Concealed Carry

Trying to make a rule out of an exception? Are you saying that the majority of law enforcement agencies are staffed by incompetent and untrained officers, and administered by idiots?
I'm quite successfully showing that your assertion was unsupportable... at least by facts on the ground.

In truth, such events are too common (we had one in Cleveland recently) for your claims to be anything more than unprovable hyperbole. Citizen training requirements may or may not be adequate... but you're certainly not going to prove it by the performance of the police, ESPECIALLY the performance of the LAPD and Cleveland PD... to name only two.

Of course it's quite obvious that any citizen who acted in a similar manner would have been indicted LONG ago, and probably be languishing in jail on remand. If **I** were to "mistake" a couple of female, Hispanic paper deliverers for a nearly 300lb. Black man, in an entirely different make, model and color of vehicle, and try to shoot them to doll rags, I'd be footing the bill for my own attorney and wouldn't have the Chief of the Rocky River PD and various other cheerleaders defending my actions.
 
Last edited:
I believe that there has to be some minimum of gun proficiency required to go along with a CHL.

I believe that there has to be some minimum of current events proficiency required to go along with the ability to vote. And the media should have to pay a tax on every word that they print in the paper or say on electronic media. Additionally, criminal suspects should have to demonstrate some knowledge of the Constitution and case law regarding the 4th and 5th Amendments before they can assert those to police officers or the court.
 
The requirements in Ohio are not onerous although the class spent a lot more time on safety than I expected and less time on legal issue. But given that the instructors were firearms experts and not lawyers and the rules and regulations for safely handling a firearm are a lot less subject to change and interpretation than legal issues it was a good and worthwhile training even if it was not a requirement.

Now I just have to figure out where to go fill out my application for the permit.

You can get the application online on the Ohio Attorney General Website. just fill it out and take to the county sherriff office where you live or any adjoining county. Check their websites for hours and appointments. Mike
 
I got my NYC permit about 15 years ago. Let me tell you that was an expensive nightmare and the most ridiculous infringement of the second amendment. In all the costs and multiple mandatory visits to 1 Police Plaza, and all the other mandatory arbitrary hoops to jump through, there was no proficiency test.

This is the government you want to entrust with even more authority to impose more rules devised by genius liberals like Cuomo and Blumberg? Who do you think devises these rules, gun experts? Larry Vickers? Gun laws, like communism, work great in theory. Until you see the evil *******(progeny of a female dog) that gets to be dictator or legal author.
 
Last edited:
Trying to make a rule out of an exception? Are you saying that the majority of law enforcement agencies are staffed by incompetent and untrained officers, and administered by idiots?

August 25, 2012 two NYPD officers fire 16 shots at a suspect from 8 feet away, wounding 9 bystanders in the process. Later the Mayor and Police Chief say it was a "good shoot" and the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing.

THEY MISSED NINE OF SIXTEEN SHOTS FROM EIGHT FEET AWAY. And they were not surprised by the suspect, rather they had their guns drawn and were hunting the suspect. It was in broad daylight in front of the Empire State Building.
 
My post was not to stir up a hornet's nest---but to express concern about the poor state of standards for concealed carry and that an absolutist position that any regulations concerning firearms will only make gun owners eventually lose. The simple fact is that the percentage of gun owners in this country has been on the decline--more guns--but fewer people having them (sort of like wealth). It is my opinion that if gun owners lead on establishing standards, such as in the area of training and qualifications to have a concealed carry permit, they present a position that can be characterised only as "responsible" by any rational observer. The demographics are compelling as I see them-----eventually the general public will demand action and the politicians will bend to their wishes and no gun owner will like the outcome.
 
You know sumthin--I have been carrying a gun when it was illegal in Texas. Matter of fact, it was politics what made it illegal & most folks I knew simply ignored the poloticians.
Let's look at it logically.
Folks have been totten guns for a long time. Some knew what they were doing and some had no idea. Most gangsta's have no clue about gun saftey or much about the gun to any degree. They still carry.
Shootin at a target is a LOT different than shootin at sumbody.
Read the tales of the old west and gunfights---those boys were notoriously bad shots.
In a urban society--knowing the CONSEQUENCES of the law is most important---the mentality and morality of it all cannot be taught.
If you carry, accept the responsibility---I mean, REALLY ACCEPT it.
I don't care what you do----accept that what you are doing is dangerous---not that dangerous is a bad thing---stuff happens.
Why do you put more liability on a man that is law abiding than a man who is a career criminal and has friends in prison that he aint seen in a long time anyway.
Lifeis dangerous but we give DL's to just about anybody that can pass an eye test.
Folks---OH, FOLKS---you can't stop it. No sir, it is impossible to stop.
I could go on but if you need further discussion, just give me a PM.
Blessings
 
My post was not to stir up a hornet's nest---but to express concern about the poor state of standards for concealed carry and that an absolutist position that any regulations concerning firearms will only make gun owners eventually lose. The simple fact is that the percentage of gun owners in this country has been on the decline--more guns--but fewer people having them (sort of like wealth). It is my opinion that if gun owners lead on establishing standards, such as in the area of training and qualifications to have a concealed carry permit, they present a position that can be characterised only as "responsible" by any rational observer. The demographics are compelling as I see them-----eventually the general public will demand action and the politicians will bend to their wishes and no gun owner will like the outcome.
If you'd read the rules of this forum, I believe you'll find that the discussion of politics is frowned upon on this forum. Perhaps you'd be better served at the VPC, Brady, or maybe Al Gore websites, where you'll find likeminded people to have conversation with.
 
