WA tops 590,000 CPLs!!!

[AK0perator47]

this is incoherent.

A right is free, but if I bear arms, I will be arrested without a CPL. A drivers license could be a different case because the state maintains the roads and owns them.There is no true "privilege of a CPL" as it, unlike a drivers license is a guaranteed constitutional right.
To not be arrested, jailed and thrown in jail by an unconstitutional government, is not a true privilege, but coercion by violence. In essence, it is extortion.

Well respectfully I completely disagree.

CPL is a concealed pistol license. You have accepted that an unconstitutional government will arrest you for a right. You shouldn't need a CPL but for fear of being arrested you have chosen to get the CPL.

A privilege is a special entitlement granted to a restricted group or person, either by birth or on a conditional basis, and can be revoked.

By contrast, a right is irrevocable and inherently held by all human beings. It is self-evident and universal under the laws of nature.

The CPL can be revoked which makes it a privilege. So can your drivers license.

 

[RicInOR]

.59 million CPL

2016
7.288 million Total Population
(recorded= not sure how many is transient like military, farm)


2010 US Census
18 & over 5,143,186
20 - 24 461,512
25 - 34 933,781
35 - 49 1,401,214
50 - 64 1,330,461
65 & over 827,677
Total 6,724,540
.

Given the 18 yr + age that means a little more than 1/10 or 10% with CPL

​

 

[Wombat of Doom]

The CPL can be revoked which makes it a privilege.

which is frankly unconstitutional.

 

[AK0perator47]

which is frankly unconstitutional.

No. You can open carry a firearm in Oregon. Perfectly legal in most places. You have your Constitutional Right.

Carrying a firearm concealed in Oregon requires a CPL. You have your privilege that can be revoked.

 

[Slobray]

Not punishment. It's part of capitalism.

Really? So making some people pay more for the exact same product is part of capitalism? I don't see income based prices on products when I go shopping, but maybe you explain how the retailers know who to charge more to.

Our tax system is based on that and the people that make more money get a tax break? They also can afford a tax lawyer to help them pay less in taxes. So, when is it fair for people who cannot?

Our tax system is not "fair"; a "fair" tax system would be a flat tax rate where everyone pays the same percentage, with no deductions for anyone.

It's also about donating money to things that should be done instead of putting money into something that is never going to work for the good of issues in society.

I'm not really sure if you're talking about donations or taxes here. We all know they are two totally different things: voluntary vs coerced.

I guess child safety is a bad investment?
Suicide is acceptable?

Your reply wouldn't be complete without a straw man argument........ What's next, you going to attack my grammar or sentence structure to make your point?

It's funny how a person can read something and right away knock it down before willing to make sure that they understand what the other person is saying.

I had a great conversation with someone who thought I was a Socialist! I laughed so hard for the first two minutes and then snickered while talking for the next three minutes. So, without jumping to any conclusions I ask you what do you mean?

Looks like you already "knock[ed] it down" and "jump[ed] to conclusions" with your straw man argument and overall reply, so I'm not sure you really want to know what I mean. As for someone thinking that you are a Socialist, well, you are arguing for socialistic policies: extorting money from the citizenry that have achieved some measure of success to benefit those who haven't.



Ray

 

[AK0perator47]

@Slobray
So I take it we should get rid of scholarships and make all colleges to where you can go if you can afford it? There are some social programs that are in place and people are able to benefit from them. There is also Medicaid coverage. A social program. Look I do realize that the amount is stiff and it's meant to get people's attention. I never said that it was a perfect amount but I do believe that we should put resources in place of beneficial programs.

 

[thorborg]

I fail to understand what your thoughts are. Please explain so I can understand.

Will there be willing capitulation when each time you exercise free speech, you are assed a fee? Maybe withheld from your paycheck according to some convoluted schedule based on your vocabulary size so you are covered during an accident opine.
Until I see a realistic, productive benefit from not just the fees, but the action of gun permits, back ground checks, etc., it is nothing more than punitive and greedy governmental behavior modification and a make work situation, funded by the fees. So far I see fee financed oppression and tyranny.
If totally unlike me, people want to fund "instructors and suicide prevention and mental healthcare!"
then first; why do you have to stick your hand in my pocket? and second; if so, then every living mothers son and daughter should have to pony up also, not just gun owners.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

No. You can open carry a firearm in Oregon. Perfectly legal in most places. You have your Constitutional Right.

