Gun Control Question

[Headless Roland]

Why is it that folks who have a CHL(CCW) don't seem to realize that having a concealed handgun permit IS GUN CONTROL?

Am I wrong here?

Everyone I know seems to think that having a gun license is somehow a conservative triumph over the "gun grabbing liberals"

As I am inclined to understand things,having a handgun license IS the very nature of what "gun control" means.

I had to apply.
I had to pay the state.
I underwent a complete background check.
I had to complete a course,be tested and be notarized......

Anyway,seems to me that if there was NO gun control then ANYBODY could carry ANY GUN
ANYWHERE or ANY Place without restrictions.

I for one am proud that I correctly underwent the proper and legal channels to obtain my license. I love my country and am proud of the US Constitution and the Second Amendment.

I just really wish to know why is it that there are so many who are convinced that ANY dialog of "gun control" is part of a vast and diabolical conspiracy to disarm us?

[Zee]

I can't wait to hear the opinions. The Federal Govt describes a right. The state takes it away then rents it back to selective people. Sure sounds like gun control to me.

I agree it is an effort to control in a way helpful to the public in general although far from 100% effective.

[chamberc]

Welcome to the forum.

You'll find that most of us feel that way, but are also law abiding citizens. Most everyone agrees that no license should be required, but, unfortunately, that is the law of the land right now.

Again, welcome, and if you search the forum, you'll find a lot of discussions regarding this very matter.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think that you would find most of us in agreement with you as to the CHL being a form of gun control. I think that you would also find that a large number of us, myself included, would prefer not having to have any kind of control over our RKBA.

But there's principles, and there's politics, and what falls between them is often called sausage making. And that is what the CHL is — sausage. Why sausage? Well, for example, the very same law which makes it legal for me as a CHL holder and as your company's customer to secure my weapon in my car even if your building is posted 30.06, also fails to protect your right as a CHL holder to secure your weapon in your car before entering the building to begin your work day.

We have lost the unrestrained RKBA incrementally, and it will require incremental tactical victories to regain the uninfringed RKBA. CHL is merely a steppingstone along the way toward the eventual victory of an uninfringed right — as called for and codified by the founders in the 2nd Amendment.

So we obtain CHLs now because that is what the law requires, but we look forward to a day when it is not required.

[Headless Roland]

I am certainly not so naive as to think that a LAW is a guarantee that will protect me.
That is why I legally carry in the first place.
I am however glad there are certain laws that prohibit some folks from legal or "Constitutional" carry. Ex-convicts for example. NO--the law won't make them NOT carry a weapon,BUT--it may possibly impede them and if they get pulled over by Johnny Law:
They will go back to jail,hopefully even longer this time.

I do want to hear some people sound off here.

Are there really those who have CHLs who believe we shouldn't have to adhere to a legal/licensing process?

Are there those amongst us who don't think there should be ANY restrictions?
Age?
Background criminal history?
Weapon class restrictions?
etc....

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am certainly not so naive as to think that a LAW is a guarantee that will protect me.
That is why I legally carry in the first place.
I am however glad there are certain laws that prohibit some folks from legal or "Constitutional" carry. Ex-convicts for example. NO--the law won't make them NOT carry a weapon,BUT--it may possibly impede them and if they get pulled over by Johnny Law:
They will go back to jail,hopefully even longer this time.

I do want to hear some people sound off here.

Are there really those who have CHLs who believe we shouldn't have to adhere to a legal/licensing process?

Are there those amongst us who don't think there should be ANY restrictions?
Age?
Background criminal history?
Weapon class restrictions?
etc....

This may be the first time I've ever posted this, but search for these topics and you'll get a treasure trove of answers. There are hundreds if not thousands of threads on these subjects. For a first post/thread, you sure picked a volatile subject. It's almost like a reporter for the Dallas Morning News is looking for support for their next article.

According to your IP address, it appears you are from Virginia; is that correct?

Chas.

[C-dub]

I don't think you're going to get too many folks "sounding off" here. Most, if not all, of us are aware of what you've stated and probably agree with you. Regaining those rights, not given to us by the constitution, but affirmed by it is a slow process. At least for the states that took them away. Some states did not.

[MadMonkey]

It's almost like a reporter for the Dallas Morning News is looking for support for their next article.

My first thought too

[Headless Roland]

I have indeed searched these topics before. (now I feel compelled to discuss)

I have difficulty locating any genuine and un-biased pragmatism. (either side of issue)

Overall I am INDEED very skeptical of "gun control" and those who are likely to champion it.

However,I have been intrigued by those who seem as to have an automatic and volatile response to ANY discussion whatsoever of even the mere possibility of future "control" measures.

I seem to recall reading that in the beginning of the 20th century there were no traffic laws or license/insurance requirements until later on when the automobile did finally emerge as victorious over animal drawn carriages. Were these initially seen as "infringements" or as threats to our freedom?

Sorry gentlemen. I just don't see an outlining dark shadow with cloven hoof and pointy horns behind the word "gun control" as others see it.

.....now when words like "disarm" and "ban" get attached,I do become inclined towards outrage.

btw-
/ I am from Dallas
// I live in Richardson,Texas
/// I am only a "writer" on such open public forums as this
//// I carry a Sig P-239 9mm (CHL since 1997)
///// I just love these little slashies!

[gmckinl]

//// I carry a Sig P-239 9mm

I would have guessed a Thompson. Oh well.

[chabouk]

Of course we all agree that a license to carry is a form of gun control. Some find that acceptable. Some find it a good thing. Others consider it an abomination (I fall into this category), but better than the abomination we had before.

Other forms of gun control:
- the ban on citizen ownership of automatics manufactured post-May '86
- the ban on interstate sales
- the requirement for dealer licenses
- the requirement for manufacturer licenses (including ammo)
- for that matter, the entire Gun Control Act of 1968
- the National Firearms Act of 1934

I find all of those things to be abominations in conflict with the 2nd Amendment. I can't overturn them by willpower, and there seems to be no political will to return to a truly gun-friendly society.

[Dudley]

"I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to control it."

[casingpoint]

The Seventh Circuit struck a note the other day regarding gun regulation in U.S. v Skoien:

Skoien admitted he had gone deer hunting that morning and used the shotgun to kill a deer. He argued below and maintains here that prosecuting him under § 922(g)(9) for possessing the shotgun violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms for hunting. He has not, however, asserted a right to possess the gun for self-defense. As such, the government’s application of § 922(g)(9) in this case requires less rigorous justification than strict scrutiny because the core right of self-defense identified in Heller is not implicated.

If, as in McDonald v Chicago, the issue at bar is the core right of self defense, the Seventh has impliedly reasoned here that strict scrutiny should be the standard of review. And with strict scrutiny of a fundamental core right, many existing gun regulations will be hard put to survive. One of the first group of regulations to fall would be those governing concealed carry.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs. ... 70_002.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

I seem to recall reading that in the beginning of the 20th century there were no traffic laws or license/insurance requirements until later on when the automobile did finally emerge as victorious over animal drawn carriages. Were these initially seen as "infringements" or as threats to our freedom?

I call "Red Herring" on two points:

1. The specific right to drive a motor vehicle is not enshrined in the Constitution, whereas the 2nd Amendment specifically states that the RKBA shall not be infringed.
2. Even so, the new traffic laws (which did NOT initially require insurance, by the way) did not restrict what kind of vehicle you could buy, or how many passengers it could carry, or how much engine displacement you could be allowed to have. They only codified responsible use from a public safety perspective. We don't allow you to shoot your pistola into the air on New Year's Eve in the middle of the town square either, not even in the most firearms enlightened states in the union. Public safety firearms laws only become illegitimate when they infringe on the right to keep and bear them.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

The only gun grabbers around here grab an XD, then they grab
an HK, then they grab a 1911, then they grab an M & P, then they
grab an AR-15..... all to add to their personal collection. :-)

SIA