| Author | Post |
|---|
gunsfreak4791
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Kearns, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 502 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 04:24 pm |
|
| I agree not putting any more money into their State. I will go to Montanna if I want to experience NV.
|
b1ack5mith
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Payson, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1012 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 08:15 pm |
|
yeah, screw NV anyway, i dont know WHO would live there (well becides for the tahoe area, thats understandably a nice place to live) but if i had to choose between CA and NV, id pick alaska 
|
irish
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 12:05 am |
|
Florida & Utah are no longer listed. http://www.nvrepository.state.nv.us/ccw_changes.shtml
Out of State Carry Concealed Weapon Permit Recognition
Effective Oct 1, 2007
In accordance with NRS 202.3689 the State of Nevada will recognize the following States' CCW permit holders:
Alaska
Arkansas
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan (added May 9, 2008)
Missouri
Nebraska
Ohio (added July 1, 2009)
Tennessee
West Virginia (added July 1, 2009)
This law allows holders of valid permits from these states to carry a concealed weapon while in the State of Nevada. The permit must be in the possession of the issuee at all times while carrying a firearm.
CCW Prohibited Locations defined by NRS 202.3673
Utah no longer lists Nevada: http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html
Florida no longer accepts Nevada either: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html
From FL website: This list was last updated on July 1, 2009, when the State of Nevada was removed from the reciprocity list. Authorities in Nevada notified the Division of Licensing that as of that date, Nevada would no longer honor Florida concealed weapon licenses. Therefore, in accordance with the reciprocity provision set forth in section 790.015, Florida Statutes, Florida could no longer honor concealed weapon licenses issued by the State of Nevada.
|
b1ack5mith
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Payson, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1012 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:54 am |
|
| funny list... the nearest state on that list is like 1000 miles away!
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:55 am |
|
SGT Jensen wrote:
Wow... Way to take my comment literally. You are beginning to seem like the critical father that I never had. 
Why don't you come clean Charles? I have a lot of respect for the hard work you do. You were paving the way for my freedoms long before I ever thought to exercise them. But it is becoming clear to me that I am slowly becoming a thorn in your side. Why is that? Does my choice to push the limits of open carry threaten you? Are you afraid that I will somehow undo all of your hard work?
So, your comments get to have a little humor to them, but if I counter by pointing out the problems in that humor I'm an over-bearing father?
You know, I've had a permit for nearly 5 years now. And yet I still devoted a lot of time the last 3 years to get permit-free car carry (concealed and loaded) passed into law. It gains me NOTHING personally except knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public.
What annoys me is people who don't like guns trying to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to own or carry a gun.
I think what annoys me even more, however, is someone who "gets it" on owning guns, but develops some kind of attitude about where or how I should carry and your comment supporting the loss of a legal option touched that nerve.
I am also annoyed by those who enjoy their rights in such a way as to foster bad PR for the rest of us. Idiots who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. SuperDell has long since crossed the line from misunderstood supporter of RKBA to liability who refuses to conduct himself within any constraints of civil society.
No, I don't think you are going to undo my (and many others' ) hard work. But it might be nice if you'd give a half moment's thought to how to pick your battles and whether any of them do carry a higher risk to gain ratio than might be prudent to engage if not necessary.
And I'd like to think you respect my rights and choices at least as much as you'd like me to support your rights and choices.
Charles
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:30 pm |
|
utbagpiper wrote: So, your comments get to have a little humor to them, but if I counter by pointing out the problems in that humor I'm an over-bearing father?
No, I said that your being critical of my comments are liken to a critical father. I made a half-joking comment, and you chose to criticize me as if I were hostile towards concealed carry.
utbagpiper wrote: You know, I've had a permit for nearly 5 years now. And yet I still devoted a lot of time the last 3 years to get permit-free car carry (concealed and loaded) passed into law. It gains me NOTHING personally except knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public.
I too have had my permit for close to 5 years, and I wish that I did not need to renew it. I do not like that we have restrictions on how or where we choose to carry a firearm. But for you to say that loosening Utah laws gains you nothing, since you are already permitted, sound a bit off to me. I would think that not having to pay for a right, or get the States permission would mean everything, but maybe that is just me.
utbagpiper wrote: What annoys me is people who don't like guns trying to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to own or carry a gun.
You mean like a legislature? Or a Department of Public Safety?
utbagpiper wrote: I think what annoys me even more, however, is someone who "gets it" on owning guns, but develops some kind of attitude about where or how I should carry and your comment supporting the loss of a legal option touched that nerve.
