JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,487
Well you been a member on this site, or any other site you've no doubt heard the discussions of one should open carrier concealed carry. That's not what I'm asking or discussing in this topic. It's more the statement.

To see whether affects a firearm have in the possession of a person, we have to first look at the effects of it. In California, yes California. Had some of the toughest gun crime bills in the nation in the 1970s. They had the slogan "user then go to prison" which was only focused on the criminal element. Meaning if you committed a crime with a firearm, it was automatic jail time up to 25 years depending on the crime. It was seen at that time, that prisons started to feel quite rapidly. And Jerry Brown, decided to work to remove that law. It is important to realize that why this law was in place deaths by a firearm during a criminal act dropped approximately 65%. It was remarkable how simply passing a bill holding the criminal accountable drop crime. This says nothing about the fact of whether you and I should carry. But it does show clear that when holding people accountable when using a firearm, it lowered deaths and increased prosecution of those using a firearm.

So let me ponder this for you, if we kept laws active that held the criminal element accountable when they used a violet object in the action of committing a crime. The streets would be much safer. It would also be much more so, if people in California were aware at any given time the people around them could be armed. Imagine in California if that law had stayed active. And people were able to be armed on the street to protect themselves. Things could have changed and the very different to that state.

You and I, in our Northwest states, need to look at not just gun laws. We need to have laws designed to punish criminals the use of firearm in a very dramatic way. Meaning if you commit any kind of violence act. Not just a violation of firearms law. But the violent act towards another when using a firearm, sentencing should be severe. And we need that legislation right now. As right now you and I can open and concealed carry, with limited conditions in both Washington and Oregon. If you combine that with tougher laws punishing criminals when they commit violent and aggravated acts against the citizens in these great states.

So write your legislators, not only to protect your Second Amendment rights. But tell them you are tired of seeing criminals use firearms and not be held accountable. And if there are laws on the books we need to strengthen those laws and defined them more carefully, only then would can we start curbing the violence that goes along with the firearms, is that the sentencing and punishment fits the crime.
 
Concealed is concealed. General civilian carry isn't the place to telegraph. I don't have anything against open carry but you run the risk of bringing unwanted scrutiny to your posture. Now if it's a riot situation and i'm defending against looters, you betcha that I will have serious weaponry visible for all to see. There's a time and a place to be proactive and prepared for confrontation. Otherwise just being 3rd/3rd row is the greater tactical advantage, on several levels.
 
WA had(I'm not sure if they still do) a "Three Strikes" law which said when you get convicted of your Third Felony, you went inside for Life. The reason I'm not sure it's still on the books is because I have not seen it being used in some time.:(:(:( Maybe it just worked TOO well. I also know that many Prosecutors and Judges thought that it was taking their jobs away; because it was.
 
WA had(I'm not sure if they still do) a "Three Strikes" law which said when you get convicted of your Third Felony, you went inside for Life. The reason I'm not sure it's still on the books is because I have not seen it being used in some time.:(:(:( Maybe it just worked TOO well. I also know that many Prosecutors and Judges thought that it was taking their jobs away; because it was.

WA was the first state to have such a law I believe. Its not just felonies, but seriously violent felonies.
 
I agree and endorse the laws that would punish severely those committing crimes against others using guns or other weapons. I further believe that ever time that law was used against a perp that it should be highly publicized. I'm less certain about the effects of open carry. First off, open carry protects the person carrying much more than others. The recent situation where law enforcement shot the wrong guy, and have admitted it, has caused me to think about entering into a situation where I may not be able to clearly understand everything going on. Additionally, LE people have had training I don't have nor will ever have and yet they still occasionally make these mistakes.
 
I think one of the problems with it was that the original law didn't say "serious" and many the felons that had committed a simple burglary were going in. Another example of a very poorly written RCW. Since many of our Legislators are Lawyers; it again points out that they are not very well educated!

Anyway, for whatever reason it isn't being enforced like it should be.
 
I agree with the intent of the three strikes law. Put repeat violent offender away. However, some pretty minor non violent crimes are felonies. Life in prison for selling pot three times or kids drag racing and running from the cops is not what the original intent of the law was. Remember, our tax dollars have to pay huge $ for incarceration.
I am fine with that for truly violent offenders, but it got out of control putting non violent law breakers in prison for life.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top