CCW Permits & The Right To Defend Your Life

[dougiemac]

Let me preface: I'm not encouraging anyone to break the law, but I don't understand the mentality of not carrying 24/7 regardless of a permit. It's a God given right that is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I have two permits, to cover my ass in nearly 40 states in the Union and I do so to mitigate any potential issues I could run into and to be able to buy a firearm with minimal issues, however I don't view that permit as "permission" to defend my life with lethal force, wherever I am at. When I carry, I keep my weapons concealed, out of sight, and I mind my business staying situationally aware. I don't break any natural laws and I live by a code that established this country. Dead men or women don't go to court. So decide for yourself what's best for you, choose wisely and live justly. Just my $0.02.

 

[Sadkins]

Let me preface: I'm not encouraging anyone to break the law, but I don't understand the mentality of not carrying 24/7 regardless of a permit. It's a God given right that is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I have two permits, to cover my ass in nearly 40 states in the Union and I do so to mitigate any potential issues I could run into and to be able to buy a firearm with minimal issues, however I don't view that permit as "permission" to defend my life with lethal force, wherever I am at. When I carry, I keep my weapons concealed, out of sight, and I mind my business staying situationally aware. I don't break any natural laws and I live by a code that established this country. Dead men or women don't go to court. So decide for yourself what's best for you, choose wisely and live justly. Just my $0.02.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[JMUshotgunner]

As Yeager says, "There's a big difference between allowed and able."

 

[Mac11FA]

Defend yourself as no one else will!

 

[Righter13]

Biggest reason I only carry when allowed is because if I was to get arrested I would lose my clearance and then in turn my job.

 

[erkinator 2]

Amen Doug

 

[TattooedGunner]

Yup. Very few places I don't carry.

 

[Cudruln]

Carry everyday and everywhere. You know the saying "would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

My company has a no carry policy. Told my boss don't send me to the hood and I won't carry. Hell he started carrying after that conversation.

 

[Hayata]

Get a weapons license.

It's not that difficult.

I definitely agree it's an illegal tax but good luck with that defense if you're ever facing a judge.

 

[dougiemac]

Get a weapons license.

It's not that difficult.

I definitely agree it's an illegal tax but good luck with that defense if you're ever facing a judge.

I honestly don't believe it would change your defense if you used a firearm in a justified self defense situation. However you would eliminate receiving any charges yourself for carrying without a license.

 

[Righter13]

I honestly don't believe it would change your defense if you used a firearm in a justified self defense situation. However you would eliminate receiving any charges yourself for carrying without a license.

The sailor involved with the Chattanooga shooting is in this very situation and the Navy is keeping it quiet.

My biggest question is who actually killed the shooter.... Usually when it's the cops they'll be the first to scream it from the mountain top.

 

[Laufen]

I honestly don't believe it would change your defense if you used a firearm in a justified self defense situation. However you would eliminate receiving any charges yourself for carrying without a license.

You'd be screwed, justified or not. A court of law is rarely a place where exceptions are made, and justified out of "common sense". Don't bank on "self-defense" getting you out of jail free. It won't happen.

 

[Hayata]

I honestly don't believe it would change your defense if you used a firearm in a justified self defense situation. However you would eliminate receiving any charges yourself for carrying without a license.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with what you said.

But what if you're carrying somewhere and it falls out and a cop is right there. Then he finds the two other guns you happen to be carrying without a license? You'll still have to hire a lawyer and spend lots of dough to "hopefully" get out of it.

It's kind of a moot point. The odds that I'll ever pull my edc is VERY slim. The odds my edc would ever be accidently discovered by an irrational officer of the law is also VERY unlikely to happen.

Another reason I'm trying to lose weight and get into shape. Statistically speaking I have a whole lot more chance of dying from a health-related reason than from a gun battle with a bad guy.

Just don't break the law by carrying without a license. I cannot advocate intentionally breaking the law when it comes to firearms in today's climate.

 

[Laufen]

The biggest misconception around our rights is that they are inalienable, and un-revokable. They are not.

 

[sewerman68]

The biggest misconception around our rights is that they are inalienable, and un-revokable. They are not.

Which makes them not rights but privileges granted to us by the control freak du jour.

I am not willing to recognize arbitrary laws that attempt to negate the ability of a living being to defend its life.

 

[Laufen]

Which makes them not rights but privileges granted to us by the control freak du jour.

I am not willing to recognize arbitrary laws that attempt to negate the ability of a living being to defend its life.

All we have are privileges, that's all we've ever had. Inalienable rights are 100% myth.

 

[sewerman68]

All we have are privileges, that's all we've ever had.

In our lifetime you are certainly correct. I don't know how well read you are on natural law but, it's something I personally feel strongly about. There was actually a brief time in this country's history when it was actually recognized by its courts. Rule of law in this country is at this point a sick joke.

 

[Laufen]

In our lifetime you are certainly correct. I don't know how well read you are on natural law but, it's something I personally feel strongly about. There was actually a brief time in this country's history when it was actually recognized by its courts. Rule of law in this country is at this point a sick joke.

Our rights are still recognized by the courts, but recognition is all that makes them valid. We are better off today, from an individual liberty perspective than we have been in the history of man...that's not getting worse, but to assume that our rights are un-revocable is not correct.

 

[sewerman68]

Our rights are still recognized by the courts, but recognition is all that makes them valid. We are better off today, from an individual liberty perspective than we have been in the history of man...that's not getting worse, but to assume that our rights are un-revocable is not correct.

I would have to disagree with you here. I recently spent 6 months serving on a grand jury. My personal experience is that courts recognize "rights" when it is convenient for them to do so. We had a very long and heated discussion with a judge and the district attorney on exactly what constituted a crime. My definition and Blacks law dictionary's definition was not the same as what the DA and judge seemed to think they were. They frequently presented evidence of "crimes" that had no injured party. At one point I told an assistant DA if the "state" was the injured party we would hear testimony from it. All of it. There is a great deal more I could get into involving this. The idea that we are better off as far as freedom goes today is simply not true. Especially where courts are concerned.

 

[Laufen]

I would have to disagree with you here. I recently spent 6 months serving on a grand jury. My personal experience is that courts recognize "rights" when it is convenient for them to do so. We had a very long and heated discussion with a judge and the district attorney on exactly what constituted a crime. My definition and Blacks law dictionary's definition was not the same as what the DA and judge seemed to think they were. They frequently presented evidence of "crimes" that had no injured party. At one point I told an assistant DA if the "state" was the injured party we would hear testimony from it. All of it. There is a great deal more I could get into involving this. The idea that we are better off as far as freedom goes today is simply not true. Especially where courts are concerned.

That's my point, and that's why it's important to have rights spelled out in a way in which they can be defended in a court of law.