Not in Portland, or Beaverton. And while legal, you will be harrassed by law enforcement. So no, I do not have my constitutional right here.

Carrying a firearm concealed in Oregon requires a CPL. You have your privilege that can be revoked.

Infringement on the right to bear arms. Period. Infringement on the right in the 2nd amendment. What part of shall not be infringed is fuzzy to you? The requirement of a CPL is an infringement that is contrary to the 2a.

 

[AK0perator47]

Not in Portland, or Beaverton. And while legal, you will be harrassed by law enforcement. So no, I do not have my constitutional right here.

That's why you need to file a complaint. Open carry is legal as I said in most places in Oregon.

Infringement on the right to bear arms. Period. Infringement on the right in the 2nd amendment. What part of shall not be infringed is fuzzy to you? The requirement of a CPL is an infringement that is contrary to the 2a.

You were the one that said that you would need a CPL and you are paying for a Constitutional Right. You are not paying for a Constitutional Right, it's a privilege to carry concealed. No where is it a right to carry concealed. The right has always been about being able to defend yourself from oppression, severe physical harm, and a tyrannical government. You don't need a CPL to do any of those things. You need it to be able to not have it displayed for anyone to see. That in of itself is an additional condition that is being added to carrying a firearm.

I also feel that everyone should open carry. You should not be harassed for doing so.

 

[AK0perator47]

Will there be willing capitulation when each time you exercise free speech, you are assed a fee? Maybe withheld from your paycheck according to some convoluted schedule based on your vocabulary size so you are covered during an accident opine.
Until I see a realistic, productive benefit from not just the fees, but the action of gun permits, back ground checks, etc., it is nothing more than punitive and greedy governmental behavior modification and a make work situation, funded by the fees. So far I see fee financed oppression and tyranny.
If totally unlike me, people want to fund "instructors and suicide prevention and mental healthcare!"
then first; why do you have to stick your hand in my pocket? and second; if so, then every living mothers son and daughter should have to pony up also, not just gun owners.

Very good valid points. My thoughts and original statements are for everyone to pay those fees. Not just firearm owners. Yes our government is too much into our pockets. I am thinking of us a citizens wanting to help each other out instead of lining someone else's pockets.

 

[Slobray]

@Slobray
So I take it we should get rid of scholarships and make all colleges to where you can go if you can afford it? There are some social programs that are in place and people are able to benefit from them. There is also Medicaid coverage. A social program. Look I do realize that the amount is stiff and it's meant to get people's attention. I never said that it was a perfect amount but I do believe that we should put resources in place of beneficial programs.

Ok, I'll play.........

Yes, get rid of them all. I loathe the govt stealing my hard earned money to.....

• usurp my rights (with things like carry licenses, restrictions on what arms I'm allowed to own, BGC, AWB, etc),
• support those who are to lazy to support themselves,
• support other people's children,
• pay for someone else's children to go to college (especially, when mine had to do it themselves),
• pay for illegal alien's and/or their childrens school, medical, housing, food, etc,
• etc

Just to name a few.....

There may be programs that I might be willing to give money to, but I'm sick and tired of being extorted in the name of charity and "social justice". If you and others want "social programs" that "people are able to benefit from", fine, you folks can pay for them, but quit trying to shake me down to finance something that doesn't benefit me/my family and/or that I disagree with.



Ray

 

[AK0perator47]

Ok, I'll play.........

Yes, get rid of them all. I loathe the govt stealing my hard earned money to.....

• usurp my rights (with things like carry licenses, restrictions on what arms I'm allowed to own, BGC, AWB, etc),
• support those who are to lazy to support themselves,
• support other people's children,
• pay for someone else's children to go to college (especially, when mine had to do it themselves),
• pay for illegal alien's and/or their childrens school, medical, housing, food, etc,
• etc

Just to name a few.....

There may be programs that I might be willing to give money to, but I'm sick and tired of being extorted in the name of charity and "social justice". If you and others want "social programs" that "people are able to benefit from", fine, you folks can pay for them, but quit trying to shake me down to finance something that doesn't benefit me/my family and/or that I disagree with.



Ray

Please don't think that I am completely against you. I welcome your input and views. It is appreciated. Great conversation is what makes us better people.

But I am talking about resetting most of the stupid laws; whether firearm related or not and moving forward with something else. Also because of your reasoning it is what will help refine ideas.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

That's why you need to file a complaint. Open carry is legal as I said in most places in Oregon.


