• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Concerning carrying illegally...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brownie, I'm pretty sure that in most states if you use a gun in a self defense situation, you cannot be charged with a crime regardless of whether you had a CCW permit or not.

Anyways, I don't pay much attention to stupid laws. I'll have my day in court if it comes to that, so I'm not going to worry about it. I value my life and the lives of others far more than worrying about being charged with a misdemeanor. And as said above, concealed means concealed. Nobody should know anyways. There are plently of good powerful pocket guns out there that you shouldn't have to lug that Glock around IWB at work all day for somebody to notice.
 
Illegal in Illinois.
Click to expand...

I believe the correct terminology would be Quasi-illegal...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes a law valid and legal? The man?:rolleyes: No my friends, We the people do. If you shirk your citizen responsibility to stand up for your rights, country and liberty, then yes, the law is legal to you. If you stand up and be counted as you have the responsibility to...then they better not try and staple an unconstitutional law to your forehead. We call that treason against the Constitution. Uh, there's lawful repurcussions in place for treason against the Constitution.

If you know the laws are UnConstitutional and choose to give in to the bully instead of fight, there's terms for that too.

Lets keep the playing field level. ;)
 
WONDERNINE: I'm pretty sure that in most states if you use a gun in a self defense situation, you cannot be charged with a crime regardless of whether you had a CCW permit or not.

It's better still to know the law in your jurisdiction... Where I live, if an armed intruder enters your home to commit a felony (i.e. burglary) and you have a way to escape (out a back door, say) you, the homeowner, are obligated to retreat.

The only time you are legally allowed to shoot him, armed or not, CCW holder or not, is to prevent a "forcible felony" (read this to mean a violent crime like rape, or murder) where you have no reasonable means of retreat...

The good thing is that Florida law is full of phrases like "reasonable and proper" and "where a reasonable person might believe"... so if you can sell a jury your story, you're okay. You're still going to do time in jail awaiting trial, though.

The old days of "If you shoot him outside, then drag his a** back inside" are over!
 
I've been carrying for a year. No one's ever noticed. No one's ever questioned me. I haven't received any speeding tickets, so I haven't spoken with any law enforcement officers, but I'd guess I could have received a speeding ticket without an officer noticing I'm carrying. I haven't committed any crimes. I haven't even mentioned the gun to anyone face to face, still less drawn it, still less fired it.

I don't mean to seem to encourage anyone to break any laws; conversely, I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment to justify those laws.
 
In Ohio, I believe it is a fourth degree felony just above a misdemeanor. Of course, I've read a few accounts in the past were instead of plea bargaining, a few were acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon.

But with this new :cuss: ruling, I'm sure cases will tend to be prosecuted and DAs will try to force you to plea bargain for a unconstitutional law.

edited to add "If you plea bargain to a misdemeanor, you keep your guns"

Ohio Constitution on right to bear arms:

§ 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Click to expand...
 
I suppose in a state like Ohio I'd be a little more worried about carry concealed without a permit, but I'd still do it anyways until I got one. Around here? Please, I don't even think about it. I'll get a concealed permit when I get around to it....money is tight right now.
 
In New York state, possession of an unloaded handgun without a permit (and registration of the gun) is a misdemeanor with a 1 year maximum sentence. Loaded (except in your home or business) and it jumps to a felony with a 7 year maximum. Loaded means that both gun and ammo are in your possession. Possession includes anywhere in your car.
 
WonderNine,

I do not argue with your decision nor do I disagree with your stance. However, I must differ with your statement: “I'm pretty sure that in most states if you use a gun in a self defense situation, you cannot be charged with a crime regardless of whether you had a CCW permit or not.â€

I haven’t done a state-by-state analysis and I do not have “the numbersâ€, but I can guarantee you that in MANY states your quotation (above) simply is not accurate. We all know that the “real anti†states (NY, NJ, CA, MD, DC, IL, DE, and so forth) have very strong “no firearms†laws. In DC and NYC, for example, it is a felony just to possess an unlicensed/unregistered handgun, even if it were clearly used to save an innocent’s life. Now, please don’t misunderstand, I believe these laws are an abomination, but they do exist and they are enforced.

