WALSTRO: Anon sed: “If you ever stepped out of your pickup and heard a rattler next to your leg, you might understand a bit better.” Hey folks, I’m here to tell ya that if you step out of yer pickup and see a rattler by your leg, the thing to do is MOVE IN A HURRY!! Do not, repeat, do not take the time to draw a firearm and attempt to shoot the snake or you’ll end up with a couple of fang marks in your calf!!

Right, move in a hurry so you spook the snake and it attacks you. Thats the worst thing you could do. You’d be better off staying still and drawing your weapon slowly, or walking away slowly.

1. So they don’t have to leave it in their car where it can be stolen and used against an innocent person
2. So they can have it available for immediate use for self-defense to and from their car, as the law allows
3. Because one cannot predict the time and whereabouts of a violent attack, anymore than one can predict the time and whereabouts of a car accident, therefore wearing a seat belt at all time is prudent, as is the carrying of a defensive weapon at all times. (It would make no sense to wear your seat belt only some of the time)
4. Because he can
5. Because

Gee Vinnie, I really do wish I could believe that!!

Hey folks, I’m here to tell ya that if you step out of yer pickup and see a rattler by your leg, the thing to do is MOVE IN A HURRY!! Do not, repeat, do not take the time to draw a firearm and attempt to shoot the snake or you’ll end up with a couple of fang marks in your calf!!

troll_dc2: Why would anyone want to take a loaded handgun into a movie theater?

I only carry my concealed handgun where I don’t expect to need it. If there’s a location where I do expect to need a handgun for self-defense, I don’t go there.

All three of the cases I cite in my Texas CHL class to illustrate how someone legally carrying concealed successfully handled a deadly-force situation occurred in locations where the attack was completely unexpected; a business office, a shopping mall, and a church. The case I cite which shows what happens when firearms are banned (two dozen dead) happened in a restaurant.

Went to see Surrogates yesterday. Carried my Glock 30 concealed. (No open carry in Texas.) Then I went to church choir practice. I did get asked about concealed carry there. One of the other choir members needed to schedule a renewal class.

Thugs carry without holsters. I can count the number of times a criminal has been caught with a holster on one hand (probably not quite that few, but damn close).

Criminals carry in a belt, or in a pocket, or stuffed in the waist of their pants. They do not use holsters so that if they have to ditch the weapon (like if they are oh, I don’t know – being chased by the police), and are then caught, they are not going to have to answer the resulting “so you just happened to have an empty holster that was designed to fit this gun we just happened to find while pursuing you?” question.

In my experience, on average in any crowd of 100 people there are going to be about 7-8 that have a firearm on their persons. I constantly spot people that have done a poor job of concealing, or that have telltale bulges and angles where they shouldn’t. On an average day out running around with the wife, I will see at least a dozen people that have a concealed firearm (and this is in California!). But that is because I am looking, most people are completely and totally oblivious.

Sir I hate to tell you this, but despite your keen powers of observation, I am quite sure that you have been in enclosed spaces with actual criminals, who were carrying actual guns that you were unaware of (they do normal people things sometimes too).

I’ve taught gun safety classes inside the local school, with guns, a few times. No one wet their pants or freaked out and bolted for the door. I’ve been to several “school shootings” (shooting competitions– shots fired! Repeat; shots fired!) with upwards of 150 kids all armed with “extremely deadly” shotguns (Oooh! Scarrrry!) and they were all very pleasant, cordial and relaxed events. You see people carrying (and lots more others you don’t see carrying concealed) every day around here.

Some of you people’s reactions against guns are just embarrasing. Give us a break and get a freaking clue, already.

…Nothing is surer to result in laws against free speech.
…Nothing is surer to result in laws against open carry.

1st AMENDMENT – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

2nd AMENDMENT – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

SO..

…laws against free speech = UNCONSTITUTIONAL
…laws against open carry = UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It’s just THAT simple.

Snaphappy: Snaphappy says:

Please, continue the trend of carrying loaded weapons around and bringing them to political rallies. Nothing is surer to result in laws against open carry. Then we won’t have to worry about lunatics who “habitually” walk around with loaded weapons.

I’m not worried about it. The press will quit reporting when they realize that nothing bad is happening.

Please, continue the trend of carrying loaded weapons around and bringing them to political rallies. Nothing is surer to result in laws against open carry. Then we won’t have to worry about lunatics who “habitually” walk around with loaded weapons.

And please keep holding political rallies, and waving signs. Nothing is surer to result in laws against free speech.

UncleWin: Irrational?Sorry, but if I’m watching The Hangover with my girlfriend and some dude walks in carrying a .45 in his hand, I’m hitting the doors.And so would each and every one of you.But maybe we all just have “irrational” fears of strangers carrying extremely deadly weapons into enclosed spaces with limited exits.

If some dude walks in HOLDING a .45, he is either reacting to a perceived threat or he is not following the law and he IS a potential threat. If the same dude is sitting quietly, with his gun holstered…he is no more a threat than anyone else in the room. “Extremely deadly weapons”?? Come on…A ball-point-pen or even a pillow can be “extremely deadly weapons” if used improperly and in a manner that is UNLAWFUL. You have a better chance of being run over by an “Extremely deadly” city bus, than you have of being shot by a law-abiding citizen with his/her legally carried handgun.

Gabriel McCall: In Chicago, this fear may be perfectly rational in that you have a reasonable expectation that someone carrying a gun is doing so unlawfully and with violent intent.

It’s not even a reasonable expectation or rational fear in Chicago. It’s a fear that has been fed by popular entertainment media, skewed reporting and a totalitarian local government.