You were the one that said that you would need a CPL and you are paying for a Constitutional Right. You are not paying for a Constitutional Right, it's a privilege to carry concealed. No where is it a right to carry concealed. The right has always been about being able to defend yourself from oppression, severe physical harm, and a tyrannical government. You don't need a CPL to do any of those things. You need it to be able to not have it displayed for anyone to see. That in of itself is an additional condition that is being added to carrying a firearm.

I also feel that everyone should open carry. You should not be harassed for doing so.

You have yet to explain why needing a permit is needed to exercise the right to bear arms. the 2a does not say I have to open carry, concealed carry is part of that right. To restrict it to open carry is infringement on that right to bear arms.

I carry concealed to defend myself from severe physical harm. Something open carry does not afford efficiently.
How would you feel if we made you carry a license to say anything politically incorrect? And suffer jail time if you were not carrying it on you? Would you be okay with that? Because that is analogous to how you are treating the 2a with the 1a.

 

[Dave Workman]

We can make it fair. Under 30k a year $5. 30k-60k $10. 60-100 $25. And then for every 25k after an additional $20. Every 500k is $5,000. Non tax deductible and money is for instructors and suicide prevention and mental healthcare!

Whoa, time out! What on earth are you talking about?!
You're talking about a graduated tax to exercise a constitutionally delineated fundamental right. No matter what you may think it is or how you may try to describe this, a tax on a civil right is what it is.
That's probably unconstitutional and might even be morally repugnant.

 

[AK0perator47]

You have yet to explain why needing a permit is needed to exercise the right to bear arms. the 2a does not say I have to open carry, concealed carry is part of that right. To restrict it to open carry is infringement on that right to bear arms.

I carry concealed to defend myself from severe physical harm. Something open carry does not afford efficiently.
How would you feel if we made you carry a license to say anything politically incorrect? And suffer jail time if you were not carrying it on you? Would you be okay with that? Because that is analogous to how you are treating the 2a with the 1a.

I never said that you needed a permit. I said that everyone should be able to open carry. The permit is for concealed carry. You have chosen to carry concealed. Therefore you have chosen to abide by the law where you live. I only stated that it is not a right to carry concealed. It's a privilege that requires a license and can also be revoked. Your Constitutional Right is not infringed at all. You have chosen to not be harassed by carrying concealed. To infringe on the 2A would be to violate or limit the 2. However that is not done by having a CPL.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I never said that you needed a permit. I said that everyone should be able to open carry. The permit is for concealed carry. You have chosen to carry concealed. Therefore you have chosen to abide by the law where you live. I only stated that it is not a right to carry concealed. It's a privilege that requires a license and can also be revoked. Your Constitutional Right is not infringed at all. You have chosen to not be harassed by carrying concealed. To infringe on the 2A would be to violate or limit the 2. However that is not done by having a CPL.

Actually it is infringed on by requiring a CPL to carry concealed. It does infringe on the right to bear arms to require it to be in plain view. You have yet to provide any coherent reasoning for this other than your assertion based on nothing. It is simply an infringement on the 2a to require a permit to bear arms. It is my right to bear arms constitutionally, whether they are concealed or open. Requiring a permit to carry concealed is adding a limitation to the 2a.

secondly, open carry is explicitly illegal where I live. Also, open carry, not concealed carry leads to law enforcement harassment. Open carry is also a poor idea as it makes you a target of a potential shooter, and my gun is worth some money. I don't want somebody to attempt to take it, because if someone attempts that, somebody is getting shot or stabbed. I always carry a knife as well, and have for the last 29 years.

3rdly, I carry because with my job I receive literally hundreds of death threats. Some credible.

I noticed you failed to deal with the analogy of freedom of speech. Per your argument, speech should be free, maybe as long as it is politically correct and unoffensive. You are adding all manner of infringements and then pretending they are constitutional because... there is a permit, so by the magical fairy dust, that makes it constitutional.

 

[thorborg]

Actually it is infringed on by requiring a CPL to carry concealed. It does infringe on the right to bear arms to require it to be in plain view. You have yet to provide any coherent reasoning for this other than your assertion based on nothing. It is simply an infringement on the 2a to require a permit to bear arms. It is my right to bear arms constitutionally, whether they are concealed or open. Requiring a permit to carry concealed is adding a limitation to the 2a.

secondly, open carry is explicitly illegal where I live. Also, open carry, not concealed carry leads to law enforcement harassment. Open carry is also a poor idea as it makes you a target of a potential shooter, and my gun is worth some money. I don't want somebody to attempt to take it, because if someone attempts that, somebody is getting shot or stabbed. I always carry a knife as well, and have for the last 29 years.

