Talonap said:
Good research and all like everyone else said. However, I just find the whole thing a bit disconcerting. It's like, "I'm in too much of a hurry to get a gun. Why should I have to wait like everyone else? I'm special and will find a way to do it using all the 'Loopholes' I can find." It just sounds like desperation of some kind. I congratulate you for being able to find these loopholes in the law, and it may be legal, but sorry, I can't condone it. Just my opinion.
Laws exist to govern those too irresponsible to govern themselves, and I'm not. The law is not supreme. My rights are.
If there's anything truly wrong with what I'm doing, then it's the law that's wrong, and not me, because I'm operating within it.
Talonap said:
Isn't there a line in Jurassic Park something like, "They spend so much time doing something just because they can, they don't think about whether they should."
Well it's like my Dad says: "Gun laws usually make sense to anyone who's never been a victim of violent crime."
He was robbed at gunpoint five years ago, by three convicted felons.
Have you ever been robbed at gunpoint?
Furthermore, are laws basis for your rights, or is it the other way around? If you base your rights on laws...you won't have rights for very long...
John_G said:
I know, right? Why would anyone be so desperate to defend his own life?
John_G said:
...and it may be legal, but sorry, I can't condone it.
Thank God you don't need to.
Here, here! That's the beauty of a free society, my friend: we don't have to agree, as long as we don't
directly infringe on someone else's rights or liberty.
Talonap said:
So let's all ignore ALL the laws in our states, look for every loophole, and give ccw to 10 year olds because they want to "defend 'their' own life".
The difference between me and a 10-year-old is that I've been on my own and supported myself for the past four years. I've demonstrated responsibility to carry a gun in defense of myself, the same way an 18-year-old in the military has demonstrated his or her competency to carry a gun in defense of YOUR FREEDOM. If you really think the law is always right, then you're saying that I'm old enough to defend your right to criticize me, with an assault rifle, but not old enough to defend MYSELF, with a handgun.
Are you offended that I'm taking responsibility for my own safety instead of depending on the police for it? If that's the case, then become a cop and volunteer to be my bodyguard 24/7 and I'll consider not carrying anymore.
Talonap said:
I know he isn't special, but does he?
If I thought I was "special," then I would have ignored the law completely and carried a gun without bothering to get a permit...let alone TWO of them...
DEDON45 said:
Good Job! You obviously have some skills, learning to work the system, you'll make a good attorney... and it sounds like you'll be one of the "good guys."
Is it me, or does it piss anyone else off that a young man (or woman) that can be drafted (or volunteer) into the military, trained to operate multi-million dollar equipment, get his rear end shot off, all for this country, isn't afforded the priveleges that an "adult" over the age of 21 is afforded?
I'm not 18 anymore (I'm 32) but I have a younger brother who's 19, a responsible young man (as responsible as one can be at that age!), and he has less rights than I do... yet he'd be first on the list if a draft was on. Don't misread me here, I respect and admire our military (very much) and its' members (during some years, not so much the Commander in Chief), it's just ridiculous that any of these folks who are not 21 are treated like children.
Maybe the OP can take a look at the law in this area when he's practicing... sure would be a lot of fun to hear about this fella taking this to the SCOTUS.
Thanks once again!
I absolutely agree with you.
The men and women in our military fight every day for our freedom. Although they may not have much to fight for if we keep electing leaders like George Bush Jr. and John McCain, who opposes both
Heller and your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures...among many others...
Thanks for your encouragement towards pursing a career in law. That's my plan, and if I can ever make it, my dream is to become a lobbyist for the NRA. There's many rights I believe in, but more than anything I'm passionate about the right that protects all others: the right to keep and bear arms.
biggiesmalls said:
i'm suprised there's so little criticism here. crawling through loopholes and exploiting the system, and then gloating about it later as if its something so honorable? sure you can justify it by saying you need to protect yourself, but a 5 year old could make that same argument. we have laws for a reason and if you don't like it you can write your congressman. i respect the intended purpose of the law and the intention was to let people 21 and up carry concealed.
Well
WHAT UP, Chris Wallace! Tupac, here.
'Turns out us gang-bangers don't care what the
intent of the law is! We go strapped with gats illegally despite having NO PERMITS AT ALL...and FELONY CRIMINAL RECORDS EVEN! We LOVE IT when them 'crackas carry on about s*** like the law's intent and age requirements...'cause it be so much easier to jack them b**ces befo' they be 21 and carryin' by 'they own state's permit!
Neva'mind them out-o'-state permits and such, they gotsta' be obeyin' the law's original intent.
WEST SIDDEEE!!
REPRESENT!
biggiesmalls said:
the citizens of the states that issued you a permit should be very offended because you used their laws to bypass a law in your own state.
Bullsh*t.
I paid both states good money to process those applications, and have made it a goal to visit them before my permits expire. They broke even on their processing fees, and gained tourism they wouldn't have otherwise had. What on earth do they have to be offended about?
biggiesmalls said:
i firmly believe that the RKBA community needs to spend our efforts changing the system and not just finding loopholes around it.
Don't you get it? I'm working to change the system by exemplifying the laws of some states to point out the problem with those in my own. Several posters here have already commented on that very fact, did you notice?
And I disagree that NC wants only 21+ to carry. If that were the case, then they'd have specific provisions against Non-Resident Permits, the same way that CO, WV, MI, NH, SC and KS currently do.
It's not my fault that NC didn't think as far ahead as I did...but either way you look at it, I'm either A) improving existing state laws or B) "spending my efforts changing the system."
Either way, I don't see how you're dissatisfied.
Oana said:
Admittedly, I don't think I'd post it or try to create a fuss. That's a nice way to get legislation scribbled up in a hurry...
I've worked for the NC State Gov. on two separate occasions, and trust me, they don't "hurry" to do anything. Besides...it's the principle of the thing.
matt87 said:
To all those accusing the OP of 'acting special' and saying that there's the 21+ rule for a reason, I've never found an age limit in the Second Amendment, have you? If a Jewish man found a 'loophole' in the German Weapons Law allowing him to obtain a firearm by jumping through a similar number of hoops, would you criticise him? Disarming people based upon their race and by some arbitrary, nonsensical age limit are both wrong. So what if neither situation is against the intention of the legislators? They both unfairly rob a group of a right.
Amen to that, my friend! Once again, someone understands the point behind my passion for this....
fletcher said:
He found a gap in the absurd laws, and took advantage of it. He can carry openly all over the place here at 18 (and that's perfectly OK), so is there anything morally wrong with carrying concealed at the same age? Certainly not. IMO, it's more honorable than letting misinformed legislators and anti-gun groups trample our rights as they please.
Also, I'd bet that it would simply result in a rewritten reciprocity agreement, not no longer honoring NH permits.
You're absolutely right. The worst I see happening from this is a new agreement similar to that of states that already don't honor non-res permits...and that's ONLY going to happen if I'm confronted or picked up by an overzealous DA who wants to make an example (and believe me, after Mike Nifong and his Duke Lacrosse bullsh** which resulted in a multi-million dollar lawsuit, I doubt too many activist DAs are going to be that ballsy). The only way anyone would take interest beyond that is if they read this forum...and I think we'd be giving ourselves a little too much credit here to assume that DAs and lawmakers have nothing better to do than read internet forums full of "gun nuts."
Albatross said:
I'm surprised that there is criticism here.
The level of law worship is what I find disconcerting and this talk of exploiting the system? Like the system is some entity to be cherished.
The system is exploiting him. He could have been doing a hell of a lot more productive things in his life than calling up bureaucrats and cops trying to hop thought some useless laws just so he can pack a gun around.
As for writing your congressman, better not hold your breath waiting for results. From what I know about history, freedom is always taken from governments and only given after the hardest fights.
Lastly, it doesn't matter what you do regarding antis. They aren't going to suddenly love freedom and civil liberties because every gun owner acted responsibly. Restricting yourself to what the antis think is acceptable is a pretty terrible road to go down. Their feelings regarding what I should and shouldn't do have no bearing in my life.
I don't know if Michael Crichton's comments in Jurassic Park regarding advancements in science have much to do with rights enumerated by the constitution.
How old must you be to be considered a man and exercise your rights?
/I carried a handgun as a young man and so did loads of my chums, the world didn't turn into a blood bath.
There could not have been a better post to summarize all of this.
You are absolutely right, the LAW WORSHIP here is the real problem.
It's that attitude precisely that made anyone ever need a "permit" to do something that should have always been seen as a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
Maybe if we didn't worship the law so much, we wouldn't have let it get that far.
Thanks so much for your support...I truly could not have summarized this better myself.