My post was not to stir up a hornet's nest---but to express concern about the poor state of standards for concealed carry and that an absolutist position that any regulations concerning firearms will only make gun owners eventually lose. ...

Ah but your absolute opinion is that the 2nd amendment is not meant for much more than hunting or recreational shooting, yes? I mean, unless I have a need to "prove my manhood" by carrying a gun. :rolleyes:

So why have concealed carry at all, right? Am I wrong that you think concealed carry is a bad idea in general and could be done away with?

Bengal07 on 4/30/2013 "The interpretation of why there is a 2d Amendment has been so distorted by those pushing a particular agenda of absolutely no reestrictions on firearms. It had nothing to do with people arming themselves against a tyrannical gov't. It was a practical way for a new country without any money to create a standing army by allowing citizens to have arms and form state militias."
 
Last edited:
they present a position that can be characterised only as "responsible" by any rational observer. The demographics are compelling as I see them-----eventually the general public will demand action and the politicians will bend to their wishes and no gun owner will like the outcome.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I disagree. "Responsible (and reasonable)" are words that politicians use to paint gun owners (and anyone else who disagrees with them) as irresponsible and unreasonable. The truth is that while taking those steps might appear responsible, what it really does is validate the gungrabbers argument. They will say, "See even gun owners think that too many unqualified irresponsible people are carying guns." If we give an inch they will not be satisfied.

As for the "rational observer" they are never rational. They are emotional. Gun debates are always emotional debates. Those rational observers don't own guns and don't carry guns, and the fact that other people do scares them. A new law might make them feel better; that is until the next high profile shooting. Then guess what, those "rational observers"will want to observe more being done to "keep us safe." I understand where you're coming from, but I don't trust lawmakers or "rational observers."

I live in Alabama where there are no classes required. Just pay the $7.50. Everyone carries. Not to mention I don't go a day without seeing a few people open carrying. To my knowledge, us CCL holders have been pretty responsible without additional laws. People are not accidentally getting shot by CCL holders. With that said, I do live in a state were most "rational observers" are not afraid of guns. Take it for what it's worth.
 
My post was not to stir up a hornet's nest---but to express concern about the poor state of standards for concealed carry and that an absolutist position that any regulations concerning firearms will only make gun owners eventually lose. The simple fact is that the percentage of gun owners in this country has been on the decline--more guns--but fewer people having them (sort of like wealth). It is my opinion that if gun owners lead on establishing standards, such as in the area of training and qualifications to have a concealed carry permit, they present a position that can be characterised only as "responsible" by any rational observer. The demographics are compelling as I see them-----eventually the general public will demand action and the politicians will bend to their wishes and no gun owner will like the outcome.

By using the analogy of a Hornets Nest, you are implying a kind of mindless group response or reaction on the part of the people that are disagreeing with you. That is simply not so.

We know that the opinion you are expressing, while valid, and having some common sense elements, is unfortunately one shared by the left, or those that fight on a daily basis to abolish or limit our rights under the second. Yes, more training is a good thing. No one would argue that simple premise. But if you are proposing that we, as supporters of the 2nd, should get in front of new legislation in order to preempt the left's efforts as a tactic to somehow satisfy the left is wishful thinking.

You are assuming that the left is rational, and genuine in any focus on this training issue. Many here believe it is just another tactic, and their efforts would quickly shift to another point if proven wrong on this one, or just create even bigger lies to overcome the reality.

I don't see the left giving up their anti efforts because we are training more. There are all kinds of ways they would and could spin that story, especially with the help of the MSM and pompous ignorant foreigners like Piers Morgan on CNN. Anything that would solidify the tenets of gun ownership and the constitution in the accepted social norms in this country is the enemy of the left.

It's like the Terminator, you can not reason with it, you can not plead with it. It will not listen to reason, and it does not care. It will not stop, ever, until the 2nd is dead. We all need to understand that.

"OK Mr. Bloomberg, I just came back from Thunder Ranch. Can I please have my rights back? I will try not to disappoint you or Rosie O'D."

"Sure kid, that's all we ever wanted. Simple misunderstanding."
 
Last edited:
A recent Gallop Poll states that 42% of American households are firearm owners. Who is this "General Public" that want stricter controls? Are 70 - 80 million American gun owners wrong? The Anti's would have one believe it's either a "with-us-or-against-us" proposition. Because 42% own firearms does not mean that 58% are against ownership.
My opinion is that the gun control advocates are LOUDER than us law-abiding firearm owners. But the politicians know better than anyone else what the real numbers are. Their actions last month (or lack of actions) spoke MUCH LOUDER than the words (lies) of the anti's.
 
Back
Top