3rdly, I carry because with my job I receive literally hundreds of death threats. Some credible.

I noticed you failed to deal with the analogy of freedom of speech. Per your argument, speech should be free, maybe as long as it is politically correct and unoffensive. You are adding all manner of infringements and then pretending they are constitutional because... there is a permit, so by the magical fairy dust, that makes it constitutional.

Although I'm on board with you @Wombat of Doom, You are not getting it buddy, verbally sparing with someone diametrically opposed is futile. Likely the more intelligent of the ilk get it but at the same time are agin it. That's how the sanctimonious deceitfully weave their narcissistic views on the world. first by repeatedly emphasizing a premise that when rejected always changes the subject. It is a millennially old trick of the dredged that "if you aren't with us your against us." leaving you no where to go!
Suppose I say I have a right to defend myself and family. A retort may be; "children are dying from guns, if you don't give up your guns you hate children." the more thin their cause, the more they use children as their reason you are bad. (or grandma or dogs etc.) then the compliant media picks it up and soon the only thing one hears on the six o'clock news is you hate children. Then, if by some chance you are able to move forward with your point of view, they want to compromise. the most devious of all since they aren't compromising anything but you will end up giving up plenty. Flinging words like reasonable and fair, You end up in total capitulation of everything to get the "You hate children" moniker off your back, but too late, since by now you have lost your job and the wife has left you because she cant stand the lies, hate and vitriol coming at her 100 miles an hour. (marginalize, discredit, demoralize, destroy) They knowing full well once the lie is out you cant put it back I the box and use it to their advantage.
If by some odd sequence of events your barely heard claim to constitutional rights still persist, they will attack it from the sides to neuter it while touting how wonderful they are for compromising and letting you keep your gun. Mean while, laws have been passed outlawing bullets, or triggers, or firing pins, or hours when you can shoot a bad guy, or you must store your guns 100 yards from the bullets for the children's sake.

Many are afraid of guns. Maybe rightfully so, maybe not. I can't help that. And I do care about them albeit It's not like you and I haven't plenty of things pressed upon us that is difficult to swallow and forced to "get over it".
Nonetheless, legal or not, to openly flaunt the possession of a gun is to subject the timid to undue fear is cruel and unkindly. All the billions spent thus far could have been better spent in acceptance and understanding guns and self protection minimalizing the fear of the few. The law calls it intimidation, a threat. and is so much a bad thing they even apply a "witness" clause to CC as extra insurance you will comply from fear of devastating retribution. In acknowledging that seeing a gun is intimidation, what does the flaming Hippocrates do? They make it illegal to conceal the gun without paying big money and subjecting your self to untold scrutiny and invasion of privacy. forcing you to intimidate, or give up your gun at the will of individual municipalities knowing full well that all those who live outside the law don't give a tinkers dam about permits.
If it isn't obvious that total disarmament of the law abiding electorate is the only true outcome, then the narrowing of the field like the B.S. seen above is obviously working to keep the big picture from view.
Nibble, Nibble we lose our autonomy, our freedoms our god given rights in which no man us worthy to alter.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I get it, I really do, but I would rather challenge worldviews than insult. My point is to try to make someone think and engage.

 

[Hawaiian]

10% having a CPL is great, that is higher than I thought. I think Oregon is somewhere around 6%

 

[Koda]

I'm all for people abiding by the law and getting their CHLs but Wombat has a valid point. Your constitutional rights to bear arms do not end with the Second Amendment or whats under your shirt and the constitution guarantees that "certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" under the 9th amendment.... not to mention our 4th amendment right to be secure in your person (concealed carry). Its worth noting here that its completely impractical to expect everyone who wants or needs to bear arms to do so only in any certain way like open carry and its well established in history that self defense is a natural right. (Its also been illegal for way many years now for convicted persons to carry guns at all...) What else do we want the government to regulate what we put in our pockets or under our shirts? How about your smart phone because it has access to the most powerful weapon in the world, free speech and the internet... oh I know, thats not an apple to apple comparison but you get my point.