I understand that we all have lost an option when it comes to carrying in Nevada. I was simply pointing out that we are chatting on a forum that advocates the carry of firearms openly, and that we still have that option in Nevada. An option that happens to be less restrictive than here in our own State.
utbagpiper wrote:
I am also annoyed by those who enjoy their rights in such a way as to foster bad PR for the rest of us. Idiots who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. SuperDell has long since crossed the line from misunderstood supporter of RKBA to liability who refuses to conduct himself within any constraints of civil society.
No matter what the right may be, there will always be "that one guy" that makes the rest look bad. I can agree that people who shoot road signs are idiots, but I won't go as far as to say that they're not our friends. Their actions may hinder our progression, but I am willing to bet we all have a buddy that has done something stupid, or perhaps illegal with a firearm.
Again with SUPERDELL? Just because the news picks on him, and he has a zany way of projecting himself, means he is a liability to "the cause"? It is easy to judge somebody based on what the news tell you about them. I suggest that people should get to know a person before they judge somebody based on what they read or see on TV.
utbagpiper wrote: No, I don't think you are going to undo my (and many others' ) hard work. But it might be nice if you'd give a half moment's thought to how to pick your battles and whether any of them do carry a higher risk to gain ratio than might be prudent to engage if not necessary.
I recognize that others are working hard as well, but this is not about them. What battles have I picked? I simply commented that people should exercise their right to carry openly in Nevada, since some unfriendly men decided that they don't want us concealing in their state. I noticed that you highlighted YOU (meaning me), so would you care to clarify who you are concerned about? Or should I continue to receive the criticism since I am the mouth piece of group?
utbagpiper wrote: And I'd like to think you respect my rights and choices at least as much as you'd like me to support your rights and choices.
YOUR rights? Is that what this is about? Anything that I say here is directed at YOU? They are OUR rights Charles. I support EVERYONE'S rights and choices they make. The fact remains that WE have been denied a choice by The Nevada Department of Public Safety, not me. How dare I suggest that a group of "open carriers" do just that in a state that chooses not to allow us to cover our sidearms? Do you have a better suggestion?
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:55 pm |
|
SGT Jensen wrote:
I too have had my permit for close to 5 years, and I wish that I did not need to renew it. I do not like that we have restrictions on how or where we choose to carry a firearm. But for you to say that loosening Utah laws gains you nothing, since you are already permitted, sound a bit off to me. I would think that not having to pay for a right, or get the States permission would mean everything, but maybe that is just me.
Sgt., Let me know when your emotions have cooled enough to have a rational discussion. You clearly missed the "...except..." my statement about permitless car carry. Just a small matter that completely changes the meaning of what you've chosen to quote out of context.
Look, you may have intended the "they just make us OC" as joking. It came across to me as though you were celebrating the fact that we had lost an option in how we might choose to legally carry our guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that "dancing bananas" were to indicate joy and celebration, while "winking faces" were how we indicated some degree of sacrcasm.
THAT is what set me off. I'm happy for you and others to OC anywhere you want. I join you in some cases and defend your right to choose your carry mode in virtually all cases insofar as the law goes, with some exceptions insofar as etiquette or manners are concerned.
I am NOT happy about anyone who OCs who is hostile to CC or CCC. I don't care for those who CC who are hostile toward OC or CCC.
We've got enough enemies who would love to just disarm us that we don't need to be quibbling among ourselves over whether or not OC or CC or CCC is the only right way to carry.
Carry as you see fit. Observe the laws of the land and of common courtesy and etiquette.
And let's stop thinking we need to defend the indefensible. Shooting road signs is not merely stupid and those who do it are NOT friends of RKBA. The conduct of one idiot shooting signs or power transformers, etc does us and our cause more damage than 10 hardworking activists can make up. NOBODY I know has ever done such a thing--or at least they've known better than to admit such moronic, criminal, counterproductive conduct to me. They KNOW how I'd respond and some mamby-pamby misapplication of Christian teachings on judgement is NOT how I respond to such things. I am NOT PC and not afraid to call a spade a spade.
A guy who does nearly 50 mph in a 25 mph residential area is not wacky or misunderstood. He is a menace to society and it is a shame our traffic laws don't properly account for and punish such gross negligence. Mouth breating, knuckle dragging morons who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. They DESERVE to be judged, to be called out, to be punished. Those who poach game (excepting perhaps someone truly hungry who shoots a non-trophy animal purely for food) are not our friends and they deserve the harsh punishments the law metes out to them.
