Do you support civilian concealed carry permits

**Iron Man** · 10-01-06, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by SRT Sniper

Wrong!! Possession and use of firearms is an enumerated right, granted in the second amendment... See previous post for the voting question.

If you are a convicted felon and in possesion of a firearm, you are commiting a felony.

**TXCharlie** · 10-01-06, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by tx-leo

CHL holders are statistically less likely to commit even the simplest of crimes.

Partly because we don't want to loose our CHL

Originally Posted by Iron Man

If you are a convicted felon and in possesion of a firearm, you are commiting a felony.

Not entirely true... Felons in Texas can keep guns at home after 5 years I think, but just can't take them anywhere.

You know, I think some of the anti-CHL sentimate could be erased if civilians had to go through the same annual qualifications as police officers - I don't think TCLEOSE quals are that far from CHL quals (someone told me that the only big difference was a 25-yard test, whereas the CHL test is limited to 15 yards). I wouldn't be opposed to making them the same.

**Five-0** · 10-01-06, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by SRT Sniper

Of course the last paragraph is a little bit off topic, so please feel free to start another thread (I suppose that is the best way to address the issue) if anyone is interested in debating/discussing the constitution or amendments...

No need to start another thread. The right to vote is deligated to the states if you follow the constitution. You were right on with the 14,19,24, and 26th amendments only concerning their listed means of discrimination when it comes to voting. As for the amendment stating that you can vote, there is none. This makes the question of voting fall to the individual states (10th amendment). I for one have a problem with anyone that is living off the government having a vote. This is the Tyrany of the Majority that De Tocqueville writes about. As soon as a democracy finds out that it can deprive one group of their property and give it to another the democracy is doomed. This is why an understanding of the Federalist Papers is so important the understanding of our Represenative Republic. This is also why I am so opposed to the current tax system in this country and why Karl Marx loved a tax on income.

About time we had a good govenment/political discussion without it involving individual bullshitters, I mean politicians.

**SRT Sniper** · 10-01-06, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Five-0

No need to start another thread. The right to vote is deligated to the states if you follow the constitution. You were right on with the 14,19,24, and 26th amendments only concerning their listed means of discrimination when it comes to voting. As for the amendment stating that you can vote, there is none. This makes the question of voting fall to the individual states (10th amendment). I for one have a problem with anyone that is living off the government having a vote. This is the Tyrany of the Majority that De Tocqueville writes about. As soon as a democracy finds out that it can deprive one group of their property and give it to another the democracy is doomed. This is why an understanding of the Federalist Papers is so important the understanding of our Represenative Republic. This is also why I am so opposed to the current tax system in this country and why Karl Marx loved a tax on income.

About time we had a good govenment/political discussion without it involving individual bullshitters, I mean politicians.

Quite true Five-O on many points... While the 10th Amendment does give non-enumerated rights to the individual states, the 15th prohibits those states from diminishing individual rights...

It has been quite awhile since I have read De Tocqueville, but I must say that I do remember seeing many issues aptly presented. I must yield however, to your understanding of that work as I can not reliably remember much of it myself. Now as far as the Federalist Papers go, that is a bit of a different story, but you must also remember to keep the FPs in the proper context... It was basically a debate amongst the authors (arguing for ratification of the constitution), of whom, did not want to readily be identified at the time, thus writing the 85 articles under the "pen name" Publius.

A few other thoughts on voting might be appropriate here;
"The American Revolution was fought in part over the issue of voting. The Revolutionaries rejected the British argument that representation in Parliament could be virtual (that is, that English members of Parliament could adequately represent the interests of the colonists). Instead, the Revolutionaries argued that government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

This made many restrictions on voting seem to be a violation of fundamental rights. During the period immediately following the Revolution, some states replaced property qualifications with taxpaying requirements. This reflected the principle that there should be "no taxation without representation." Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting.

By 1790, all states had eliminated religious requirements for voting. As a result, approximately sixty to seventy percent of adult white men could vote. During this time, six states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) permitted free African-Americans to vote." (Winning the Vote, 2004)

So you see, our country was founded on the principle of the governed being able to vote in an effort to provide government by the people and for the people. I'm not quite so sure that an argument barring voting as a right has any valid points, it is certainly not an easy task given the founding history and the voting rights history of our nation. That said, because it is not expressly enumerated within the constitution, the ultimate resolution of the issue can only be found in congress... And they have spoken at least 4 times specifically regarding this issue.

"The history of voting rights is not yet over. Even today, debate continues. One of the most heated debates is whether or not convicted felons who have served their time be allowed to vote. Today, a handful of states bar convicted felons from voting unless they successfully petition to have their voting rights restored..." (Winning the Vote, 2004)

Winning the Vote: A History of Voting Rights by Steven Mintz, Retreived from http://www.historynow.org/09_2004/print/historian.html

**Five-0** · 10-01-06, 09:56 PM

All good points there. I don't think that voting will ever be taken from even the most worthless parasites living in this country. I would settle for a national ID that would serve as a driver's license, and voter ID card. Scan it when you vote. The "CITIZEN" votes and only votes once. Absentee voting should only be allowed to servicemen and women serving abroad.

