Automaticity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autom...psychology,learning, repetition, and practice.
I've got to remember that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autom...psychology,learning, repetition, and practice.
I've got to remember that.
Very simple question about unlawful conceal carry...
- Thread starter 5whiskey
- Start date
Sometimes we have discussions where dang near EVERYONE is universally in agreement.
Please report back with this guy's results. There's nothing in the initial post that indicates he's been "treated unfairly."
Every shred of evidence offered so far indicates that he's a whole bunch of liabilities waiting to happen.
Please report back with this guy's results. There's nothing in the initial post that indicates he's been "treated unfairly."
Every shred of evidence offered so far indicates that he's a whole bunch of liabilities waiting to happen.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I got nothing that hasn't already been said. He earned the charge.
While everyone has a right to arms, there absolutely are people who should not be armed. Prior restraint applied as a blanket covering everyone is morally and ethically wrong. Even though we have to put up with a lot of it, in varying degrees (such as the entire concept of needing permits, etc) they are still wrong.
So we're left with only restricting arms possession when the individual clearly demonstrates they are not, which they do by violating laws.
In this case, the fellow clearly demonstrated he was not capable of being responsible and following the rules.
Fortunately, in THIS case, his recklessness and lack of responsibility, did not result in anyone being harmed. But, they easily could have, Any one think a fine of mere money and a stern lecture from the authorities is enough?
I don't.
So we're left with only restricting arms possession when the individual clearly demonstrates they are not, which they do by violating laws.
In this case, the fellow clearly demonstrated he was not capable of being responsible and following the rules.
Fortunately, in THIS case, his recklessness and lack of responsibility, did not result in anyone being harmed. But, they easily could have, Any one think a fine of mere money and a stern lecture from the authorities is enough?
I don't.
44 AMP said:
Yes, based on the information provided, I do.
There is nothing inherently reckless in entering a building while carrying just because it's a police station. POs do it everyday, and if it were really that dangerous we wouldn't let them. If the danger of POs shooting each other is easily manifested by seeing yet another person carrying, then it isn't the carry that is the danger.
The man apparently broke a rule, much the same as the man who drives at 70mph in a 60mph zone. That doesn't mean that 70mph is reckless, or that a driver who drives at 70mph needs some time in lock-up.
His right to carry is constitutionally protected. If carrying into a police station is a misdemeanor (I'm only guessing that he wouldn't be issued a citation and sent on his way for a felony), you shouldn't want a judge to have the power to take his right to carry over it.
We don't have to like his pocket carry or being distracted enough at AA to fail to notice the absence of his pistol or his lapse in judgement in carrying through a doorway with (I'm assuming) a clearly posted warning. We don't even have to like him if we meet him. A non-felon who hasn't been probated shouldn't need our approval to retain his rights.
While the state is not given in the OP, the fact that a CCW permit is required is given. The fact is that, if a state issued permit is required to comply with the law, then a judge DOES have the authority to suspend or revoke the permit, if the permit holder violates the law.
As long as the state's permit system is considered valid under constitutional law, that's the way it is.
I feel we would be in error to are focus too much on his rights, and not enough on his responsibilities. I see a disturbing pattern in his behavior.
The comparison with speeding has been made, and how doing 70 in a 60 or something like that is not such a big deal, and how it doesn't justify heavy punishment, and in that, I agree.
However, let's take a different example, also from traffic law, driving drunk.
Even if there is no accident, no one is injured or harmed, it is still a serious violation can result in fines, suspension of license, court ordered education/rehab, and possibly jail time. No one got hurt, should we let the drunk driver go with just a fine and perhaps a strong lecture? We used to do that, a lot. Its rarely done, these days, why might that be??