I won't condemn someone to eternal hell. THAT is the judgement Christ spoke of.
But I am not afraid to call criminals and morons exactly what they are.
Charles
|
KalelIsbell
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | Riverton, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:20 pm |
|
rpyne wrote: Sorry, I'm not going to take their bait and put MORE money into the Nevada coffers because they decided to restrict my rights. Quite the opposite, I'll just avoid spending time and money in Nevada.
edit: spelling
Diito
I will never spend my money there again, I guess i will never get to go to lake Tahoe or Vegas again..
I dont know how much longer the government thinks they can continue to assault our freedoms; and WE THE PEOPLE will tolerate this..
NOT ALL OF US ARE SHEEP  
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
utbagpiper wrote: Sgt., Let me know when your emotions have cooled enough to have a rational discussion. You clearly missed the "...except..." my statement about permitless car carry. Just a small matter that completely changes the meaning of what you've chosen to quote out of context.
So now you presume to know the meaning of what I chose to quote? I took nothing out of context. Your post, in its all mighty entirety, was quoted in my reply. Again what you said is...
utbagpiper wrote:
You know, I've had a permit for nearly 5 years now. And yet I still devoted a lot of time the last 3 years to get permit-free car carry (concealed and loaded) passed into law. It gains me NOTHING personally except knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public.
As I read it, you gained nothing personally from your work, with the exception of "knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public." Please correct me if I am wrong, but to me this comment makes it sound like you are perfectly content with the current system of permitted carry, but you still want to make it better for others whether or not it personally benefits you.
utbagpiper wrote:
Look, you may have intended the "they just make us OC" as joking. It came across to me as though you were celebrating the fact that we had lost an option in how we might choose to legally carry our guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that "dancing bananas" were to indicate joy and celebration, while "winking faces" were how we indicated some degree of sacrcasm.
You are right about the "winking face". I made no attempt to outline my sarcasm, and I got called out on it. A simple mistake of online courtesy that I will try to avoid in the future. HOWEVER, as someone who chooses to avoid concealment at all costs, I was making a true statement about how I personally felt. I do feel bad for everyone who lost the option to conceal in Nevada, but their right to self defense has not been taken away.
utbagpiper wrote:
THAT is what set me off. I'm happy for you and others to OC anywhere you want. I join you in some cases and defend your right to choose your carry mode in virtually all cases insofar as the law goes, with some exceptions insofar as etiquette or manners are concerned.
I thank you for joining us and helping us defend our rights, and I always will. But the law speaks nothing of "etiquette or manners". I know that I am part of a very small minority here, but if something has not been deemed unlawful, then I will try not to criticize others for doing something that may not be socially acceptable.
utbagpiper wrote:
I am NOT happy about anyone who OCs who is hostile to CC or CCC. I don't care for those who CC who are hostile toward OC or CCC.
We've got enough enemies who would love to just disarm us that we don't need to be quibbling among ourselves over whether or not OC or CC or CCC is the only right way to carry.
Carry as you see fit. Observe the laws of the land and of common courtesy and etiquette.
I too am not happy about these disagreements within the firearms community. While I choose to avoid concealment at all times, I recognize that others try to avoid "printing" or "open carry" at all costs. If that's what they want, then I will support it, and I will not criticize somebody base on their method of carry. It you want to put a ten inch revolver in you waistband, with the barrel hanging out of your opened zipper, then I will support that decision. But who decides what is "common courtesy" or "etiquette"? Obviously we have differing opinions, so what, the majority rules?
utbagpiper wrote:
And let's stop thinking we need to defend the indefensible. Shooting road signs is not merely stupid and those who do it are NOT friends of RKBA. The conduct of one idiot shooting signs or power transformers, etc does us and our cause more damage than 10 hardworking activists can make up. NOBODY I know has ever done such a thing--or at least they've known better than to admit such moronic, criminal, counterproductive conduct to me. They KNOW how I'd respond and some mamby-pamby misapplication of Christian teachings on judgement is NOT how I respond to such things. I am NOT PC and not afraid to call a spade a spade.
I never said that shooting signs was not a dumb thing to do. I am a firm believer in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Every time I see a bullet riddled sign, I shake my head in disgust. But I choose not to judge them based on their actions, as it is not my place to do so. Some of the biggest enemies to the RKBA cause are our fellow gun owners. But you can't convince somebody to accept something out of their status quo with harsh criticism. This is why you often see me posting in defense of those who are most critical of our actions. Remember how many friends thoughtpolice had?
utbagpiper wrote:
A guy who does nearly 50 mph in a 25 mph residential area is not wacky or misunderstood. He is a menace to society and it is a shame our traffic laws don't properly account for and punish such gross negligence. Mouth breating, knuckle dragging morons who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. They DESERVE to be judged, to be called out, to be punished. Those who poach game (excepting perhaps someone truly hungry who shoots a non-trophy animal purely for food) are not our friends and they deserve the harsh punishments the law metes out to them.
Dell is a guy who happens to be a firearms enthusiast, who broke the law with his car. If he were driving normally, his "brandishing charge" would have never been an issue. But, as it seems, his driving habits seem to always predicate his "firearm violations". Yet, those in the media denounce him as unfit to be near a weapon, and seem to miss the point that the most dangerous weapon in his possession was his vehicle. They choose to vilify him more about firearms than his driving habits, but at least you seem to get it.
utbagpiper wrote:
I won't condemn someone to eternal hell. THAT is the judgement Christ spoke of.
But I am not afraid to call criminals and morons exactly what they are
So as long as we don't cast someone to hell, then we are free to judge our fellow man as we please? Well I can't say I disagree, but I choose to leave judgement to the legal system, as unfair as it may be.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
SGT Jensen wrote:
You are right about the "winking face". I made no attempt to outline my sarcasm, and I got called out on it. A simple mistake of online courtesy that I will try to avoid in the future. HOWEVER, as someone who chooses to avoid concealment at all costs, I was making a true statement about how I personally felt. I do feel bad for everyone who lost the option to conceal in Nevada, but their right to self defense has not been taken away.
I thank you for joining us and helping us defend our rights, and I always will. But the law speaks nothing of "etiquette or manners". I know that I am part of a very small minority here, but if something has not been deemed unlawful, then I will try not to criticize others for doing something that may not be socially acceptable.
Sgt.
First, let me apologize. As I wrote above, I interpreted your original post as celebrating the loss of a legal option and I reacted--harshly, and more than once--within that context. It is clear that is not what you really intended and so I ask you to please forgive my harsh reaction.
On the subject of law vs manners, I'd urge you to reconsider your position. The only way large groups of people can live together in peace is for there to be some limits on conduct coupled with some degree of tolerance. Law is the last, most harsh and unbending method to dictate what conduct must be controlled and what conduct must be accepted.
I personally believe that society is generally better served when conduct and tolerance are dictated first and most often by generally recognized notions of manners, civility, and propriety within the community being affected.
Rather than a church feeling a need to have force of law to ban guns in virtually all cases, I believe we'd be far better off if social convention and civility were adhered to in such a way as people choosing not to OC guns into a church and to be very careful not to make church a place where others would be forced to deal with phobias or other issues surrounding guns. Those who really felt a need or strong desire to have a gun could have one, legally, and would choose to be discrete if they attended a church where there was a reasonable likelihood of an open gun being a distraction to the worship service or spri
Employment and other discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc is offensive to most people. So I believe social and economic pressure would properly limit such conduct almost as well as current laws do, but without so many of the detrimental effects these laws impose as "side effects."
Most alcohol and drug laws can be traced, at least partly I believe, to the failure of those who imbibe to heed and social restraints. Holland is apparently looking to tighten up some of their very loose drug and prostitution laws due to the problems caused by public use of such things.
I could go on with other examples. But the point is, a society that fails to properly shape and define acceptable conduct and tolerance via social convention, manners, social approval and disapproval, and so on will soon find itself required to force conduct and tolerance via law. And once a law is written, common sense, exceptions, and flexibility are almost always lost.
Charles
|
combatcarry
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 202 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
utbagpiper said:
Rather than a church feeling a need to have force of law to ban guns in virtually all cases, I believe we'd be far better off if social convention and civility were adhered to in such a way as people choosing not to OC guns into a church and to be very careful not to make church a place where others would be forced to deal with phobias or other issues surrounding guns. Those who really felt a need or strong desire to have a gun could have one, legally, and would choose to be discrete if they attended a church where there was a reasonable likelihood of an open gun being a distraction to the worship service or spri
I honestly don't know what your point is.
Are you implying that the current law came to be because of a problem with open carry in church? If it was (or is) a problem I've never heard it.
I would think church leadership could easily deal with any open carrier if they chose to.
