open carry/concealed carry dilemma

[ladder13]

Just OC, but watch out for the anti-OC zealots.

 

[Smoke]

Just OC, but watch out for the anti-OC zealots.

I agree that if he has no other option then he should OC but why shouldn't he look into gettign the conviction removed from his record?

 

[Rastoff]

Unfortunately, this is not as simple as it seems. As much as I disagree with it, just having an arrest on your record puts you in a different class of people. You didn't say if you were convicted or not, but just having that arrest makes you a "bad person" in the eyes of most. Like I said, that's wrong, but it is the way of things.

Further, those who obtain a concealed license tend to be held to a higher standard. That's not right either, but it is also just the way it is. The authorities expect that because you passed the class, that you have no excuse for not knowing the law and should be following it. Again, it's not right, but it is how people react.

I have a friend who was denied a license because he had a report of domestic abuse. It's important to note that it was a report, not an arrest, conviction or jail time. He and his wife got in an argument and she called the cops and said he had a gun. He didn't even own a gun at that time and it was sorted out when the cops got there, but they still filed a report and the word "gun" was on it. So, they denied him a license.

Welcome to the overly strict world of concealed carry. Like it was said earlier, get a lawyer. That is probably your only chance. Open carry is marginal at best. With your record it could lead to more trouble even though you're totally clean. I feel for you.

 

[ladder13]

I agree that if he has no other option then he should OC but why shouldn't he look into gettign the conviction removed from his record?

He certainly can try, I know of 2 cases in my county where people have gotten their right to purchase firearms restored after "domestic disputes".
One required a lawyer's intervention, the other did not.
Domestic disturbance is different from drug involvement though.

 

[SgtLumpy]

Further, those who obtain a concealed license tend to be held to a higher standard. That's not right either, but it is also just the way it is...

I'm going to have to differ my opinion from yours, Ras. I think it IS right that those who obtain a CCW are held to a higher standard. I feel the same way about cops, physicians, soldiers. I wish it were true with drivers of automobiles and politicians.

A dick head with a gun is more of a problem than a dick head with a T shirt or a cellphone or a donut. We hear frequently, right here, that carrying a gun means we should AVOID problem areas and situations whenever possible, rather than charge in and say "I'm not scared, I've got a gun". That seems like a "higher standard" to me.

I certainly hold myself to a higher standard when I'm armed than when I'm not. And I hold myself to a higher standard all of the time simply because I am a CCW holder, even when I'm not armed.


Sgt Lumpy

 

[Rastoff]

Sgt Lumpy,
There is a very fine line here. I hope I can explain my thinking clearly.

I believe that owning and carrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Because it's a right and not a privilege, I believe there should be no requirement from the government to carry.

I am a certified NRA Instructor. I have held a few classes and I've done a lot of impromptu training. I've seen a LOT of seriously stupid gun handling. Not all was done by stupid people. Much was from shear ignorance. So, I know the value of quality training and I believe that everyone who carries a gun should seek out the best training they can get.

Now, even though I think people should get training, I'm opposed to the government forcing that training on a person in order to exercise their right. Neither should a person be held to a higher standard because they have sought training; the law must apply equally to all. As soon as a different standard exists for a certain class of people, the entire idea of freedom breaks down.

I, like you, do indeed hold myself to a higher standard. Not because of what I carry, but because it's right. I stop at stop signs, I try to stay within the speed limit, I don't lie and I don't take advantage of people. I expect no more from my fellows than I expect from myself. By the same measure that I judge, I will be judged.

Cops, physicians, soldiers, lawyers and politicians all hold other people's livelihood in their hands. I expect them to do their jobs diligently and with the understanding of what happens when they do not. Garbage men, postal carriers, store clerks and tree trimmers may not have the same direct influence on a person's life, but I expect them to do their job to the best of their ability as well. Thus, I hold them to the same standard as I hold anyone.

So, no, I don't think a CCW holder should be held to a higher standard. If they break the law, they should be punished accordingly. The same should go for any person. I guess it could be said differently; I don't think those without a CCW should be treated more leniently because they don't have a license.

 

[SgtLumpy]

...So, no, I don't think a CCW holder should be held to a higher standard. If they break the law, they should be punished accordingly. The same should go for any person. I guess it could be said differently; I don't think those without a CCW should be treated more leniently because they don't have a license.

OK. I'm more clear on your angle now, I think.

Still, I'm not sure I'm in total agreement. That's perfectly ok, of course.

I'm simply suggesting that if you're carrying a weapon, you automatically have (should have) a higher standard of "acceptable behavior".

Because there's more than one of us in the country, we're faced with the concept of governing ourselves. Nobody likes a politician a thousand miles away "telling me how to run my life". But most are pretty ok with the idea that that same politician can tell a habitual or violent criminal offender that his right to bear arms will be restricted or removed.

We have all kinds of laws that relate to that concept and most of us are probably very ok with them. Using a gun to commit a crime is a higher level of crime than if you don't use a gun. I'm certainly not suggesting that CCW permit holders pay more for a speeding ticket. Those two are totally unrelated. But there surely are behaviors that most would agree are not something we want gun bearers to engage in, even if they aren't using the gun while doing that behavior. I don't think I want drug smugglers or rapists or burglars to be allowed to bear arms in their "non crime committing hours".

That's what I'm suggesting when I say that we, gun owners, gun bearers, are (and should be) held to a higher standard. We SHOULD be doing it ourselves. We SHOULD be taking your classes and learn to handle firearms safely. But very often we don't do it ourselves. So the rest of the people around us get together and "require it" of the others.


