Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Vicarious Cynic, Nov 30, 2012.
<broken link removed>
It got off to a rocky start with this:
But after that I thought it was a fair and balanced article. It wasn't overtly pro-guns/ccw, but it didn't attack gun rights and I think will do some good in raising awareness that guns aren't something to revile.
The ".20 gauge shotgun" at the end made me smile. We know the editor / proofreader doesn't own any guns.
Although it may have a left leaning slant when it comes to the overall "gun culture" and she obviously was not impressed with her training class she did seem fairly objective to the whole issue of concealed carry.
She even admitted to owning several weapons that she refused to sell even if she doesn't shoot them much (an SKS included).
Overall I would say a decent article considering the source but it would have been better if she had embraced the idea of her rights to concealed carry. It almost felt like she seemed guilty for getting her permit and wanted to downplay its importance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think that was a fair article..
what the hell was all that?? confused face :-l leave it to the hippy dippies......
Damn, the site logged my out as I was writing my reply! But here it is anyway:
Not bad overall, although there were a few missteps into the gun grabber's cool aid like "According to the most recent statistics, more people died in Oregon in 2009 from gunfire than died in car accidents". Usually those statistics include suicides and they shouldn't.
The part about the kid nawing on the pistol was disturbing. -all guns are always loaded 100% of the time- even when they are not
I'm wondering why there isn't a line to get into Catholic School.
Yeah, she didn't mince her metaphors, did she?
Pretty good article. If you need a class then shop around. There is a wide spectrum in supposed experts. Go to the NRA website to find out who is a certified instructor.
"In order to get a concealed weapons permit in Oregon, you have to demonstrate "handgun competency," among other things. "
Also not true. You don't need to demonstrate anything. You just need a certificate that says you've taken a safety course.
In hippie-culture, there is no "think", only "feel". Right now I "feel" like a ham sammich, 'cuz its nearly lunch time.
Actually that is true. You demonstrate it either by taking that safety course, which despite the name covers more topics, or by qualifying for one of the exemptions.
I was under impression that before the change they've made last year, carrying loaded with CHL on motorcycles and snowmobiles was not an issue, but unloaded transportation (without CHL) was. Anybody can clarify ? In any case, it's different now.
Now that is false.
Actually, the license in both OR and WA is for handguns, it is not for normal rifles or shotguns. That is why tehy are "Concealed Handgun License" and "Concealed Pistol License"
The part I had trouble with were her statistics...OR traffic deaths in 2009 were 377. Wilful homocide (any cause) were 84, and Negligent homocide was 16...where did the other 277+ firearms deaths come from? I say "+", because the statistics I found did not seperate the homocides by instrument used.
Some very good point nice story, the part she writes:
Don't be stupid
"If you are awake and don't say something stupid, you get your certificate," Leach told us. There was no test, though if you want to skip class, Oregon Concealed offers an online video and test that you can take instead of class.
I find we need a better system for concealed I found many people do not remember or even know the concealed class information later on.
It wasn't legal for a CHL holder to carry a loaded firearm on an off-road vehicle until the changes last year.
While it may say handgun in the OR license, it can apply to any firearm in some statutes. Just how the laws end up being written when a group is statutorily exempted.
ORS 166.250(a) prohibits concealment of any firearm upon a person. 166.260 lists persons that are not affected by all provisions of 166.250, with paragraph (h) adding CHL holders to the list. It does not establish a condition based on the type of firearm.
I agree. The standards are ridculously low. Some will certainly argue there shouldn't be any standards or regulation to CC. You nearly have your wish now.
In WA the standardis: it is your responsibility to know the law and how to handle your firearm safely. They then give you a pamphlet with the laws, and your CPL. Guess what...never been a problem.
I never even got the pamphlet
I was told pretty much no schools, no federal buildings and no bars
this was over 16+ years ago and you couldn't just search the Internet in the same fashion that you can today.
But I agree that it has never been a problem.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk