A search shows they are carrying ski masks and are armed to the teeth. None of them have CCWs. A few have misomenor convictions and are wearing known gang colors. One has tatoos that clearly indicate gang activity. 

    Officer hands them back their guns and tells them to have a nice night and be safe. They have not yet commited a crime. There is nothing he can charge them with. 

    Why would the LEO have touched the guns in the first place under state wide Constitutional Carry as long as notification was give if required by the State?
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • FlashoverFlashover Member Posts: 390 Member
    cpj said:
    Quick devil's advocate point from a LEO perspective. Leo stops a suspicious vehicle full of young men. A search shows they are carrying ski masks and are armed to the teeth. None of them have CCWs. A few have misomenor convictions and are wearing known gang colors. One has tatoos that clearly indicate gang activity. 

    Officer hands them back their guns and tells them to have a nice night and be safe. They have not yet commited a crime. There is nothing he can charge them with. 
    And that’s EXACTLY how it should be! 
    Amen. Until and UNLESS they have committed an actual crime then they should be afforded all rights and freedoms.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    My understanding is that with Constitutional Carry you still need a background check to purchase a firearm, you just don't need a permit to carry it.  I suppose that means someone could obtain a firearm without purchasing it, either as a gift or through theft, and not go through the background check, or maybe obtain it from a private seller. 
    Overkill is underrated.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,367 Senior Member
    I was thinking perhaps wrongly that certian convicted felons are legally barred from firearms ownership, not just purchase?
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    I was thinking perhaps wrongly that certian convicted felons are legally barred from firearms ownership, not just purchase?

    My understanding of it is that felons of any type are FEDERALLY prohibited from having a firearm under their control. States are the same as far as I know.  It's illegal for a felon to posses ammunition under Federal law, also, but I've never heard of that one being enforced. A felon can go through the process of getting their rights restored, though.

    What is an oddity to that is that cap and ball and muzzle loading firearms are not treated as firearms by the ATF. So a felon could own them in some, but not all, states. Some states regulate those the same as cartridge firearms.

      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,367 Senior Member
    That being the case, it would seem to mitigate the conflict?
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 1,057 Senior Member
    Kinda reminds me of a few videos that I watched on YouTube. These guys call it doing a “First Amendment Audit”. They go to places like courthouses, military bases, police stations, etc. and record while standing on the public right of way. The cops ALWAYS get called and arrive and almost always demand ID which the guys politely decline to show unless the cop can state what law has been broken. They don’t like that one bit and a few of them guys got rich in lawsuits (as they should). Sorry to say but it’s the same with the 2A. It’s not illegal until you’re breaking a law. Suspicion is not a crime.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,446 Senior Member
    Couple of guys up here tried that by walking into a police station carrying long guns and wearing ski masks and loaded up tac vests...then they refused to disarm when ordered to do so...it did not work out well for them....
    Both ended up in jail.



    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,787 Senior Member
    It doesn't really matter whether the gun (or any other potentially lethal weapon) used in a crime was legal or not...the criminal act, itself, has sufficient penalty to imprison, or maybe even execute the perpetrator. The weapon used is simply evidentiary, and can mitigate the punishment, either way. Emphasizing the use of a gun is a lawyers way to cut corners, by stimulating the emotions of a jury, because so many potential jurors are frightened by them.

    It has been going on for so long that political correctness makes it work to a lawyer's advantage, making it much easier to win, without having to prove the crime, itself.
  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 1,057 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:
    Couple of guys up here tried that by walking into a police station carrying long guns and wearing ski masks and loaded up tac vests...then they refused to disarm when ordered to do so...it did not work out well for them....
    Both ended up in jail.