In the vast majority of church organizations across this state people can (and do) legally choose to carry discretely while attending church.Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:26 pm by combatcarry
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
combatcarry wrote:
I honestly don't know what your point is.
Are you implying that the current law came to be because of a problem with open carry in church? If it was (or is) a problem I've never heard it.
I would think church leadership could easily deal with any open carrier if they chose to.
In the vast majority of church organizations across this state people can (and do) legally choose to carry discretely while attending church.
Was my point clear via the other examples I used? I had only a single point and it remained constant throughout the examples.
I believe the fact that most people choose to voluntarily respect the wishes of churches, of private home owners, etc is one reason we retain the default value of carrying into churches and private homes being legal (rather than having to assume it is illegal until given explicit permission to carry). We should carefully consider how our actions affect our position. It is one thing to educate and inform. It is another to push so much that others start demanding laws to restrain our conduct.
In other States, laws explicitly allow private business to ban private guns, for example. Violation of such policies become criminal matters relative to guns rather than merely civil matters. In many States there are bans on carrying into certain kinds of businesses, most often those that serve alcohol.
The example of guns in churches may have been less than idea. While it is perfectly legal to drink while carrying a gun in Utah, most gun owners frown on doing so. This is an example of social pressure at work. I'd hate to see a law passed to ban carrying while drinking, not to mention banning the carrying of guns into anyplace that serves alcohol even if you are not going to drink. These laws exist in other States.
Are we not prudent to use a little social pressure to help prevent the kinds of incidents that might lead to support for such laws here?
Charles
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 12:30 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote: Sgt.
First, let me apologize. As I wrote above, I interpreted your original post as celebrating the loss of a legal option and I reacted--harshly, and more than once--within that context. It is clear that is not what you really intended and so I ask you to please forgive my harsh reaction.
Apology accepted.  I have tried to remain civil in my posts, but if you felt that I personally attacked you, then I too apologize.
utbagpiper wrote:
On the subject of law vs manners, I'd urge you to reconsider your position. The only way large groups of people can live together in peace is for there to be some limits on conduct coupled with some degree of tolerance. Law is the last, most harsh and unbending method to dictate what conduct must be controlled and what conduct must be accepted.
My position is non-negotiable, but I believe that you may be misled on my beliefs. I understand that etiquette, manners, and common sense should be applied when conducting somethig as taboo as open carry, but my point is this. There are no laws that define these guidelines, and common sense is not common. I may not participate in some of the outlandish activities that can be read about here, but I will not criticize others who choose to do something that is not prohibited by law.
The law as we have it here permits a lot of activity that is prohibited in other states. If somebody asks about a particular law, I will tell them how it is, without my opinion clouding the response. Take alcohol for example. I have openly carried into a bar, and even had a few beers while armed. Was it legal? Yes. Was it smart? Probably not. Do I regret it? No. I learned from the experience, and I will likely choose to disarm the next time I decide to drink. But if somebody asks if is it legal to carry in a bar and have a drink, my simple response will be yes.
This does not mean that I actively seek "loopholes" in the law that allows me to push the social norm. I simply have tried a few things that others will not. When somebody seeks an opinion, I can share with them my experiences, and advise them that anything they do may have a completely opposite reaction than what has happened to me. Everyone is unique, and should decide for themselves what they should or should not do. My decisions are not made in haste, they are well thought out and I take the necessary precautions to avoid trouble.
As far as other peoples conduct on this forum goes, I have read many posts here that made me cringe. Most of you know what I mean. The guys that "should not even own guns" is what most people call them. But manners and etiquette aside, the posters broke no laws. My personal beliefs prevent me from criticizing others for lawful activity. I don't know how many people believe that my actions are a bit "out there', but I feel that my conduct is well behaved.
As far as my appearance is concerned, proof can be found on this website. Nearly all of my photos here show me dressed professionally, usually in a polo shirt and blue jeans. While I have experimented with tactical thigh holsters, or matching GLOCKS on each hip, my method of carry is usually just a single compact GLOCK carried with active retention. I believe that everyone should dress nice, and use a retention holster, but I will not advocate it here.
I have had only one encounter with law enforcement that lasted more than a minute. My wife was by my side, and I posted about the encounter here for everyone to read and possibly learn from. I was polite, but refused any form of identification. I have never been disarmed, I have been asked to leave only one business (Costco) and I've never had anyone freak out in my presence, claiming that the world was coming to an end because of my conduct.
I guess what I am saying is that I cannot offer an opinion on something if I have not personally tried it. A few people have asked about openly carrying a long arm, but nobody ever seems to try it. So can anybody guess what Kevin might try when he gets home? After carrying an M16 here every day for close to a year, it should be a cake walk at home just once, right?
Sorry for the long read. Iraq is boring, there is nothing to do and I am not tired. (I posted this at 2:30 in the morning) 
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 01:04 am |
|
Thank you for accepting my apology.
SGT Jensen wrote:
My position is non-negotiable, but I believe that you may be misled on my beliefs. I understand that etiquette, manners, and common sense should be applied when conducting somethig as taboo as open carry, but my point is this. There are no laws that define these guidelines, and common sense is not common. I may not participate in some of the outlandish activities that can be read about here, but I will not criticize others who choose to do something that is not prohibited by law.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. As I hope I made clear, I believe it is incumbent upon us--as a gun owning/carrying community--to help set and define what constitutes socially acceptable behavior so that larger society does not impose their views of proper conduct on us via force of law.
Ironically, as a teatotaler, I've been among the most vocal in defending the right of mature adults to enjoy a modest amount of alcohol while legally armed. That has been done mostly in the context of eating a meal in a regular restaurant. But I would certainly encourage anyone who is going to imbibe while armed to be extra cautious that he remain well below the legal limit, and never give any reason to even think he may be drinking to excess, and to avoid any situation where he could possibly have his judgement called into question. Indeed, as a matter of prudence, I think a lot of bars should simply be avoided, especially the later the hour gets.
Similarly, I believe that proper social conduct when asked to leave a private business is to delay doing so no longer than is needed to make sure the request comes from a person high enough in authority to actually be issuing it (for that store at that moment), and to get a name/title for followup later.
At this time at least, I think unless someone knows that an openly carried gun will not be distressing to the participants, that funerals, weddings, christenings, and similar "church type" of events (and church itself) are probably places where CC is preferred to OC. I think that the wishes of family members and friends who invite us into their homes ought to be respected via at least keeping guns out of sight (don't ask, don't tell) if there are issues rather than making a fuss over OC. While a host has far greater liberty in his own home, I think even there a certain level of concern and respect for the feelings of others ought to be maintained.
I believe that those who choose to OC ought to give some thought to their dress and overall comportment. I say this recognizing that what is proper dress when running into Home Depot may be a bit different than what is appropriae at a sit down restraurant.
I believe those who choose to carry a gun in any manner--but especially those who are visibly armed--should go above and beyond to be polite and pleasant to those around them and to avoid ever being in a situation to need their guns. This includes not only heightened situational awareness, but also civility and good manners, deference and humility.
I may be faster with some criticism than I should be. But I try not to go overboard with it. And neither will I have an excess of sympathy for those who make no attempt to present themselves well and then complain about a negative reception. As an analogy, it is probably bad form to criticize a rape victim for walking down dark allies alone at night. But it seems perfectly reasonable when discussing safety with young ladies to mention high risk conduct--that while legal--could be avoided so as to minimize the odds of being a victim.
We in the RKBA community are fond of saying that "An armed societ is a polite society." Unless that is just an empty soundbite, I think it is up to us to not only abide the generally accepted norms of polite, upstanding behavior in terms of dress, speech, and conduct, but to also help define what should be the generally accepted norms of conduct and comportment relative to the lawful carrying of arms.
Simply put, if we refuse to help define what constitutes socially acceptable conduct when it comes to carrying guns, if we advocate that any conduct that is legal must be tolerated we are likely to see increased support for laws to limit conduct to what larger society thinks they want to tolerate. I think we'll be far better off to help define what should be socially acceptable conduct involving the lawful carrying of guns and what conduct falls outside those limits even though it may be lawful.
I'd apologize for being verbose, but it sounds like you need some good reading material anyway.
Be safe over there. And thank you for your service.
Charles
|
combatcarry
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 202 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 01:28 am |
|
Charles,
I agree with you entirely. I also agree that the church example was less than ideal. I see places of worship as no different than any other private property. People can be told to leave according to Utah law (for any reason). If anyone refuses to leave they can be slapped with a trespassing charge. This seems more than adequate to me.
That being said we should respect the wishes of the property owners. If they make it perfectly clear that guns are not allowed (such as in LDS houses of worship) it is our obligation to comply. Should we refuse to comply simply because the penalty is only an infraction? I don't believe so.
Back on topic. I work in Nevada enough that I have a permit issued by Clark County. The only inconvenience to me is I'm back to carrying guns I've qualified with and registered in Clark County. It is always an option for Utah residents to get a Nevada permit.
As S. Jensen suggested you can also Open Carry. Although I'd be terrified of LVMPD throwing my face into the asphalt if I was openly carrying in the more "touristy" areas of Vegas. Here is an example why I wouldn't carry on the strip: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/27721.htmlLast edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 01:38 am by combatcarry
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 02:38 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote: I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.
I can agree to that. 
utbagpiper wrote: As I hope I made clear, I believe it is incumbent upon us--as a gun owning/carrying community--to help set and define what constitutes socially acceptable behavior so that larger society does not impose their views of proper conduct on us via force of law.
If I have learned anything from my time in the Army, it is that we should lead by example. If people choose to learn from us, they have a variety of experiences to learn from. Some experience may be from applying the law, some may be from legislative activism, and some may be from real world experience. I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the first thing about changing a lawmakers mind, but I am willing to put my neck on the line and risk jail time for a cause I believe in. (I've also learned, in the Army, that we waste a $hit ton of money too, but that is for a different forum.)
My experiences may be less than ideal to others, or perhaps pushing it too far, but they are still experiences. And mostly positive ones at that. A lot of peope can armchair quarterback online, but when it comes to asking about something that might be viewed as iffy, I just might have an experience to help somebody make an informed decision on what they should do.
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 08:09 am |
|
KalelIsbell wrote: rpyne wrote: Sorry, I'm not going to take their bait and put MORE money into the Nevada coffers because they decided to restrict my rights. Quite the opposite, I'll just avoid spending time and money in Nevada.
edit: spelling
Diito
I will never spend my money there again, I guess i will never get to go to lake Tahoe or Vegas again..
I dont know how much longer the government thinks they can continue to assault our freedoms; and WE THE PEOPLE will tolerate this..
NOT ALL OF US ARE SHEEP
Something has been bugging me since this topic started, and I have noticed it on many forums. This is a post from another forum member...
What is the problem with Nevada. I always thought of them as a friend of Utahs. Now they are not honoring our concealed permits? Live fire exercises must have been ammendment 2A. Is the next step to have a shooting test when purchasing a firearm? What retards
Now, I am not faulting the OP, or any other that share his belief, but I wanted to let everyone know how permit recognition works in Nevada.
Unlike our State Legislature which gives our BCI very little power, Nevada's Legislature gave The Nevada Department of Public Safety the authority to decide which permits are recognized in their state.
NRS 202.3689 Department to prepare list of states that meet certain requirements concerning permits; Department to provide copy of list to law enforcement agencies in this State; Department to make list available to public.
1. On or before July 1 of each year, the Department shall:
(a) Examine the requirements for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in each state and determine whether the requirements of each state are substantially similar to or more stringent than the requirements set forth in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.
(b) Determine whether each state has an electronic database which identifies each individual who possesses a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by that state and which a law enforcement officer in this State may access at all times through a national law enforcement telecommunications system.
(c) Prepare a list of states that meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b). A state must not be included in the list unless the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association agrees with the Department that the state should be included in the list.
(d) Provide a copy of the list prepared pursuant to paragraph (c) to each law enforcement agency in this State.
2. The Department shall, upon request, make the list prepared pursuant to subsection 1 available to the public.
NRS 202.3653 Definitions. As used in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:
2. “Department” means the Department of Public Safety.
They claim they dumped us due to the fact that they require a live fire, but we do not. However, I cannot find a live fire requirement codified in Nevada Law.
NRS 202.3657 Application for permit; eligibility; denial or revocation of permit.
1. Any person who is a resident of this State may apply to the sheriff of the county in which he resides for a permit on a form prescribed by regulation of the Department. Any person who is not a resident of this State may apply to the sheriff of any county in this State for a permit on a form prescribed by regulation of the Department. Application forms for permits must be furnished by the sheriff of each county upon request.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the sheriff shall issue a permit for revolvers, one or more specific semiautomatic firearms, or for revolvers and one or more specific semiautomatic firearms, as applicable, to any person who is qualified to possess the firearm or firearms to which the application pertains under state and federal law, who submits an application in accordance with the provisions of this section and who:
(a) Is 21 years of age or older;
(b) Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to NRS 202.360; and
(c) Demonstrates competence with revolvers, each specific semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm, as applicable, by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that he:
(1) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or
(2) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety.
Such a course must include instruction in the use of revolvers, each semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm. A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless he determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association or, if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ceases to exist, its legal successor.