Sgt Lumpy

 

[gm272gs]

...or he slipped through NICS when he got his guns...Do weigh that risk carefully

I think that this plays a pivotal role in whether or not the OP should appeal the decision or try to get his record expunged. Form 4473 does ask (11e) "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any controlled substance?"

Technically, you could truthfully answer "no" in this case because "are you" implies "now" and not "at some time in the past".

But since the form only spells out a misdemenor offense specifically for domestic violence as being something for which you can be denied, I think that the OP is okay here.

Unless of course, the OP still uses said controlled-substance for "recreational use". In that case, he used it before and uses it now, so there might be some grey area as to how truthful he was when he answered question 11e.

 

[Chillock]

I have seen several post suggesting getting a out of state permit if it reciprocates... Be sure to check the law! In the state of Washington, if you have been denied a CPL, you can NOT legally carry concealed in the state even if you have an out of state license/permit to conceal carry. Your out of state permit becomes nil and void if you are denied a WA license and a resident of WA.

Just something to check into.

 

[CoMF]

The simple, non-judgemental answer is yes. You can OC but if you're stopped by a LEO, your record will cause you to be "inconvenienced" even further. I mean no disrespect, but I think your best course of action would be to consult with an attorney about this rather than asking these kinds of questions in a public forum.

 

[Andrew2105]

I wonder a lot

I wonder what public good comes from this gentleman being prohibited from carrying concealed & permitted to carry openly?

If he is a "menace" with a concealed weapon wouldn't he be the same with an openly carried gun?

I wonder too that in the current climate of cannabis being now legal in several states, how past convictions, possession etc which are now not illegal are considered?
Anyone with a bootlegging conviction from the prohibition era able to comment on their experience?

 

[keith44spl]

Short answer......Get yourself one of those thar expungements.

If you are going to open carry get yourself a good retention holster and dress appropriately.


.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I just think that its stupid...that I am legally allowed to purchase firearms, however I am not allowed to conceal carry. It doesn't make any sense to me. Yes I broke a law and I m not denying that but they should look more closely at my record and see that I have never attempted to hurt anyone or rob any businesses. Honestly I would prefer to conceal carry, unfortunately legally I can't. I m am aware of the laws concerning open carry (I' have read them many times)....I m still a little confused, however about transporting the firearm in my vehicle. I m pretty sure I can transport it as long as it is unloaded and in the trunk which is ironic because if I driving down the highway and some crazy person decides to pick me out and randomly shoot at me and my family, I have no defense except police and who knows how long it will take them to show up. Does anyone know the laws for transporting a handgun for sure?

This may seem to be a little bit of thread drift, but if you're still smoking weed, you're not legally able to possess a firearm.

 

[internet troll]

If you do decide to open carry in Pennsylvania, be aware that a permit is needed to open carry in the city of philadelphia and you must have a permit to open carry in a vehicle.

And also when the state is in a state of emergency.

 

[internet troll]

Not to be a jerk but actions have consequences. You made a decision to risk the consequences of breaking the law when you sold the weed.

As for open carrying this is speculation but if someone calls you in for MWAG and the cops that show up run your record your prior conviction could cause you some hassles with the cops.

My advice is to consult a lawyer and see if there is any way to have the conviction expunged from your record.

I see your point, but I think that 2nd Amendment proponents need to address the concept that our 2nd amendment rights are being stripped by linking them to non firearm crimes. I see it as a way that antis have achieved a type of back door gun control.

Funny that they don't link other crimes to permanently losing your first Amendment right of free speech, or the permanent loss of the 4th and your right to be free of illegal search and seizure. but the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms can be permanently compromised.

Like I said, backdoor gun control.

 

[wheelgunguy]

Anyone with a bootlegging conviction from the prohibition era able to comment on their experience?

Someone who turned 18 on the last day of prohibition would be celebrating their 100th birthday this year.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I see your point, but I think that 2nd Amendment proponents need to address the concept that our 2nd amendment rights are being stripped by linking them to non firearm crimes. I see it as a way that antis have achieved a type of back door gun control.

Funny that they don't link other crimes to permanently losing your first Amendment right of free speech, or the permanent loss of the 4th and your right to be free of illegal search and seizure. but the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms can be permanently compromised.

Like I said, backdoor gun control.

Your right to vote can be permanently compromised . . .

 

[Harkrader]

Open carry

While I do not open carry and won't, I've seen some interesting phenomenon.
There is a CCW instructor from Minnesota who carries openly at the front of his belt. Perhaps what's called "appendix carry."

It is a S&W revolver, last I checked a 6-shooter. He carries there to protect it from someone snatching it.

The interesting thing is how many people don't see it. My feeling is that if your only option is open carry, you can find a way to carry it in plain sight but not obvious.

On another occasion on a blisteringly hot day I was with friends having lunch in a Dennys in Milwaukee when four men walked in, dressed in business suits. Three of them had their coats slung over an arm. Those three were plain-clothes police officers and their guns were in plain sight on their hips. A few heads turned, but by no means all. I wondered whether being in a group of quite ordinary business men was part of the reason.

Anyway, good luck and be careful.

 

[ladder13]

I see your point, but I think that 2nd Amendment proponents need to address the concept that our 2nd amendment rights are being stripped by linking them to non firearm crimes. I see it as a way that antis have achieved a type of back door gun control.

Funny that they don't link other crimes to permanently losing your first Amendment right of free speech, or the permanent loss of the 4th and your right to be free of illegal search and seizure. but the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms can be permanently compromised.

Like I said, backdoor gun control.

You're right. I've seen people get their permits/license pulled for excessive speeding.

 

[internet troll]

Your right to vote can be permanently compromised . . .

True, but which Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to vote. I believe that it is written into the 14th Amendment that states have the right to decide who can be disenfranchised. In other words the Constitution addresses removing the right to vote from people.