UncleWin: Irrational? Sorry, but if I’m watching The Hangover with my girlfriend and some dude walks in carrying a .45 in his hand, I’m hitting the doors. And so would each and every one of you. But maybe we all just have “irrational” fears of strangers carrying extremely deadly weapons into enclosed spaces with limited exits.

Yes, irrational. According to the published accounts, he wasn’t “carrying … in his hand” so you’re extrapolating a non-existent condition out of fear.

Even allowing for your hypothetical case where he had his gun in-hand, I wouldn’t hit the doors immediately. I’d calmly evaluate his apparent mental state. If he looked rational, I’d advise him to holster his weapon before he panicked some good citizen. If he looked irrational, I’d look for cover and loosen a few buttons so I had easy access to my own pistol.

Anon:They made him put his gun in his truck so that the one person who complained (yet didn’t leave) would shut up.

What should have happened is that instead of him having to put his gun in his truck, the one person who complained and yet did not leave should have been told in no uncertain terms that if they did not shut up they would not be welcome at the premises then if they did not back down they should have been the ones inconvenienced. There is a time and place for poking your nose into other peoples’ business. That time and place is when they are doing something genuinely illegal/anti-social, it is not when they are doing something perfectly legal and you merely don’t “like” what they are doing. This case falls firmly into the latter category.

Snaphappy: Please, continue the trend of carrying loaded weapons around and bringing them to political rallies. Nothing is surer to result in laws against open carry. Then we won’t have to worry about lunatics who “habitually” walk around with loaded weapons.

I carry a loaded weapon almost everywhere I go. I would point out that people carrying weapons to political rallies brought union thug administered beatings to a halt.

There was no arrest. They made him put his gun in his truck so that the one person who complained (yet didn’t leave) would shut up.

The gun owner then went back and watched the rest of the movie.

My guess is that Easterners are retiring or moving to places like Alamogordo and causing all sorts of problems like this.

DonP.: “if I’m watching The Hangover with my girlfriend and some dude walks in carrying a .45 in his hand, I’m hitting the doors. And so would each and every one of you.”Please be sure to “scream like a little girl” on the way out so we know which one you are.

heh

Why would anyone want to take a loaded handgun into a movie theater?

Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Please be sure to “scream like a little girl” on the way out so we know which one you are.

Why would anyone want to take a loaded handgun into a movie theater?

One reason is that people who regularly carry a handgun do not want to leave the handgun unprotected in their car in the parking lot, where it could be stolen by a bad guy.

Snaphappy: They don’t do it out of habit, they do it because it is required for their job.

And yet the percentage of them committing crimes is much higher than the percentage of people that legally own guns that commit crimes.

If you really want to feel uncomfortable, I am heading to a dinner meet for opencarry.org tonight. There will be at least 20 of us open carrying in a BBQ joint tonight. My guess is that it will be the safest place in town.

For more reading, see State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574 (1921):

The statute in this case, Public-Local Laws 1919, ch. 3172 is
especially objectionable in that it requires (sec. 2) that in order
to carry a pistol off his own premises, even openly, and for a
lawful purpose, the citizen must make application to the municipal
court, if a resident of a town; or to the Superior Court if not
residing in town, “describing the weapon and giving the time and -
purpose for which it may be carried off his premises, and must pay
to the clerk of the court the sum of $5 for each permit, and must
file a bond in the penalty of $500 that he will not carry the
weapon except as so authorized.” In the case of a riot or mob
violence, or other emergency requiring the defense of public order,
this would place law-abiding citizens entirely at the mercy of the
lawless element. As a regulation, even, this is void because an
unreasonable regulation, and, besides, it would be void because for
all practical purposes it is a prohibition of the constitutional
right to bear arms. There would be no time or opportunity to get
such permit and to give such bonds on an emergency.

On this occasion, the defendant, threatened with violence, was
forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business,
where he had the right to keep his pistol, “being on his own
premises,” and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in
self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The
court below most properly adjudged, upon the special verdict, that
he was not guilty.

——————————————-

For those of you freaking out about the comparison to being black. Race is a civil rights issue, so is the Right to keep and bear arms is it not? Further since a lot of gun laws were instituted with the express intent of disarming “undesirable” populations, is not the whole issue a fundamental racial equality issue? Surely no one will argue that the people that need to carry firearms for their own protection the most are those hard working, decent folk that live and work in the inner cities that are so plagued with violence. Most of those people are indeed minorities.

UncleWin: Oh, I didn’t realize that was the hypothetical (since no one had said that).I’m sorry, I’m as libertarian as the next reader of this blog, but there is nothing whatsoever irrational about fearing strangers with guns. Take it from someone living in Chicago right now.

In Chicago, this fear may be perfectly rational in that you have a reasonable expectation that someone carrying a gun is doing so unlawfully and with violent intent.

That is not a reasonable expectation in any jurisdiction where peaceful citizens may lawfully carry weapons. The fact that someone is armed does not automatically mean he is dangerous, except in places where only criminals may go armed.

Do you fear for your life walking down a sidewalk? At any moment, a driver might decide to jump the curb and run you down. If he did decide to do that, you would have very little warning nor means of escape- you are helplessly trusting your life to strangers who have the physical means to kill or badly injure you, every time you step outside. And yet, somehow, life goes on… because the vast majority of people have no desire or intent to do harm even when they are armed with the physical means of doing so.

They don’t do it out of habit, they do it because it is required for their job.

I guess that makes them better than us poor, dumb citizens.

Fraggle Rock: Like police officers?

They don’t do it out of habit, they do it because it is required for their job.

Then we won’t have to worry about lunatics who “habitually” walk around with loaded weapons.

Like police officers?

My first assumption on seeing a holster would be that the guy was an off-duty police officer, followed by thinking it was a normal person with a proper license, or some kind of bodyguard if with someone and wearing a suit. “Evildoer” would be pretty low on the list.