No grammer about it. Concealed Carry Weapon is not a Concealed Handgun Permit. If you use the first for the second you are a MORON.
I think you are the first one here to mix permits with permit-free carry. I think a person has to be a moron, or a control freak, to make all kinds of
non sequitor arguments attacking how others choose to carry.
Some people are long winded with narcissistic personallities
Demonstrably, the narcissistic personality has nothing to do with post length. Some are so narcissistic as to start entire threads for no purpose but to complain about how others use a term that is very well accepted. Some seem to think they alone have the right to define what a given term means. I also find that quite often, those with sub-standard reading comprehension skills will resort to complaints about length. As if the world should be presented to them only in sound bite form for easy comprehension at the same sophomoric level as their thinly veiled insults.
Suit yourself. I open carry for the honest world to see
I'm quite happy for you and support your decision. I am
EQUALLY supportive of the decision to lawfully carry a gun discretely, or casually concealed. I do not feel any need to impose a dress code on how someone else exercises his rights. Where a State's statutes recognize the lawful right to carry a gun without a permit, that is a form of constitutional carry whether the law recognizes the right to CC, OC, CCC, or all.
No. We follow the constitution in our states, no permit needed. Because of the constatution. See how that works. Permits are needed to hide it.
And that is exactly what happens in other Constitutional Carry States. The statutes now recognize that a person has a right to carry without needing to get a permit first. It is a shame your State constitution--as a remnant of racist Jim Crow laws--explicitly allows your legislature to enact laws against carrying concealed.
The Alaska State Constitution, for example does not allow the legislature to restrict the manner in which a person chooses to carry a gun. Ditto the Arizona State Constitution. Ditto many others.
It seems far more common of former Jim Crow States to grant the legislature power to impose dress codes than it is in State Constitutions in other areas of the nation. This is not surprising. Clayton Cramer has long since made the case is his wonderful essay,
"The Racist Roots of Gun Control" that gun control laws in this nation have their roots in racist efforts to disarm slaves, former slaves, and other "undesirable" groups including recent immigrants. Indeed, within that essay, Cramer cites a couple of specific NC court cases in which the court engaged in horrible legal gymnastics to uphold laws for no other reason than to leave blacks defenseless.
The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [28] It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [29]
...
throughout the South during this period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions were being narrowed, or simply ignored. Nor was the reasoning that led to these changes lost on judges in the North. In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun--while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:
I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [33]
While not relevant to the issue of racism, Justice Wanamaker's closing paragraphs capture well the biting wit and intelligence of this jurist, who was unfortunately, outnumbered on the bench:
I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding rather than the law-violating people. If this decision shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals, because they are daily committing criminal acts by having these weapons in their own homes for their own defense. The only safe course for them to pursue, instead of having the weapon concealed on or about their person, or under their pillow at night, is to hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large placard with these words inscribed:
"The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on one's person in one's home, even in one's bed or bunk, this weapon is hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar, hand me my gun." [34]
Simply put, those who oppose a natural right to carry a firearm in a discrete manner, are supporting the same laws as did the racists of yesteryear. To be clear, I do not accuse any here of racism. I simply point out that opposition to permit-free, constitutional concealed carry is the same position taken by those who worked to deny freed blacks and their descendants of their rights.
A black man open carrying may be subject to all manner of problems. He might be harassed. He might feel himself a target as anyone could gun him down and claim self-defense knowing there is absolute evidence the victim was armed. However, if that man can legally carry discretely, he enjoys the benefits of self-defense should it be needed, without drawing undue attention to himself before then.
While you carry openly for all the "honest world to see," there are those who may feel a need not to expose their decisions to those elements of the world that are not honest nor honorable.
I support every law abiding citizen's right to peacefully carry a gun OC, CC, or CCC for self-defense. I recognize the benefits of OC. I also understand the advantages that CC/CCC bring to at least some people some of the time.
The RKBA community has plenty of enemies. We do not need to make enemies of each other over dress codes or minor differences in word usage.
And to carry in certain locations, or to carry certain guns (in certain cities in VA), or to carry certain magazines (in some cities in VA).
Not familiar with those alleged laws can you cite please. Not familiar with that law in NC either
Cite please
And yet you keep engaging in it by claiming that you have constitutional carry when clearly you don't, and by omitting crucial details. If you want to get uptight over accuracy and word usage, I will hold you to the same standard and point out the error of you ways.
Uh the state goes by the constitution.
You clearly had no interest in engaging in civil dialogue when you started this thread, but simply wanted to rant against someone's pro-RKBA marketing terminology that you don't like. And now you are upset that anyone is disagreeing with you, but lack the courage of conviction to directly engage on the issues brought up.
Well yes i am ranting against inaccuracy. the term is being misused. I have not been not civil. my feelings have not been hurt one bit. My ego is well intact. You seem to have a over large ego. You should really work on it
Why don't you engage in some honest dialogue?[/QUOTE]