**SRT Sniper** · 10-01-06, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Five-0

All good points there. I don't think that voting will ever be taken from even the most worthless parasites living in this country. I would settle for a national ID that would serve as a driver's license, and voter ID card. Scan it when you vote. The "CITIZEN" votes and only votes once. Absentee voting should only be allowed to servicemen and women serving abroad.

Excellent... I do have reservations about the proposition here (National ID/OL/Voter Card), but it does seem like a very good solution to that issue... I also agree completely with the absentee voting garbage -- ONLY service members abroad, or stationed out of their home state.

**dadyswat** · 10-02-06, 08:15 AM

I sure do support it. The police have no duty to protect he individual. Let's face it, we normally get there AFTER it happens prior to taht you're on your own.

**TXCharlie** · 10-02-06, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by dadyswat

I sure do support it. The police have no duty to protect he individual. Let's face it, we normally get there AFTER it happens prior to that you're on your own.

Amen - Your job usually consists of getting 'em before they victimize someone else!!! If you can stop a crime in progress, great, but how often do you get that lucky?

The sad reality is, sometimes there's very little you can do for current or past victims except recover their stuff - You simply can't undo serious injuries that the criminals inflict, or lives that they take.

**gozling** · 10-02-06, 09:47 AM

**RF7126** · 10-02-06, 11:10 AM

1st time poster here, I just couldn't pass up a thread on citizens carrying.

Regarding the suggestions that citizens with licenses/permits take a course with the local police department, I think that is a great idea. I think the average citizen that carries would love to work with the police and learn how to use their firearm better. I know I would jump at the chance to go through the shoot/don't shoot simulators, as well as training for off-hand shooting, and multiple target engagements. I had the opportunity to see one of the simulators at a citizen's academy and immediately thought of how useful that would be for citizens as well. In addition, as someone mentioned, it might help bridge the gap between the citizens and the police. In the town I live in there are a lot of misperceptions on the part of the police department regarding what is allowed under Indiana law. There are also some misperceptions on the part of citizens regarding how the police think. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for both groups to learn from each other and eliminate some of the "fear of the unknown".

If your department would support it, I think it's a great idea. I also have no problem with requiring a reasonable amount of training regarding safety and responsibility. I've been shocked at how unsafe some people are with firearms, even military/ex-military. In fact some of the most unsafe people I've been around are or were in the military. I usually shoot at least 200 rds a month (a big expense for a college student using .45) and I still wouldn't mind going through a remedial course put on by a good police department.

Just my 2 cents.

**bayern** · 10-02-06, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by CopsRCool302

I Believe Only Law Enforcement should be the only ones to carry a weapon, as you all know, they are trained better than a civi..

almost anyone can pass a gun class, but not everyone is well trained..

to me, it just makes the cops more in danger of being hurt/killed when called to a shooting, make sence??

make sence. Nope, not to me. The Constitution gives you the right to free speech. But only to those who have training and pass a test? The right to free exercise of religion. Yup, but only for certain churches? The Right to vote. Sure, but only for certain parties, if you pass a test and vote correctly? Right to bear arms. Yes, period. I agree with a training period and qualification. Drivers license, the same, EXCEPT THAT IS NOT A RIGHT under the US Constitution.

as you all know, they are trained better than a civi.. Hell, I know cops that I wont stand anywhere near them on the range, 'cept WAY back. So, I'll have to disagree with you.
.

CopsRCool302 · 10-02-06, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by bayern

make sence. Nope, not to me. The Constitution gives you the right to free speech. But only to those who have training and pass a test? The right to free exercise of religion. Yup, but only for certain churches? The Right to vote. Sure, but only for certain parties, if you pass a test and vote correctly? Right to bear arms. Yes, period. I agree with a training period and qualification. Drivers license, the same, EXCEPT THAT IS NOT A RIGHT under the US Constitution.

as you all know, they are trained better than a civi.. Hell, I know cops that I wont stand anywhere near them on the range, 'cept WAY back. So, I'll have to disagree with you.
.

well, you would know more than me about the Guns.. if I was at work, and voting was going on, I can leave my work to vote, they can't stop me, that's my RIGHT...

stay safe

**121Traffic** · 10-02-06, 03:37 PM

Okay, CRC has since reversed himself. We've established that.

**Iron Man** · 10-02-06, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by TXCharlie

Not entirely true... Felons in Texas can keep guns at home after 5 years I think, but just can't take them anywhere.

Its Illegal by Federal Law, not state law.

CopsRCool302 · 10-02-06, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by 121Traffic

Okay, CRC has since reversed himself. We've established that.

AMEN on that

**TXCharlie** · 10-02-06, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Iron Man

Its Illegal by Federal Law, not state law.

Doesn't the Federal law apply only if they cross the state line with the gun, or try to buy it from a dealer?

Oh well, I hope I never have to worry about that problem