    I don’t know the laws where you live, but it’s usually illegal to carry in a PD or any government building, so those idiots had it coming. I guess all that I was trying to get across is: In this country, you are innocent until you commit a crime although the liberals seem to want to make this place like the movie Minority Report. I used to think those guys doing those audits were idiots but now I see where they’re coming from. It’s amazing how often you hear the “in this day and age”, or “you’re suspicious “. Tough ****, I’m not breaking a law. It amazes me what some people get kidnapped and thrown in a cage for.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,483 Senior Member
    This is a discussion that is based on an action that is supposed to be off limits to government entities in the first place. It is strange to me that we need another law to reinforce a right that we already have. 

    That said, constitutional carry is working in Idaho. Every violent crime that I'm aware of was committed by someone with a record, except for an event a few years ago. Dude walked into his house and found his wife getting boned by his friend. He shot them both and himself. He did not have a previous record. Having a permit would not have made a bit of difference in this particular situation.

    My only complaint: I work in Washington so I must carry a WA permit when I cross the border five days per week. 

    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,446 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:
    Couple of guys up here tried that by walking into a police station carrying long guns and wearing ski masks and loaded up tac vests...then they refused to disarm when ordered to do so...it did not work out well for them....
    Both ended up in jail.



    I don’t know the laws where you live, but it’s usually illegal to carry in a PD or any government building, so those idiots had it coming. I guess all that I was trying to get across is: In this country, you are innocent until you commit a crime although the liberals seem to want to make this place like the movie Minority Report. I used to think those guys doing those audits were idiots but now I see where they’re coming from. It’s amazing how often you hear the “in this day and age”, or “you’re suspicious “. Tough ****, I’m not breaking a law. It amazes me what some people get kidnapped and thrown in a cage for.
    These morons were looking for a confrontation since one of them was recording the incident for their open carry blog....at least until he got dog piled...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • rberglofrberglof Senior Member Posts: 2,619 Senior Member
    North Dakota
    HB1169 allows any person who is legally eligible for a Class 2 firearm carry license and who has possessed a valid North Dakota driver’s license or ID card to carry a concealed firearm without needing to first obtain the firearm carry license.
    However, existing state law prohibiting loaded firearms in vehicles only specifically exempted firearms carried under concealed carry permits, prompting the question about whether constitutional carry applied in vehicles.  Attorney General Stenehjem ruled that a North Dakota driver’s license or ID card “is the equivalent” of a concealed carry permit, so constitutional carry qualifies for the exemption to the prohibition against loaded firearms in vehicles.

  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 362 Member
    tennmike said:
    I was thinking perhaps wrongly that certian convicted felons are legally barred from firearms ownership, not just purchase?

    My understanding of it is that felons of any type are FEDERALLY prohibited from having a firearm under their control. States are the same as far as I know.  It's illegal for a felon to posses ammunition under Federal law, also, but I've never heard of that one being enforced. A felon can go through the process of getting their rights restored, though.

    What is an oddity to that is that cap and ball and muzzle loading firearms are not treated as firearms by the ATF. So a felon could own them in some, but not all, states. Some states regulate those the same as cartridge firearms.

      In AZ any firearm is barred to felons, period. Getting 2A rights restored is almost impossible as Congress defunded the ATFE from doing that years ago. It cannot be done locally or at the state level once the person is a felon, to the best of my knowledge. As for the question about the background check, yes, buying from an FFL still requires the background check, which here takes about 5-10 minutes on the phone. As for private sales, Arizona wisely took the course that what citizens do legally with their own legally held property isn't really the states business, and our preemption law keeps it that way. 
    And Alpha's example? In the late 80s I and a shipmate were driving down I-10 in the dark early morning hours to go shooting at his families place in Benson. We are both wearing multiple firearms openly, as was legal, (even if impractical, as we discovered later), and had MANY firearms in the vehicle, including a semi-auto UZI laying open in the back seat with a Springfield M1A. There were more, but years make memories hazy. ;) We both had visible tattoos, Navy sailors on leave. Long story short, pulled over for speeding. DPS never even tried to disarm us, gave him his speeding ticket, and let us on our way. Should something else happened? 
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement