"Carry permits" ???

[Handgun Midas]

My permit allows me to carry a deadly weapon (including, but not limited to a firearm) concealed on my person where no one will be the wiser about my armed status, most importantly someone intent on doing me harm.

This is quite contrary to carrying a firearm openly on my hip, which is legal in KY, which would likely cause the sheeple to freak out, the cops to hassle me anyway, and most importantly, could allow some nut to snatch my firearm when I'm preoccupied and do bad things with it.

So the CCW is really for my convenience. Huzzah!

 

[Shawnee]

Thanks Lads!

 

[Big Calhoun]

Well, I'm only a newb. Having only lived in Texas for seven months now, I can't claim to be an expert on the laws out here. From what I've been able to digest so far, Texas CHL laws afford you the ability to carry a concealed weapon on or about your person within prescribed areas.

Now, what I'm not clear on is this: Texas does have statutes that regulate the use of daily force. I'm not sure if one could say those are a part of the CHL statutes or something completely different.

Either way, I see it as a case by case issue. In Texas, I feel very comfortable that I have a recognized right to defend myself if the need arises. I also feel it's incumbent on me to decide what the appropriate level of force is. If someone comes after me with a bat, I'm not going to shoot them neccassarily.

Having come from New Jersey, I can tell you that there are far worse states when it comes to firearm rights. The situation you describe in Ohio in terms of 'carrying permits' being a facade for gun registration is excately what New Jersey does...just to purchase a firearm. The process is so convoluted, it discourages good, honest people from even considering purchasing a firearm, much less using it at a range, or, heaven forbid, in self defense.

It's quite possible that the laws as you knew them could have changed somewhat. I hear where you're coming from. I always think of it like this...someplace else in this country, it's a worse situation than where I'm at now...unless you're currently living in New Jersey or California.

 

[wdlsguy]

Texas does have statutes that regulate the use of daily force.

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.

I'm not sure if one could say those are a part of the CHL statutes or something completely different.

Separate mostly, but see TX PC 9.31(b)(5).

If someone comes after me with a bat, I'm not going to shoot them neccassarily.

A bat can be employed as a deadly weapon. If someone starts swinging a bat at me, very bad things are likely to happen to them.

 

[Dave P]

"The "Castle Doctrine" (circa 2005) is what I referred to when I wrote
"I lived in Florida from 1986 until 3 months ago. It has been in only the last couple years that the Florida Legislature overturned the "obligation to flee" language and finally admitted that maybe the innocent person doesn't have to turn tail and run." in my post above."

The "no obligation to flee" issue is new in FLA, when referring to an encounter out of your home (in pubic). The Castle Doctrine for your home has "always" been in effect - you never had a duty to retreat in your home. That was first taught to me many moons ago, when the counties issued permits.

 

[Gordon Fink]

What may I do without a permit in California?

~G. Fink

 

[carebear]

Even the "duty to retreat" statutes, as written in the law, were for the most part not absolute. Regardless of what some cop might spout off, almost all contained a provision that mentioned, "when reasonably and safely possible".

Much like the overall affirmative defense to use of deadly force, that "reasonable man" standard sometimes had to be defended in court. In general and in most states it was hardly the decisive issue. Most (not all) cases of "self-defense" where the case hinged on retreating were shaky on other facts of the case as well.

The "stand your ground" laws weren't in response to a rash of folks going down on not having retreated, but to make it quite clear to prosecutors that they shouldn't try to back-door a conviction in a self-defense case because they differed with the shooter's decision. Also, it made it clear that the streets and public places need not be surrendered to the criminal element with government backing. You pay the taxes for that public park, you shouldn't be required to leave it because some evildoer wants to throw his weight around.

 

[shield20]

OK, so yes - almost all permit systems can be seen as a return of rights otherwise denied by the state. The only state I know of whose permit system gives you anything extra is Alaska - where you don't need a permit to own or carry, but it can be used instead of NCIC background checks for firearm purchases. This may have changed though, as it did in NY recently - not sure if that is a state or federal change.

Things have changed then, as permits are VERY valuable - because only 2 states require no permit to have pistols and carry concealed. Permit systems in other states give you the 'privilege' to carry, to carry concealed, or as in NY, the 'privilege' to possess a handgun at all.