Even in many of the “gun friendly†states – including several “shall issue†venues – a firearm cannot be legally used in ALL defensive situations. For example, in Virginia (a relatively pro-gun state) there must be an immediate danger of grave injury/death for lethal force to legally be utilized. MANY other states have similar statutes. Now, an individual prosecutor might – or might not – decide to pursue criminal charges, depending on the precise circumstances, the local political climate, his personal attitude and political aspirations, and several other variables.

There may be a few states (TX and SC ??) where a presumption exists that – regardless of the exact circumstances – if a criminal enters your home, deadly force can always be employed. However, these are more the exception than the rule.

With respect and regards -- Roy
 
"But your honor, it's an inalienable right to protect myself, see, it says so right here in the second amendment in the BOR."

"Yes sir, I'm aware of the BOR and the second amendment. Now let me show you the statute that you were charged with. "

"Now that you have seen the law which you violated, let me ask you another question, do you feel it is wrong and someone should be arrested for yelling fire in a movie theatre??

The guy answers in the affirmative. The judge asks him if he feels that yelling fire in a movie theatre is wrong and knows the law says so, why does he feel it's wrong as the first amendment states the right to free speech.

Using the second amendment as a reason to break the states law is no reason at all. If everyone used that reasoning, everyone would disobey the law when it suited them stating it was an unjust/unlawful law [ in their opinion, which then makes it okay to break the law ].

Don't think so.

As to using an unregistered/unlicensed gun to save your a$$, in this state you will be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawfully discharging a firearm within restricted area [ possibly ], and unlawful possession of ammunition.

Lets take one closer look at an analogy again with some thinking caps here.

The gangbanger gets caught carrying illegally as well. He uses the BOR 2nd amendment as his defense that the law is unjust. Are we to let the bangers carry illegally as it is their right to protect themselves?

No difference whether it "Joe Upstanding" or the "banger" on the street.

See where this goes? The logic of some here escapes me sometimes.

Don't tell me the banger doesn't have the right to the same self defense as yourself if he has a criminal record. In your minds, that would be another unlawful restriction wouldn't it?

So we can then presume the mindset of those who carry illegally and say "to hell with the laws" have no problem with every inner city youth and banger carrying illegally as well.

Don't think so.

Brownie
 
brownie0486 said, " The gangbanger gets caught carrying illegally as well. He uses the BOR 2nd amendment as his defense that the law is unjust. Are we to let the bangers carry illegally as it is their right to protect themselves?
No difference whether it "Joe Upstanding" or the "banger" on the street."

I see nothing wrong with a gang member carrying a gun. It is when that gun is used in an ILLEGAL act that is wrong.

A rebuttal (attempted) at the FIRE thing:

Everyone has the ability to scream fire and that cannot be taken away by the government. It is wrong when you USE that ability to harm others.

The government is taking away our ABILITY to scream fire.
 
Don't tell me the banger doesn't have the right to the same self defense as yourself if he has a criminal record. In your minds, that would be another unlawful restriction wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

1) Okay, I won't tell you that. :D

2) Yes, he/she should be in prison, or the right to possess a gun could be taken away as part of the sentence or parole conditions.


You just hate arguing with us constitutiionalists, don't you ...? :D
 
Sorry Brownie, but that doesn't work. According to the people who founded this country, by merely existing I possess certain rights. Unless I use those rights to harm others, I cannot legally be deprived of them. This is not my opinion, but the thought process that was used to create the BOR and all other Founding documents. If the government can punish you simply because you might do something illegal, where is this going to end?
Would you support a system like the old Soviet one, where the State controls your money for you? If we let people control there own money with no governmental oversight, they could use that money to do something illegal. They could buy drugs or explosives or guns the government doesn't like ["assualt weapons"] or even participate in the resurgent slavery trade. Shall we have all males after the age of puberty wear chastity belts because they might commit rape? Shall we force car makers to put regulators on all new cars that prevent them from exceeding the "speed limit"? Shall we make all parents take tests to prove their competence? Shall we take children from low income families because they can't provide the "standard of living" the State deems appropriate? Where will this crusade to protect the people from themselves end?

Crime cannot ever be eliminated. All the government can do is punish wrongdoers. What you are saying is that the government should punish you for something you might do. For having the ability to harm others. This is so fundamentally wrong I can't fully express my abhorence of the idea.

And you still need to answer my questions.

If a soldier is issued an order, does he not have the right to refuse it if he judges it to be illegal? He may be punished, but isn't that his duty? The people at Nuremberg thought it was. Doesn't a citizen have the same duty?

