open carry - Market Basket, Plymouth NH

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by mhtranger

But what about those of us that carry concealed? You would never know how many scary handguns are around you in your area.

I have no problem with concealed carry. If you want to carry a gun, just keep it concealed, and don't go parading around the local supermarket as a way to show off your gun, open carry, to be intimidating or showy, or something.

As already mentioned, in 2008 the late Justice Antonin Scalia said "there are some buildings, government buildings and schools that are too sensitive for open carry."

In my opinion the local supermarket is also a building that is too sensitive for open carry with a hand gun because there are many different people, different ages inside doing their food shopping who do NOT want to share the store space with some unknown man, dressed casually, who has a gun on his hip in a holster.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I have no problem with concealed carry. If you want to carry a gun, just keep it concealed, and don't go parading around the local supermarket as a way to show off your gun, open carry, to be intimidating or showy, or something.

I'm glad to see a softening from your previously elevated position of no weapons as opposed to no open carry. Re: "In a post up above, someone says the Mount Washington cruise ship has a 'no weapons' sign posted at its entry way, so if it is good for the Mount then it is probably a good thing for Market Basket to do, as well. "

Clearly this is some progress.

Hard to believe it took 2 pages of posts to facilitate a change like this, but its a big one one.

Like I said before, it will take time to normalize this and I think we are seeing the first signs (I hope,,,)

ATB

[LikeLakes]

I feel safe shopping anywhere, anytime, in my home state of NH.

I feel safe if there is no open carry, like in Wal-mart.
I feel safe if there is open carry, like this now famous Market Basket.

I trust and respect my fellow NH citizens, those that don't choose to own guns, those that choose to concealed carry, those that choose to open carry.

I am honestly enjoying this thread, it's a good discussion.

[fatlazyless]

Open carry is okay out in the woods, for hunting or something. On the Alaska tv shows you see people with open carry guns who are concerned about bears, wolves, and maybe other people.

Here is NH, concealed carry means you do not see it, and don't much even think about it. With open carry in the supermarket, the wearer is probably showing it off, wants to be intimidating, or making some political statement. It makes no sense to be wearing a gun, open carry, in the Plymouth NH, Market Basket.

The comment about NOT wanting to go shopping in a store with macho-men wearing guns has a strong message, and with Walmart's 4500-stores all going no open carry in 2019 this no open carry rule is becoming very common.

If you carry concealed, you know its there, and no one else knows except yourself. With open carry everyone knows because they can see the gun and this changes the psychological dynamics of the situation. People think to themself ....... holy crap .....there's a guy here wearing a gun.

Question to patrons on The Dive: If someone waded from their boat to onboard The Dive, sat down and ordered an eleven dollar-adult beverage, while wearing an open carry hand gun at the time ....... how would this be accepted by the other patrons? Like, what's with the gun, buddy?

[LikeLakes]

I had been thinking, all this forum needs to be complete is a thread about heading to The Dive while going 70 mph across the lake with open carry. Just combine every contentious issue into one.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

I had been thinking, all this forum needs to be complete is a thread about heading to The Dive while going 70 mph across the lake with open carry. Just combine every contentious issue into one.

They are in a way... it all people that are trying to be ''flashy''.

If the Dive were just another location based bar... just one more of the mix with very localized issue... because it is a mobile bar, it creates a large area of effect.

Speeding across the lake is really someone that wants to show what their boat can do. Dave Street used to do this by moving his offshore racing boat to his house on the lake.
Open carry, which used to be by people that may not want the bother of the permit process, really is to let others know that you are armed. Concealed carry, done properly, is hardly ever noticed. Customer and clerks are not going to react to you, because they don't have any idea.

Sometimes things are done because someone doesn't know that they shouldn't, but that usually results in a short exchange without any drama.
Lately, some have felt that the drama will result in a positive outcome for them... it never does.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Open carry, which used to be by people that may not want the bother of the permit process, really is to let others know that you are armed. Concealed carry, done properly, is hardly ever noticed. Customer and clerks are not going to react to you, because they don't have any idea.

Not necessarily.

I'm sure there are those that want to carry open and as such want everyone to know. I don't understand this way of thinking and it really begs the question if that is your only reasoning for doing so what's the point? Whatever it is IMHO it's silly. Then again there are plenty who choose to make silly public statements and they have the right to.

I'm sure there is a percentage of gun owners that simply don't want to go through the permitting process because it is a hassle. I happen to be one of them. At one point I looked into getting a CCW and bagged that idea as I simply had no real desire to carry anyways but thought it would be nice to have should I want to travel to a state where having one doubles as a permit to possess. NH does not have a requirement for a CCW anymore to carry concealed. Therefore at least in this state to OC is a choice.

Getting a CCW (concealed carry) permit is not a guarantee, you can't just get one depending on where you are. You will often time hear the language "may issue" versus "shall issue". The distinction is really important to note. "Shall issue" means simply a CCW must be issued to a requestor provided they meet the requirements. "May issue" leaves the issuance at the desecration of the issuing authority, typically the local police chief. There are places where the police chief will not issue period even though they could under the letter of the law. Since it is by their desecration, if they so choose to issue none that is their prerogative to do so even if the requesting person is a saint and has a valid reason for asking for one. In those cases OC is the only option. MA is a great example of this. It is a "May issue" state and some municipalities will not issue permits to carry concealed. Of course they will never put that in writing, instead just deny all requests without reason.

Again I don't defend OC, at least not in public urban places or when out and about conducting everyday business. I don't mind it and it doesn't bother me I just feel it is unnecessary to do so.

[John Mercier]

Because we no longer have a permitting process for concealed carry in NH... no one has to go through the hassle. They can just conceal the firearm and no one would know the better.

They may be ignorant to the fact that they can legally conceal carry, but my guess is that would be more of a rarity rather than majority. And those few would never make a drama out of it. They would just conceal the next time.

[SAB1]

Was not aware that some towns don’t issue or make it hard to get CC permit in NH. I always had a non resident one that piggy backed on my MA permit. I moved here permanently last year. Applied and received CC permit in a few days.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Was not aware that some towns don’t issue or make it hard to get CC permit in NH. I always had a non resident one that piggy backed on my MA permit. I moved here permanently last year. Applied and received CC permit in a few days.

NH has no requirement for a CCW to carry concealed. I'm not even sure if they issue them anymore. If so the prior law was written such that NH was a "shall issue" not "may issue" state, meaning if you met the requirements they had to give you a permit. Not like the nonsense down in MA where it is a "may issue" state and as such there are places where they simply will not issue them and not for any other reason than they don't want to.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

NH has no requirement for a CCW to carry concealed. I'm not even sure if they issue them anymore. If so the prior law was written such that NH was a "shall issue" not "may issue" state, meaning if you met the requirements they had to give you a permit. Not like the nonsense down in MA where it is a "may issue" state and as such there are places where they simply will not issue them and not for any other reason than they don't want to.

NH is a "shall issue" state—getting a concealed carry permit is purely a technicality. I completed my app last week as part of applying to a fish & game club—they use the permit process as a secondary background check.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

''Hard'' was a relative term.
It involved paperwork and a fee.

So people would just option to open carry...

[SAB1]

It’s reciprocal with a few other states.

[mhtranger]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Question to patrons on The Dive: If someone waded from their boat to onboard The Dive, sat down and ordered an eleven dollar-adult beverage, while wearing an open carry hand gun at the time ....... how would this be accepted by the other patrons? Like, what's with the gun, buddy?

Well my guess is they would think he was a little bit off. But now you are just reaching!!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I have no problem with concealed carry. If you want to carry a gun, just keep it concealed, and don't go parading around the local supermarket as a way to show off your gun, open carry, to be intimidating or showy, or something.

Who says they who OC are being "showy" or trying to be "intimidating"? Just because in the world of FLL that is they way you interpret this, and because for some reason it "scares" you then that must be the way EVERYONE feels. Were any of these observed individuals doing anything to draw attention to the fact they were wearing a holstered pistol or simply going about their business just as you were? Your fear while real is based on a visual and nothing more. Even you claim you'd be fine with concealed carry, but what's the difference? AH you can see it, but realistically how does that change the situation? It doesn't, armed is armed open or concealed.

A great illustration is what if these individuals were off duty cops? When in uniform open carrying that is OK by you, but wearing civilian attire that is scary. Same person, same type of firearm, slight change in personal appearance makes you mental. Why?

I would bet that the majority of those that choose to OC are likely either LEO or former LEOs. Many are much more aware of crime and the presence of it even in the smallest of towns. A perspective that you FLL may not be aware of as you blissfully go through life in search of the next free cup of coffee.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

A great illustration is what if these individuals were off duty cops? When in uniform open carrying that is OK by you, but wearing civilian attire that is scary. Same person, same type of firearm, slight change in personal appearance makes you mental. Why?.

Because we all KNOW why cops carry a gun: we don't know why a civilian is strapped.

It is context-related.

Sort of like if you're in a doctor's office and a nurse approaches you with a hypodermic to give you a prescribed shot you aren't concerned, but if you're in a restroom and a stranger approaches you with a hypodermic needle in hand you'll feel anxiety.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Because we all KNOW why cops carry a gun: we don't know why a civilian is strapped.

It is context-related.

Sort of like if you're in a doctor's office and a nurse approaches you with a hypodermic to give you a prescribed shot you aren't concerned, but if you're in a restroom and a stranger approaches you with a hypodermic needle in hand you'll feel anxiety.

Why do they need a reason? Maybe that's the problem here in that the assumption is always a nefarious reason even though there is no indication whatsoever any of these observed individuals posed any threat to anyone.

While I understand the dramatics of the analogy you used here, there is only one problem with it. Nowhere was it mentioned that anyone had a gun in hand. A person in uniform or not that approaches casually with a holstered firearm is far different than if it were drawn with a purpose and ready to be used.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Why do they need a reason? Maybe that's the problem here in that the assumption is always a nefarious reason even though there is no indication whatsoever any of these observed individuals posed any threat to anyone.

While I understand the dramatics of the analogy you used here, there is only one problem with it. Nowhere was it mentioned that anyone had a gun in hand. A person in uniform or not that approaches casually with a holstered firearm is far different than if it were drawn with a purpose and ready to be used.

Legally, they don't need a reason. But given the climate in the country right now, open carrying is unquestionably provocative.

In response to above, every LEO and military member I know carries concealed. When asked, a few former students answered similarly: "I carry for safety, not for show."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Mr. V]

If you have a CWP and want to carry, fine, do so but do it concealed.

Why would anyone do open carry if they have a CWP, i.e. what is the point, other than wanting to draw attention to themselves?

Could it be that people who open carry cannot qualify for a CWP?

The authorities out here convicted some clown who was open carrying, parading around for no reason, drawing attention to himself; he said he did it for political reasons, but was convicted nonetheless.

The only time I can see justification for open carrying is if you are on your own property or out in the woods where bears, cougars or other animals could be a threat; open carrying is not needed to deter people, at least not when / if you carry concealed.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Legally, they don't need a reason. But given the climate in the country right now, open carrying is unquestionably provocative.

In response to above, every LEO and military member I know carries concealed. When asked, a few former students answered similarly: "I carry for safety, not for show."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Again clearly you are entitled to your opinion and you presented it reasonably and respectfully so I thank you for no drama added.

That said I respectfully disagree that open carry is "provocative"

I would argue if anything it is a rampart or a deterrent.

But these are just opinions.

As stated before, all we know with absolute surety is that no harm had come to anyone as a direct result of open carry at the Plymouth Market Basket (the origin of this thread) That is the only absolutely 100% irrefutable statement and has stood the test of all that has been said here. And so with that said, is there really any need to say any more? This is a non-issue. Nothing is wrong, nothing needs to be fixed, nothing needs to be changed except the false notion there is anything concerning about open carry in the Plymouth Market basket.

Are we done yet? how stupid is that question ;-)

ATB

[SAB1]

I gotta side with Thinkxingu. In today’s climate it is nothing short of provocative. There are antis everywhere and all open carry does is get them beating their drum. Any class I’ve ever taken in concealed carry does not advocate open carry. It just draws attention to you which is not what you want. That said, it doesn’t bother me but that is likely because I’ve been around guns all my life. While I am a strong believer in the 2nd amendment due to today’s current environment I do believe in background checks to carry a handgun. If you lived somewhere where background checks were required and open carry was common a lot less fear and opposition would likely be portrayed. There would always be opposition but it would be less. Like we say…guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by SAB1

While I am a strong believer in the 2nd amendment due to today’s current environment I do believe in background checks to carry a handgun..

You do realize that there is no mental health information made available in background checks, it is protected and not shared with LE.

So all a background check does is possibly pick up some one who is currently wanted or with a restraining order on them, or possibly ID a previously convicted criminal. And thats only if everything works perfectly. And do you really think those people are applying for a license to carry in the first place,,,

So what does the background check actually do to make concealed carry safer??? NOTHING.

Sorry, these are just the facts, not opinion, not unsubstantiated fear, not speculation.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

You do realize that there is no mental health information made available in background checks, it is protected and not shared with LE.

So all a background check does is possibly pick up some one who is currently wanted or with a restraining order on them, or possibly ID a previously convicted criminal. And thats only if everything works perfectly. And do you really think those people are applying for a license to carry in the first place,,,

So what does the background check actually do to make concealed carry safer??? NOTHING.

Sorry, these are just the facts, not opinion, not unsubstantiated fear, not speculation.

I thought, in order to get a conceal carry permit (so you could go to other states) you had to get a sign off from the local PD. In most towns in NH, the PD knows you, or can learn a lot with 2-3 phone calls. That part of the system works, in my mind.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Descant

I thought, in order to get a conceal carry permit (so you could go to other states) you had to get a sign off from the local PD. In most towns in NH, the PD knows you, or can learn a lot with 2-3 phone calls. That part of the system works, in my mind.

I mentioned my experience above: I went in to the PD, filled out a one-page form, and paid $10.

From what I know, though, it only applies to NH and a few states that offer reciprocity. I can't carry in MA unless I complete an out-of-state license to carry application. No idea how different their background check would be given that NH's will be federal.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

I mentioned my experience above: I went in to the PD, filled out a one-page form, and paid $10.

From what I know, though, it only applies to NH and a few states that offer reciprocity. I can't carry in MA unless I complete an out-of-state license to carry application. No idea how different their background check would be given that NH's will be federal.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The process in Mass is very similar and the background check is the same, but the cost is a whole bunch more! At last check it was $100.00 The cost of living on the other side of the fence where life is so much better. NOT!

I dont oppose the license requirement, but I think it does nothing to protect the public. Its just a means of slowing people down. In the end it really makes no difference in anything. Its just another means of tracking everything we do and squeezing more money out of the working man.

[mhtranger]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

The process in Mass is very similar and the background check is the same, but the cost is a whole bunch more! At last check it was $100.00 The cost of living on the other side of the fence where life is so much better. NOT!

Before I moved up here I lived in Ma and a $100 cost covered me for 5 years now my non resident is $100 a year and don’t even think about missing your deadline for renewal.

[Neko]

If you are over 70 years old there no charge for your permit. If you are a Ma. resident.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Neko

If you are over 70 years old there no charge for your permit. If you are a Ma. resident.

With the stress from reading this thread I wont make it to 70,,,

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Descant

I thought, in order to get a conceal carry permit (so you could go to other states) you had to get a sign off from the local PD. In most towns in NH, the PD knows you, or can learn a lot with 2-3 phone calls. That part of the system works, in my mind.

RE: "the PD knows you, or can learn a lot with 2-3 phone calls"

Thats not part of any official background check and not legitimate grounds for denial of a CC license. It might have been how old-school LE operated, but its not any part of modern LE procedures for concealed carry licensing.

The FBI NICS check is the key basis for most concealed carry permits and it only contains mental health data for people who are already in some federal database, such as convicted felons maybe some VA patients, few others, but not the majority of people.

Your mental health data kept by your health care provider is protected against disclosure by HIPAA rules, and that medical and mental health information is very strictly protected against disclosure.

That has been and ongoing and very serious debate in congress for a while. The firearms pre-purchase and concealed carry background check does very little good without mandatory reporting of mental health problems, and at the same time that is possibly an individuals most sensitive personal information.

On the one side, many fear that disclosure of mental health data will keep far too many from getting the treatment they need due to fear of the information going into some national database and then being used against them for all kinds of reasons.

And on the other side some feel it is critical for law enforcement to have access to such data to protect the public.

At the moment its a no win situation and seemingly deadlocked.

I offer no comment about the matter except that it is a challenging matter.

[SAB1]

Lol. I think I said back a couple pages gun debates never go anywhere. Heels are dug in on both sides

[John Mercier]

Because the debate is by the people that do not make the decisions.

The most you can do is decide to shop/work there or not based on policy and enforcement of the policy.

Businesses will adjust policy to achieve the highest degree of satisfied customers and employees.

[ApS]

My first observed case of "open carry" was at a little sandwich shop at the end of Squam Lake. I was put-off by the sight. (No badge...no uniform--just wrong).

In 1971, an ideal concealed-carry firearm was the Smith & Wesson model 37, 5-shot revolver. As a Deputy Sheriff, I carried one in a modified leather ankle holster for 27 years. (Retired with three years USN service credited). Back then, I boarded commercial airlines while carrying a loaded 6-shot or 5-shot revolver.

In 1971, Miami-Dade County had no money for armaments so I had to supply my own (required) "38" and ammunition. In my case, my on-duty firearm was a caliber "S&W 38" revolver--not caliber "38-Special" revolver. (Grip-safety for the cognicenti). Forty bucks "got me legal" with my new employer.

When on duty, in plain clothes, concealment of the County-issued Smith & Wesson model 15 revolver was EASY--just pull out the shirt tails and cover the comparatively huge wooden grips.

Sometimes, I'd forget I had the model 37 revolver with me, and more than once, mowed the lawn with it firmly strapped to my ankle.

(I only needed it once--well, make that five times. )

Just for the record, I think "open carry" is stupid--and dangerous.

Legalized "open carry" is a bridge too far, IMHO.

[John Mercier]

Well, we have had legal open carry since before the State was founded. And to my knowledge it has never been restricted by the government except in certain locations and situations.

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

You do realize that there is no mental health information made available in background checks, it is protected and not shared with LE.

So all a background check does is possibly pick up some one who is currently wanted or with a restraining order on them, or possibly ID a previously convicted criminal. And thats only if everything works perfectly. And do you really think those people are applying for a license to carry in the first place,,,

So what does the background check actually do to make concealed carry safer??? NOTHING.

Sorry, these are just the facts, not opinion, not unsubstantiated fear, not speculation.

Agree the mental health aspect is an issue…actually the biggest issue. But if a background check kicks out felons and denies them the right to carry I’m all for it.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Agree the mental health aspect is an issue…actually the biggest issue. But if a background check kicks out felons and denies them the right to carry I’m all for it.

But how many felons do you really think are applying for CC licenses??? Even the stupidest among us cant be that dumb and to try for a CC License being a former felon. God help us if society has de-evolved that much, and if so, the fact that these people would have a CC License is probably not our biggest problem!

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

But how many felons do you really think are applying for CC licenses??? Even the stupidest among us cant be that dumb and to try for a CC License being a former felon. God help us if society has de-evolved that much, and if so, the fact that these people would have a CC License is probably not our biggest problem!

Exactly my point why there should be checks. How many felons do you think are carrying in states like NH with no permitting required................plenty.

[YOLO]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Exactly my point why there should be checks. How many felons do you think are carrying in states like NH with no permitting required................plenty.

If they are carrying, the gun they have isn't legal. Felons won't pass the background check to buy and the fact is there are more felons carrying in Chicago with no license than in NH that we actually can document. And that state and city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

Felons will carry no matter the permit requirement. Your argument is specious and deceptive and or totally misguided.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Exactly my point why there should be checks. How many felons do you think are carrying in states like NH with no permitting required................plenty.

And the licensing and background checks do nothing to stop criminals from breaking the law, it only impacts law abiding citizens.

How is that helpful? Its a very odd system we have built that restricts the law abiding and does nothing to prevent the lawless from their actions,,,

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Exactly my point why there should be checks. How many felons do you think are carrying in states like NH with no permitting required................plenty.

In case you were not aware it is ILLEGAL for a felon to be in possession of any firearm. It is an IMMEDIATE disqualifier to purchase a firearm and why background checks are performed.

If caught it is another felony conviction and could be a lot of trouble for the person who last purchased it.

The reason why a felon cannot get a permit or would even try is that they cannot under any circumstances legally possess.

[Mr. V]

I just read that no license or permit is needed to carry concealed in NH, unlike out west.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I just read that no license or permit is needed to carry concealed in NH, unlike out west.

Yes NH recently did this. I want to say it was a couple years ago. The logic is quite simple on this. To purchase you have to pass a background check, to carry concealed you have to pass the same checks again. Why? It is repetitive and stupid. Did anyone really think going through the motions of this was really doing something meaningful? Ah yes it's a visual "feel good" right?

Bottom line if you qualify to possess then you qualify to carry. Grounds for legal possession is a mandatory prerequisite.

Why there are multiple layers here makes no sense at all. Not unless you begin to understand the reason why these meaningless and stupid regulations are put into place. They aren't meant to do anything at face value as advertised, rather they are meant to make it so painful to legally acquire, possess and carry that many will just give up and not bother.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Yes NH recently did this. I want to say it was a couple years ago. The logic is quite simple on this. To purchase you have to pass a background check, to carry concealed you have to pass the same checks again. Why? It is repetitive and stupid. Did anyone really think going through the motions of this was really doing something meaningful? Ah yes it's a visual "feel good" right?

Bottom line if you qualify to possess then you qualify to carry. Grounds for legal possession is a mandatory prerequisite.

Why there are multiple layers here makes no sense at all. Not unless you begin to understand the reason why these meaningless and stupid regulations are put into place. They aren't meant to do anything at face value as advertised, rather they are meant to make it so painful to legally acquire, possess and carry that many will just give up and not bother.

It's been years since I bought a gun or ammo in MA. When last I did, I had to show my FID card. Does NH require anything like this? Is any kind of license required to carry or is an ID and background check all that is needed?

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Garcia

It's been years since I bought a gun or ammo in MA. When last I did, I had to show my FID card. Does NH require anything like this? Is any kind of license required to carry or is an ID and background check all that is needed?

I bought some .22lr yesterday in NH, and all I had to do was show my license.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Yes NH recently did this. I want to say it was a couple years ago. The logic is quite simple on this. To purchase you have to pass a background check, to carry concealed you have to pass the same checks again. Why? It is repetitive and stupid. Did anyone really think going through the motions of this was really doing something meaningful? Ah yes it's a visual "feel good" right?

Bottom line if you qualify to possess then you qualify to carry. Grounds for legal possession is a mandatory prerequisite.

Why there are multiple layers here makes no sense at all. Not unless you begin to understand the reason why these meaningless and stupid regulations are put into place. They aren't meant to do anything at face value as advertised, rather they are meant to make it so painful to legally acquire, possess and carry that many will just give up and not bother.

The "real" bottom line in all this is no form of gun control has actually ever accomplished anything except to restrict honest citizens. As criminals dont worry about the law, they dont buy guns legally thats too complected and costly, they steal them or buy them underground for half of what we pay and with no license requirement of waiting periods, and when they carry they never worry about permits.

Gun control is a fantasy, there are enough guns for every man, woman and child to have several each, so the cats out of the bag. Al gun control does is add cost to the purchase by honest citizens, and generate more money for government. It does nothing to stop crime. Simply look at Chicago, totally uncontrolled crime and illegal possession and criminal use of guns. And only honest citizens are impacted by the countless gun laws and restrictions.

Gun control, another failed experiment brought to you by the people who live in fear and dont actually see the world as it is and the big picture. And what doe these same people all have in common, armed body guards! Sickening,,,

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

The "real" bottom line in all this is no form of gun control has actually ever accomplished anything except to restrict honest citizens. As criminals dont worry about the law, they dont buy guns legally thats too complected and costly, they steal them or buy them underground for half of what we pay and with no license requirement of waiting periods, and when they carry they never worry about permits.

Gun control is a fantasy, there are enough guns for every man, woman and child to have several each, so the cats out of the bag. Al gun control does is add cost to the purchase by honest citizens, and generate more money for government. It does nothing to stop crime. Simply look at Chicago, totally uncontrolled crime and illegal possession and criminal use of guns. And only honest citizens are impacted by the countless gun laws and restrictions.

Gun control, another failed experiment brought to you by the people who live in fear and dont actually see the world as it is and the big picture. And what doe these same people all have in common, armed body guards! Sickening,,,

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

Its a very disappointing situation, I think most reasonable gun owners support reasonable firearms safety standards/restrictions/laws, but then when we agree to ANY restrictions, those who are completely against any firearms in civilian hands take gross advantage of the situation and the floodgates of gun control open wide exceeding any level of reasonable.

One only needs to look at the utter nonsense in Massachusetts where the state attorney general empowered themself to require each and every new gun sold in Mass to be lab tested and certified at the manufactures expense to pass ridiculous standards and then still need to be approved by a board before being offered for sale in the state. AND then each and every variant of that gun must be certified and approved even before being offered for sale, when the only difference is barrel length or finish such as blued vs stainless vs nickle, no mechanical difference between the models. This requirement was not voted on by the public, this was not voted on by the legislature, this was not voted on by any politician, it was a shameless power grab and we let it happen and continue to happen. Its a horrifying example of totalitarian power mongers imposing their will on the people who will not push back. Its a frightening example of government overreach that continues to go unchecked.

This is exactly why gun owners finally get fed up and say NO, No more restrictions of any kind, No more rules, No more anything, bring back the wild west because all the cost and delays and restrictions have done NOTHING to prevent crime. Its a total fantasy that gun control accomplishes anything other than to drive up cost and burden to law abiding people. Criminals do not suffer in the least, and crime is NOT reduced.

So when you start talking about open carry vs concealed, and the impact, dont be at all surprised at the backlash. Law abiding gun owners have hit the wall of total BS lies that any gun control accomplishes anything. And anyone who is "uncomfortable" seeing a gun needs to grow up and be an adult. We all got over the discomfort of seeing people that look differently than we do, talk differently than we do, dress differently than we do, act differently than we do. So unless you see someone actually dangerously handling a gun in public, you have ZERO credibility saying you were uncomfortable or intimidated or anything. This us utter childish and useless nonsense.

[mhtranger]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

The "real" bottom line in all this is no form of gun control has actually ever accomplished anything except to restrict honest citizens. As criminals dont worry about the law, they dont buy guns legally thats too complected and costly, they steal them or buy them underground for half of what we pay and with no license requirement of waiting periods, and when they carry they never worry about permits.

Gun control is a fantasy, there are enough guns for every man, woman and child to have several each, so the cats out of the bag. Al gun control does is add cost to the purchase by honest citizens, and generate more money for government. It does nothing to stop crime. Simply look at Chicago, totally uncontrolled crime and illegal possession and criminal use of guns. And only honest citizens are impacted by the countless gun laws and restrictions.

Gun control, another failed experiment brought to you by the people who live in fear and dont actually see the world as it is and the big picture. And what doe these same people all have in common, armed body guards! Sickening,,,

Someone who gets it!! Thank you.

[SAB1]

Ya misused the word felon and probably should have said criminal. At any rate felons aren’t buying legally anyway. But I have no doubt in my mind that in open carry states with no permitting required there are bad guys open carrying. I worked with the general public for years and quickly learned how stupid people are.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

In case you were not aware it is ILLEGAL for a felon to be in possession of any firearm. It is an IMMEDIATE disqualifier to purchase a firearm and why background checks are performed.
If caught it is another felony conviction and could be a lot of trouble for the person who last purchased it.
The reason why a felon cannot get a permit or would even try is that they cannot under any circumstances legally possess.

Eleven states are restoring convicted-felons' gun rights:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/u...20crime%2Dfree.

More Stupid...

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by ApS

Eleven states are restoring convicted-felons' gun rights:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/u...20crime%2Dfree.

More Stupid...

I would like to agree its stupid, but in truth I cant read the article without paying,,,

Also, its 10 years old, are you sure this is still applicable???

[SAB1]

I don’t think your assumption on off duty LEO’s open carrying is correct. As I mentioned above any cop I know, my son included always conceals off duty. Gun law debates and discussions never really go anywhere. Depending on what side you’re on heels are dug in pretty deep. Overall I suspect the native folks here probably are much more to open to guns. People from others states like MA not so much. Having lived and hunted in MA since I was 15 it always amazed me how many people called the cops when we seen entering the woods with guns.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by SAB1

I don’t think your assumption on off duty LEO’s open carrying is correct. As I mentioned above any cop I know, my son included always conceals off duty. Gun law debates and discussions never really go anywhere. Depending on what side you’re on heels are dug in pretty deep. Overall I suspect the native folks here probably are much more to open to guns. People from others states like MA not so much. Having lived and hunted in MA since I was 15 it always amazed me how many people called the cops when we seen entering the woods with guns.

I'm native. I breaks down into civilized behavior.
And it isn't the only issue that incites passion, I get smokers that both get upset that they can't smoke inside, and that they have to place the butts in a specialized disposal container that we have at both customer entrances.

I have had customers smoking in the store told to ''put it out'' that drop it on the floor and step on it. Customer that throw the butts in the flower planters, or the parking lot on the ground, etc. None of it is civilized behavior. So it is not a matter of where someone was born or may currently reside.
Nor is it just a matter of firearms.