ccw good for?

[IheartGUNS]

With all that has happened...

Read More

 

[Bushman]

What?

 

[Harrytop]

It allows you to carry a concealed handgun legally, but I have a feeling your looking for more of a debate about why carry in the first place.

 

[branchbuster]

I don't know, maybe to protect your loved ones from harm?

 

[BVB]

that persons or persons should not be a concealed permit carrier

 

[BVB]

and this is why there is a program that is being spearheaded by a State Rep by the name of Dennis Richardson called "Campus Responders" that will change the threat in our schools. it is time to change the school threat for our children and grandchhildren.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

It allows you to carry a concealed handgun legally, but I have a feeling your looking for more of a debate about why carry in the first place.

If I may, I'd like to offer another way of looking at it. Would the recent shootings or the ones from years prior have happened if the perpetrators had known that Citizens routinely carry their sidearms (concealed or not)? Would those perpetrators have been more likely to think twice about committing their crimes? Of course. But here we are, in the midst of a spree of crimes that, because there were no Citizens to put a stop to it on the spot with their own sidearms as they have a right to in the absence of law enforcement, we are now being told that these crimes announce themselves as "exhibit A" for the need to clamp down on Citizens' gun rights. I guess I'm probably preaching to the choir when I say that this form of psuedo-cause and effect thinking is either a form of madness or a form of usurpation.

Both State and federal Constitutions describe the keeping and bearing of arms as a "right", do they not? If we still remember that "rights" are those things that often come with the words "unalienable" or "fundamental" or "natural" attached to them, we have to ask a very simple, pertinent question. Is a "right" really a "right" if we have to ask permission to exercise it.... from those who are sworn to uphold and defend it for us? Because yes, when we "apply" for a "license" or "permit", we are....asking...., because "applying" is asking for something you don't already have from someone who has the authority to give it to you. Does government have authority under the Constitution(s) to give us a "right"? No...we already have them. So what is it that we are getting then, when we ask (apply) for a "license" or "permit" to do what we already have a right to do?

The Constitution(s) are quite literally....contracts. So when you say..."It [concealed carry "license"/"permit"] allows you to carry a concealed handgun legally", that suggests that the Constitution isn't legal enough? But considering that the Constitutions are the supreme laws of the land, what other "authority" could be necessary? We as a people have been told what you are stating above so many times that we believe it and embrace it without question. But the problem is is that even though we are held accountable to the admonition "ignorance of the law is no excuse", we all know that we are not taught even the basics of how to read the law in our public schools. We don't get to learn about our State Constitutions at all (at least I didn't), and considering that people can get doctorate degrees in Constitutional law, we know that the class time exposure we get in public schools to the federal Constitution, hardly qualifies as lip service.

Please forgive me if it sounds like I'm picking on you. I don't mean anything personal by it. But I would like you to know though that the lawful definition of "license" in Oregon is found in a chapter of law called the Administrative Procedures Act (chapter 183), which governs how the executive branch of government "administers" or "enforces" the law. The lawful definition of the base word "license" is in the definitions section of this chapter. This definition is the definition of "license" that the executive branch is confined to for purposes of performing their lawful duties. And when you read this definition, you can see that it puts a big question mark on how the word "license" gets thrown around and thrust into our personal business as Citizens.... business, for example, like protecting ourselves with concealed sidearms. See ORS 183.310(5):

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) "License" includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

Notice how the "law" makes no reference to "permission required by law to pursue a 'right' "? The ONLY area of interest that "license" or "permit" or "registration" lawfully applies to is "activity" that is of a "commercial" nature. Our rights are not "commercial" in nature. They are "natural", "fundamental" and "unalienable" in nature.

 

[BillB1960]

Nope...it's worthless:

<broken link removed>

 

[Fister35]

With all that has happened...

Who's responsible for your safety?

 

[Synnergy]

With all that has happened...

Yes.

 

[oknow]

With all that has happened...

:dinner: :huh:

 

[shooter58]

With all that has happened...

As good as the man / woman carrying it...