Moms don't want CCW at the Post Office

Father of four · Feb 4, 2014

No.
I am the guy that sees that the firearms crimes are mostly commented by the criminals. Not by the CHL permit holders or the other firearm owners. But the CHL holders gets the rights/permissions while the non-CHL holders are left defenseless or infringed. And why? What did they do? Did they commit the crimes? What about their rights?

Father of four · Feb 4, 2014

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

For the government workers and CHL holders only?

Norm0931 · Feb 4, 2014

FoF, not that I disagree with you but, I think you are trying to push a point that is way ahead of where we are at. Unfortunately, while I agree we should be at "step 100" you can't just jump from Step 7 to Step 100. There needs to be steps 8, 9, 10, etc. Demanding the complete deregulation of guns as the ONLY standard is not going to get us anywhere. They want to play the "compromise" game then we play it right back. They take baby steps and so do we, then we say they aren't being realistic when all we want is CHL holders to be able to carry in post offices. This opens up legal room for non-chl holders to get there. Not to mention that you couldn't have a Non-CHL holder able to carry in a post officer concealed (Federal) and not carry outside (State). That makes no sense. Like I said, I see what you are asking but, you have to demand a little less out of the masses to get the END GOAL accomplished.

Father of four · Feb 5, 2014

I understand where you are coming from Norm. I am still in the boat that is loaded with non-CHL holders and the boat keeps getting fuller and fuller of water. We are on the verge of sinking. Our 2nd Amendment rights so to speak. In some states and our countrys Capital (which blows my mind!) those rights are gone.

When is the last time the non-CHL community had something good go in their direction. It doesn't happen very often. Its like we are the criminals or something. But we are not. The criminals are the criminals.

The government workers, the CHL holders and really also the criminals enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights close to being uninfringed. How about those law abiding non-CHL holders?

PiratePast40 · Feb 5, 2014

It's a vexing situation, and I'll be the first to say that I get it, but don't have any answers. One of the primary concepts we have with open carry is the decision we all need to make when we observe it. And that is to ask if a person carrying a gun in public poses a threat. If I were to observe a non-uniformed person walking into a grade school with a long gun, regardless of the type, I would certainly be alarmed.

Would it be that persons constitutional right to carry the gun, well probably. The problem we face is trying to determine intent without amplifying information. It's a pre-emptive decision that is 100% subjective. If we apply the post office example, and look at some scenarios, it becomes just as troubling. Let's face it, if we saw a punk from the hood, with a ballcap on sideways, pants hanging off his butt, and a pistol in his belt, I think it's fair to say most of us would be alarmed. Is it unfair for us to discriminate against someone that we think looks like a criminal? I don't know the answer to that since we all have different opinions and prejudices, and they are based on where we live and our life experiences.

The fact is that the general public is not comfortable with open carry everywhere we go. I know there will be some that start to jump up and down and scream that we had better get used to carrying AR's in the classroom, at the mall, and the grocery store, and at church. But let's face it, the majority of people will disagree. It's just the way it is.

ThePhonMan · Feb 5, 2014

I look at it slightly differently.

Why not take a page from the Anti's playbook and get our rights back incrementally? They seem to be very effective at chipping away at our rights, so let's chip away at getting them back.

Once CHL at the post office is approved it's a much shorter step to add open carry. We have a provable argument that "reasonable measures" have not caused any problems so lets keep pushing for those "reasonable measures" in restoring our rights. This also gets reasonable people on our side and makes the Anti's look more extreme and more foolish (if that's even possible).

As my old boss used to say, you eat an elephant one bite at a time. We, on the pro-gun side can play the same game and restore our rights one bite at a time.

Does it suck? Heck yes! Can we now open carry at the post office, the courthouse or at a Presidential Inauguration? Heck no! Is the restoration happening fast enough for any of us? Heck no! Does that have to be that way it is forever? Heck no!

We cannot, however, just go from nothing to everything without first fighting battles we know we can win. You can win one battle and lose the whole war but I'd much prefer the other way around. Fight winnable battles as they come and use delaying actions and positioning until another battle IS winnable and fight that one and win. We didn't invade Germany without first landing at Normandy.

Just my 2 cents.

Brian