However, this doozy of a law would seem to give the Department nearly unlimited power concerning the issue, and they could interpret "demonstrates competence" to mean anything they want.
NRS 202.369 Regulations.
The Department may adopt such regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.
There was even this message in the alert from The Utah Shooting sports Council that stated the following...
The people involved with Nevada permits seem to include a few powerful members of the law enforcement community who are hostile to private citizens self defense rights.
I looked through the Nevada Code concerning the DPS, but it does not mention anything about concealed firearm permits. Our State code authorizes no more than five members to sit on Concealed Weapon Review Board. So let's assume that the director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety has a similar board.
This would mean that five or six guys just decided that 157,000 or so Utah permits are no longer valid in Nevada. Not the State, not the State Legislature, but just a handful of men who are hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Who knows how many Florida permits are currently valid, but they were dumped too.
I have also heard that Utah should return the favor and not recognize Nevada permits. I would like to point out that Utah is the only state in this mess that did not take a step backwards. Nevada dumped recognition of Florida and Utah. Florida, in turn, dumped recognition with Nevada. Our laws, however, do not require these silly agreements, so we remain one of the few states that recognize any permit, regardless of the state or county it was issued in.
I just thought I would share this so people would know where to place the blame. You can be mad at the DPS for dumping Utah and Florida, or you can be mad at the Nevada law makers for giving the DPS nearly unlimited power to regulate permits.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:28 pm |
|
combatcarry wrote: Charles,
I agree with you entirely. I also agree that the church example was less than ideal. I see places of worship as no different than any other private property.
We are mostly agreed then.
The only disagreement seems to be on how we view religious property. And I mention it again only to again make my point. Most people do see a difference between places of worship and other property. And our laws reflect this in a variety of ways such as zoning that prevents adult oriented businesses building too close to a church; as well as SCOTUS rulings that limit the ability of localities to prevent the building of churches.
It is true that some people will see no difference between places of worship and any other private property. But most people still do.
And so, I would argue, regardless of what the law may or may not, those of us in the gun community ought to give some serious thought to what should constitute proper etiquette relative to such places.
For example, I think that what constitutes an acceptable response to being asked to leave a place of public accommodation like a Wal-Mart is different than would would be acceptable if asked to leave a church, mosque, synagogue, mortuary, or other place of worship. And this view should not very controversial as I think most everyone would agree that what constitutes polite or proper conduct generally will be different in a church than it would be in a grocery store, mall, race track, or other privately owned property generally open to the public.
Charles
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 09:39 pm |
|
While I do definitely agree that we must have respect for others and their property. I also believe that Mitch Vilos is right when he says that "Life and Liberty Interests have Priority over a Property Interests" (See Utah Gun Law, 3rd Edition, pp 337-8).
He goes on to say, "The right associated with carrying a gun is not intended to preserve the gun, it's intended to preserve life and liberty. A close examination of our system of laws reveals that life and liberty interests easily outweigh property interests. This is because without life, one cannot have liberty. Without liberty, one cannot own property. Hence, when these rights are mentioned together, such as in Utah's Constitution, "life" comes before "Liberty" which in turn, precedes "property." ... The priority of life and liberty over property permeates the U.S. justice system."
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 720 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 06:47 am |
|
rpyne wrote: While I do definitely agree that we must have respect for others and their property. I also believe that Mitch Vilos is right when he says that "Life and Liberty Interests have Priority over a Property Interests" (See Utah Gun Law, 3rd Edition, pp 337-8).
He goes on to say, "The right associated with carrying a gun is not intended to preserve the gun, it's intended to preserve life and liberty. A close examination of our system of laws reveals that life and liberty interests easily outweigh property interests. This is because without life, one cannot have liberty. Without liberty, one cannot own property. Hence, when these rights are mentioned together, such as in Utah's Constitution, "life" comes before "Liberty" which in turn, precedes "property." ... The priority of life and liberty over property permeates the U.S. justice system."
I agree completely and make that case often when it comes to property that constitutes places of public accommodation.
However, not all property interest is created equal and so long as we recognize the right of home owners, churches, etc to exclude a person for any or no reason whatsoever, we MUST recognize their right to exclude you for having a gun in your possession. I don't necessarily think violation of such a private policy ought to be gun crime, but I note that in Utah the criminal penalty for peaceful violation of such private policies is less than the criminal penalty for trespassing. So while we might carp about the theory, we can hardly complain about the practicality of Utah's law in this regard.
Charles
|
Current time is 10:43 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