He failed to maintain control of a loaded weapon in public. As a result of that, he had to go to the police station where he failed to obey the posted warning, and so was in violation of law. I don't think he deserves a felony conviction and all that entails, but I would support having his CCW permit suspended, along with a fine, as a minimum. Just my personal opinion, and I would hope for that much leniency if I had done what that fellow did, but I would understand, if the punishment was greater.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I don't like the speding comparison, for a couple of reasons. First, speeding opens itself up to a sliding scale of severity. In my state, there are different charges. Going 45 in a 35 or 70 in a 55 is "exceeding the posted limit." Going over 75 MPH anywhere in the state in "speeding," which is more serious offense. That said, both are ignoring and flouting the law. A speed limit is a speed LIMIT -- any speed up to the posted speed is legal, anything over the posted limit is not legal. As soon as people start the "But he was only a LITTLE BIT over the limit" game, you're on that proverbial sliding scale. Is three over okay but four over isn't? Is 8 over okay but 10 over isn't? Where do you draw the line? And if different cops or different judges draw the line at different speeds, then you're well on the way toward anarchy.
Carrying a firearm into a place where firearms are not allowed by law has no sliding scale. Either you did it or you didn't do it. If you did it -- you broke the law. End of discussion.
Carrying a firearm into a place where firearms are not allowed by law has no sliding scale. Either you did it or you didn't do it. If you did it -- you broke the law. End of discussion.
Aguila Blanca said:
That last bit is why I used it. There isn't any dispute that 5whiskey's fellow broke a rule. There do seem to be questions about how dangerous it was and whether the weight of our umbrage demands more than a fine and court costs.
I'll speak for myself only, and assert that I speed (or exceed posted limits) every day that I drive. Sometimes it's inadvertent, and often it's intentionally choosing a speed I consider safe and appropriate under the circumstances. I know that if I'm cited, I'll have to deal with a ticket.
Different POs and judges do draw speeding lines differently. There appears to be a lot of grey area between zero tolerance for exceeding posted limits and anarchy. Similarly, before permitted concealed carry in my state carry was prohibited, but there were several affirmative defenses available if charged. The reality was that different POs even within a single agency enforced that according to a widely varying discretion that favored tow truck drivers, cable installers, cabbies and the sort.
Last edited:
I think the speeding comparison is a poor one, for several reasons. First, traffic "law" is not criminal law.
Also, there are many, many variations in speeding charges. Fines doubled in work zones, set scales for how much over the posted limit you are cited for, and in my state, at least, there is also the catch-all "speed in excess for existing conditions".
It is very situational, and should be. 65 on a rural road posted for 50 is a different matter than 65 on a residential street/school zone posted for 20 or 25.
I'm all for allowing different levels of punishment for different levels of offenses, and individual judgement of individual cases, and allowance for extenuating circumstances.
However, personally, I don't find ignorance, forgetfulness, or willful disregard to be valid extenuating circumstances.
A permit/license from the state is a matter of trust. You agree to follow ALL the rules and regulations, and the state shows it trusts you to keep your word by issuance of the permit. If one fails to do that, then that trust is lost. And, I think, rightfully so. It may be possible to regain that trust, but I feel it should require something more than just paying money.
The general principle is similar to lying under oath. If you are caught lying under oath, about anything, even minor inconsequential things, then EVERYTHING you say is suspect and cannot be trusted.
If you think just a fine and court costs are enough, fine. I think, in the OP's case, his permit should be temporarily suspended, and remedial training imposed, in addition to fines and legal costs. My opinion, nothing more.
Also, there are many, many variations in speeding charges. Fines doubled in work zones, set scales for how much over the posted limit you are cited for, and in my state, at least, there is also the catch-all "speed in excess for existing conditions".
It is very situational, and should be. 65 on a rural road posted for 50 is a different matter than 65 on a residential street/school zone posted for 20 or 25.
I'm all for allowing different levels of punishment for different levels of offenses, and individual judgement of individual cases, and allowance for extenuating circumstances.
However, personally, I don't find ignorance, forgetfulness, or willful disregard to be valid extenuating circumstances.
A permit/license from the state is a matter of trust. You agree to follow ALL the rules and regulations, and the state shows it trusts you to keep your word by issuance of the permit. If one fails to do that, then that trust is lost. And, I think, rightfully so. It may be possible to regain that trust, but I feel it should require something more than just paying money.
The general principle is similar to lying under oath. If you are caught lying under oath, about anything, even minor inconsequential things, then EVERYTHING you say is suspect and cannot be trusted.
If you think just a fine and court costs are enough, fine. I think, in the OP's case, his permit should be temporarily suspended, and remedial training imposed, in addition to fines and legal costs. My opinion, nothing more.
OK so let me put my $.02 about this. When you make the decision to carry a firearm, whether concealed or open carry, you accept the responsibility to follow all the laws and rules that go along with that privilege. It is your responsibility to verify the legality of carrying in any area you enter. If that area does not allow either or both types of carry you have three choices.
1. Return to your vehicle and secure your firearm before returning to the area.
2. Leave and go to another gun friendly area.
3. Take the chance and hope you are not caught.
I have had to make choice #1 or #2 many times, but have never taken the chance and carried where it was illegal to do so. I have had buddies state" well if you are properly carrying concealed, and don't do anything that can draw attention to you having a gun, you will never get caught". I personally don't want to take the chance on loosing the privilege of carrying a gun. Others will argue with me that it is my constitutional right to carry anywhere and anytime without repercussion. Though I agree to this, the law is the law!! All of this is just my humble opinion and what works for me.
1. Return to your vehicle and secure your firearm before returning to the area.
2. Leave and go to another gun friendly area.
3. Take the chance and hope you are not caught.
I have had to make choice #1 or #2 many times, but have never taken the chance and carried where it was illegal to do so. I have had buddies state" well if you are properly carrying concealed, and don't do anything that can draw attention to you having a gun, you will never get caught". I personally don't want to take the chance on loosing the privilege of carrying a gun. Others will argue with me that it is my constitutional right to carry anywhere and anytime without repercussion. Though I agree to this, the law is the law!! All of this is just my humble opinion and what works for me.
I think the guy needs a stern talking to. Like a come to Jesus meeting.
I don't really care that he carried into a police station. I don't realistically see him endangering anybody unless he was behind a locked door. Yeah, he violated the letter of the law. Big deal.
Dropping the gun at the AA meeting could have been really dangerous depending on where it was. If it's at a church and a cub scout pack has the room next. He really needs to hear about the consequences of his actions.
As for the idea that he used to drink, apparently he doesn't drink anymore.
As for a gun in a pocket without a holster, he probably didn't have a holster for that gun. And if he's carrying something that weighs 16 ounces with a 14 pound trigger, and he's just walking around, it's not going off by itself.
The city where my son lives, a cop shot out the window of the police station and received "verbal counseling". At least this guy didn't actually shoot anything.
I don't really care that he carried into a police station. I don't realistically see him endangering anybody unless he was behind a locked door. Yeah, he violated the letter of the law. Big deal.
Dropping the gun at the AA meeting could have been really dangerous depending on where it was. If it's at a church and a cub scout pack has the room next. He really needs to hear about the consequences of his actions.
As for the idea that he used to drink, apparently he doesn't drink anymore.
As for a gun in a pocket without a holster, he probably didn't have a holster for that gun. And if he's carrying something that weighs 16 ounces with a 14 pound trigger, and he's just walking around, it's not going off by itself.
The city where my son lives, a cop shot out the window of the police station and received "verbal counseling". At least this guy didn't actually shoot anything.
Last edited:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course, but I don't think the "well he didn't hurt anyone" really should be applied when someone REPEATEDLY screws up with a concealed carry firearm for which a permit is needed.
I make a distinction between permit required carry and permitless (constitutional) carry. When a permit is required, said permit is only issued after you have met all the legal requirements, which can include proof (demonstration) of competency. You "prove" capable of following the rules and regulations and promise to do so, every time. IF you fail in that, that's on YOU.