If other of our supposedly inalienable rights, for example the right to freedom of religion, are infringed, would you say it is our duty as citizens to obey? If the Bible or Quran is made illegal, shall we get rid of them all because the State tells us to?
 
Oh and Brownie, how do you define "gangbanger?" Is it by their clothes, their music, and who they hang out with?

Shall we then ban from owning weapons people who wear turbans, listen to Arabic music, and hang out with ex-patriate Saudis? After all, they might use their guns to hijack a plane, right?
 
Its up to you to decide what if the risk is worth the protection of carrying. You'll proabably get away with it until you actually have to use it.

There may be a few states (TX and SC ??) where a presumption exists that – regardless of the exact circumstances – if a criminal enters your home, deadly force can always be employed. However, these are more the exception than the rule.
Click to expand...

This is a good point and it reminds me why I am happy to be in Texas. Note below our constitution and statutes on when lethal force is justified. My favorite is:†To prevent … criminal Mischief at night†and to “prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary..†which means you CAN chase them out of the house with authority! :evil:

Texas State Constitution, Article I, Section 23
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense
of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate
the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 
How does one go about finding the relevant statutes? I can obtain a copy of the state constitution fairly easily, but I'm unsure of the proper avenue to research for our lethal forces rules. If anyone here has advice for my state [Arizona], I'd love to hear it.
 
Brownie, WADR, you're not thinking outside the box. That by the book cop mentality is dead wrong, please make an effort to think independant of your training for the sake of discussion and enlightenment.

Us Constitutionalist's are defending the individuals right to think and act for ourselves. All human action should aim at creating, maintaining, and increasing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Actions are right when they do that; wrong when they do not. (There goes your yelling fire in a theatre, and your gangbangers right to carry with criminal intent.) A good society is one in which the greatest possible number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness and liberty. One of the most important ways a society can ensure its members will be able to contribute their maximum to creating, preserving, and increasing their happiness and liberty is to extend to them the right to think and act for themselves.

This is not a defense of irresponsibility. The phrase "Think and act for yourself" does not mean "Think and act as you please." It is a protest against external "authority." It is a protest against groups, governments, or institutions which would tell people what to think and what to do, refusing to leave them to work these thing out for themselves. When people are so dictated to, they are deprived of individual responsibility for their beleifs and actions. Thinking people object to this. No need to argue these precepts as irrevalent in todays society, these precepts are old, granted, but seem to be even more timely in todays society than back in 1776 or whenever.

Nowadays, there is a large and increasing number of groups, institutions, and governments, that exhibit a tendancy to discourage individuals (understatement of the year!) from thinking and acting for themselves. This is true in morals, religion, education, economics, and politics. Sadly, there is also, today, on the part of individuals, a tendancy to accept this discouragement and surrender their right to think and act for themselves. This is tragic and the cause/effect of such discouraging laws is in fact the problem with America. Repeal the government and society will automattically adjust to more individual responsibility and acceptable behavior. Carrying a CCW quasi-illegally does not equate to the right to yell fire in a theatre, and to argue the point is to be seriously shortsighted.

Bang. You have been refuted, sir.:scrutiny:
 
In response to others replies,

B_Scott : You see nothing wrong with a gangbanger carrying a gun. That should explain much to others about your mindset on the issues.

TallPine : Are you saying you should lose your inaliable rights if you are a convicted criminal? If they are inalienable, they can not be taken away by anyone unless done so illegally according to others here.

So you do agree there are circumstances that should/would dictate taking inalienable rights away from citizens? I don't think it can be both ways.

The premise is that a person who has done his time and paid for his crime once released. You are saying he loses rights forever due to a criminal record? Doesn't seem fair to the banger after he has paid his debt to society and reenters the real world does it?

So I'm to believe that yes, there are times you would restrict ones inalienable rights, and times you would not? This would be through legislation and making law on this? If it is indeed inalienable, they can not be legislated away under any circumstances according to some here. Which shall it be, the law is wrong to restrict an inalienable right at all, or they can restrict some portion or all of that right under certain circumstances?

Balog: You have the inalienable right to bear arms. I didn't mention or inference anything that would lead one to believe that something should be restricted due to ones possibly doing something wrong.

Church and state do not conflict or step on each other by law. No chance gov't would ban the bible or Quran, moot point. You inferenced "what you are saying" several times. Those statements are your interpretation of the posting. Show me anywhere that I made statements that you say " so what you are saying". If I didn't specifically state it myself, that then becomes an interpretation of ones meaning, which can most assuredly be lost in the translation.