And I also don't buy total leniency for his screwups, "because he didn't hurt anyone". Ok, he didn't so SOME lienency might be in order, but his actions could have resulted in death, so, no free pass, just like we don't give the repeat drunk driver a free pass because they didn't cause an accident or death, YET.
Very, very frequently, those people get their license suspended are required to attend treatment programs and sometimes get jail time, should this NOT be done because they didn't hurt anyone YET???
Also, don't assume that just because the guy was going to AA meetings that he was successfully "working the program" and didn't drink anymore. I've got personal experience with more than a few people who "went to AA". some of them get it, and straighten up their act. Others just spend time is the seat to get their card signed to keep from getting punished and go right back to the usual ways after the meeting is over.
I make a distinction between permit required carry and permitless (constitutional) carry. When a permit is required, said permit is only issued after you have met all the legal requirements, which can include proof (demonstration) of competency. You "prove" capable of following the rules and regulations and promise to do so, every time. IF you fail in that, that's on YOU.
And I also don't buy total leniency for his screwups, "because he didn't hurt anyone". Ok, he didn't so SOME lienency might be in order, but his actions could have resulted in death, so, no free pass, just like we don't give the repeat drunk driver a free pass because they didn't cause an accident or death, YET.
Very, very frequently, those people get their license suspended are required to attend treatment programs and sometimes get jail time, should this NOT be done because they didn't hurt anyone YET???
Also, don't assume that just because the guy was going to AA meetings that he was successfully "working the program" and didn't drink anymore. I've got personal experience with more than a few people who "went to AA". some of them get it, and straighten up their act. Others just spend time is the seat to get their card signed to keep from getting punished and go right back to the usual ways after the meeting is over.
I've read several references to the "privilege" of CCW permits. While it is a bit off topic (and some of this conversation implies that this guy was treated unfairly as he has a constitutional right to carry), I feel compelled to respond. The "Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is pretty explicitly a "right" and not a "privilege." A whole lot of me (as in pretty much all) is very much against requiring a permit to exercise a constitutional right. With all that being said, we then turn to the conversation where many of us believe that there should be a legal means to prevent this man from carrying due to his irresponsible actions. The only way I can think of to reconcile these two arguments is to allow for constitutional carry (which I support), while also enacting some type of endangerment law that allows for consequences of a denied right to carry (permanently or temporarily, however it is chosen to be worded), fines, and possibly jail time if a gun is not properly retained and endangers others while CCW (I would also support).
As for carrying in a police station... I'm neutral to that honestly. As long as there is no ill will, I don't see where it is really that big of a deal. That being said, I think there would be evidence that so carrying could be denied even from a strict constitutional standpoint. I don't think many will argue against the fact that the founders, regardless of how firm their convictions in the RKBA, would allow for a restriction on a criminal defendant carrying a firearm during their trial as they confront their witnesses. I believe barring carrying a weapon into court, and this includes everyone and not just the defendant, would likely have been a norm of the founders. A police station is not so far a leap from a courthouse. I believe some other carry restrictions would probably have been approved by the founders. For instance, I could see a prohibition on carrying a gun in a house of worship in 1795 being absolutely allowed. Houses of worship were hallowed ground in those days (they still should be IMO, but we're not allowed to get into that really). That being said, even if you feel that houses of worship are hallowed ground today, many would argue that you should be allowed to carry there to deter against mass shooters. My how times have changed as we guard against mass shooters today.
^This is truth. Not everyone walking into AA is a convert. Some people are there, as 44amp so eloquently states, to "get their card signed to keep from getting punished and go right back to the usual ways." I will reiterate that this guy is NOT a "friend," just a guy I know. I do not know him well enough to determine if he is a true adherent to AA, or is just getting "his card signed." I will say that his is not very articulate, and honestly kinda dense. As if alcohol or other intoxicating substances has affected his mental capacity.
As for carrying in a police station... I'm neutral to that honestly. As long as there is no ill will, I don't see where it is really that big of a deal. That being said, I think there would be evidence that so carrying could be denied even from a strict constitutional standpoint. I don't think many will argue against the fact that the founders, regardless of how firm their convictions in the RKBA, would allow for a restriction on a criminal defendant carrying a firearm during their trial as they confront their witnesses. I believe barring carrying a weapon into court, and this includes everyone and not just the defendant, would likely have been a norm of the founders. A police station is not so far a leap from a courthouse. I believe some other carry restrictions would probably have been approved by the founders. For instance, I could see a prohibition on carrying a gun in a house of worship in 1795 being absolutely allowed. Houses of worship were hallowed ground in those days (they still should be IMO, but we're not allowed to get into that really). That being said, even if you feel that houses of worship are hallowed ground today, many would argue that you should be allowed to carry there to deter against mass shooters. My how times have changed as we guard against mass shooters today.
^This is truth. Not everyone walking into AA is a convert. Some people are there, as 44amp so eloquently states, to "get their card signed to keep from getting punished and go right back to the usual ways." I will reiterate that this guy is NOT a "friend," just a guy I know. I do not know him well enough to determine if he is a true adherent to AA, or is just getting "his card signed." I will say that his is not very articulate, and honestly kinda dense. As if alcohol or other intoxicating substances has affected his mental capacity.
Last edited:
I understand your point, and would point out that we have various (and numerous) laws already on the books that could be, and should be used before considering enacting new ones.
These range from disorderly conduct through reckless endangerment, and even further if harm has been done.
A couple points to consider about our right to keep and bear arms, and general historical attitudes. One of which was that in the era of the Founding Fathers, it was common for people to feel that only those with dishonest intentions concealed their weapons, and the sight of weapons carried openly, even in the most urban areas did not violate established customs, and while not all that common in cities it was within completely normal ordinary behavior.
Today, it is nearly 100% the opposite in metro areas, and there are numerous laws, and ordinances to prohibit or discourage open carry many places.
Right or wrong there is a long tradition in law many places, that since it is not specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, concealed carry can be and is regulated
The Bruen decision did not change that. It did not rule that requiring a permit for concealed carry was unconstitutional. What it did rule was that the state of New York's requirement for a specific reason in order to apply for a concealed permit was an undue burden, and therefore unconstitutional.
Until and unless the SCOTUS states that requiring a permit is unconstitutional, the places that require permits will continue to do so.
I think you would have a hard time finding any law, rule, or regulation from the government (including local) regarding carrying of arms in houses of worship from that time period. Generally speaking, it was a church matter not a government matter, and the church and its congregation handled it.
No need to have the govt involved in church matters....after all....
Throughout the entirety of the 1800s it wasn't unusual to prohibit concealed carry. Post Civil War open carry also came under heavy regulation. Many old West Towns prohibited open carry of firearms. This was mostly unevenly enforced as the law often was back then. It allowed for the disarming of strangers, visitors, drunks, Indians and coloreds.
Then I just ask that the same people arresting him for carrying in a police station because it "could have resulted in death" should face similar charges when they lose a gun in a restroom, misplace a gun in a school, or fire a gun out the window of a police station into a residential neighborhood. Charge them with a misdemeanor and revoke their privilege to carry a firearm.
No!
Not as far as I'm concerned. They should face a more serious punishment!!
Police are not just expected to be responsible, they are HIRED to BE responsible and they are PAID to be responsible with the firearms they carry as an arm of the state.
They should be held accountable to a higher standard and punished more severely when they fail in that charge.
As to carrying concealed into a police station, that fellow is an idiot. He had to pass through at least one entrance where there were signs prohibiting weapons in the building. As to the rest of his behavior, poor judgment is the kindest thing I can say about it.
He has a constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms, but he is demonstrating a clear lack of good judgement about it.
Rights, (all of them) can and are denied all the time, after due process of law, because people demonstrated poor judgement by their actions.