A soldiers personal interpretation of an order being unlawful and thereby being not complied with is again an interpretation. The order may in fact be legal, the soldiers opinion of the order may be incorrect. As a soldier, you follow orders, you do not question command [ at least in the Marine Corps I'm familiar with ]. Other branches may have their own issues and ideas of what orders to follow or not, the Marines follow orders, and jump to it real quick. It's all in the training. If the soldier is wrong, did he have the right to question command and refuse that order anyway based on HIS belief it was illegal? Don't think so unless that soldier knows the UCMJ inside and out and happens to be an atty as well. He may have a leg to stand on disobey/ignoring an order if he can cite the regulation that makes it illegal at that time. If he can't he better do as he's told until he can make his case it is illegal.

Definition of gangbanger: One who looks like, smells like, dresses like, acts like, hangs with other of the same type as a "club" or organized unit based on location within a cities limits, is a member of an organized group of people whose primary goal it is to wreck havoc in society, ignoring all laws with impunity, and on and on and on. I think you get the idea thought.
If you have never seen one, you may still recognize them when you do, unless you have lived in a cave or the country and never ventured into the inner cities of the US.

I don't create their image, I don't dress them in the morning, they dress and act the part quite well on their own. If they are not a banger belonging to a group of bangers solidified by turf control, they are wanna be bangers that dress the part, act the part, and smell the part. Ever got close to a banger yourself, I mean up close and personal? Touching them?

More importantly, it's the banger attitude/mentality toward society as a whole that gives them this distinction.

I don't think I stepped into anything really. If it is inalienable, it can not be legislated away or lessened in any way or it is illegal. Give the banger who has done his time his inalienable rights, they can not be denied anymore than anyone elses if it's inalienable. Of course this is being ridiculous, but that the point. Others always come out with their rights are being violated as they are inalienable. If that true in it's purest form everyone [whether they have done time or not ] has the right to carry a gun illegally as the law is illegal that bans them from doing so, just like law abiders. It can not be one way for some and another way for others. All for one or none for all.
Oh, you say there are exceptions? Well thats what a law does, it makes exceptions for some and not for others.

The gangbanger MAY be carrying with criminal intent, but we won't know that intent until he shoots another unlawfully. He has the right to carry for his self protection [ it's inalienable after all right folks? ], as well we can not determine intent until an action has happened, the problem with that is that people can claim to carry for protection and consequently due their inalienable trights like the rest of us, according to some here, and have subversive thoughts and ulterior motives for doing so at the same time.

Brownie
 
Last edited:
"This is not a defense of irresponsibility. The phrase "Think and act for yourself" does not mean "Think and act as you please."

Wish the bangers/others thought that way on the street. You and I and other law abiders may know the difference, I am not so sure we can trust the inner city youths to understand, let alone, abide by that statement.

Brownie
 
Are you saying you should lose your inaliable rights if you are a convicted criminal? If they are inalienable, they can not be taken away by anyone unless done so illegally according to others here.
Click to expand...
Well, a person's liberty gets taken away for a length of time upon conviction of a serious crime.



The premise is that a person who has done his time and paid for his crime once released. You are saying he loses rights forever due to a criminal record?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say that at all - I said (or meant) exactly the opposite.

A person's right to liberty and to possess firearms is suspended while incarcerated. If/when released on parole, the person is subject to certain conditions for a period of time. After that, IMO, rights should be restored.

It might be constitutional for a judge to impose a firearm restriction on an individual specifically as part of a sentence.

We certainly should not have ex-post-facto laws restricting someone who was convicted before the law was enacted. That is blatantly unconstitutional but no one seems to even care.


I know I may sound radical, and I am certainly not pro-crime - rather, it would be better if some citizen blew the lights out of some of these scoundrels when they try to break in, rob a store, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Does anyone here carry a knife? (need legal info)
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
NYenthusiast
N
J
  • Locked
Indiana carry in bars???
Replies
12
Views
4K
ball3006
B
O
  • Locked
Pulled over in non-gun friendly state?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Shadow 7D
S
J
  • Locked
Would this type of carrying case be illegal
Replies
19
Views
819
SWDoc
S
S
  • Locked
Carrying in the Workplace (No CHL)
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top