i sent this letter my sheriff

[golddigger14s]

Does anybody think criminals will carry because we have constitutional carry? Guess what they already do carry, which is why they are...............criminals!

BTW green card holders can own guns, I used to work at the gun counter at Cabela's. The first time I ran across had me confused too.

 

[Steve B.]

Agreed…I am not a fan of the constitutional carry. I feel that if you are allowed to carry a firearm, there should be a mandatory license to do so. If people are required to go through the process of licensing, then at the very least, you know they will understand that your finger is your primary safety, and the end with the hole is the hot end.

Well I just have to comment on this I am CLEET certified with 120 hours police training and I don't have a concealed carry license due to the fact they still wanted me to pay and take half of the class , this is where I stand vs 8 hours to take a cc class , some of us don't have the cc license but have way more training , plus I was top gun out of 35 students in my class

 

[Rooster1971]

To some e tent owning a firearm IS a privilege also. No x cons, no illegal immigrants, no foreigners on a green card, no foreign govt official

Felons could own a firearm after their debt to society was paid up until 1968 when gun control act was enacted that stole their right. I still think it’s BS non violent felons can’t possess after completing their sentence. Oklahoma has some pretty stupid laws regarding felons and guns.
People with green cards and I believe foreign gov nationals may posses also.
In previous past posts if has appeared you think the right to arms is a privilege. Look at the list that prevents people just in the single act of 1968.

 

[cdschoonie]

The problem with that, as others have said, is you are now requiring the government give me permission to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, but your strawman argument that because some people might be irresponsible with their firearm means I need the government's permission doesn't hold up to the constitution, regardless what liberal judges have said. If that argument was valid then you would be ok with every single person having to have an interlock device in EVERY motor vehicle because some might drive while intoxicated. You would be ok with having the government give you a license to eat at restaurants because some people might eat poorly and become overweight. You are saying that based on other's decisions and actions that I have to have more restrictions. That is completely opposite on what our country was founded on.

Every country in the world that has lost their right to own firearms has started with this logic. Even here in the states that is true. And now we have Massachusetts that is trying to ban ALL semi-auto's, pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Not just a mag restriction, an out-right ban. As they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions, and trust me, these firearm laws are not good intentions. You are either for freedom, in all its scary glory, or you are for serfdom. Its that simple, and yes that absolute. If you are so scared that people will buy firearms with no clue on how to handle them, then advocate for mandatory firearm safety classes in grade school. That would save a lot more lives then any law.

You are late to the party…I corrected my intentions for my comment. I’m simply stating that I think people should have training. I have no wish for the government to require it. I agree with you.

 

[JR777]

I think it's definitely important for law enforcement to decondition themselves to equate gun with bad guy. Not just in a shots fired scenario, but in general. I feel like there's this mentality where the average person thinks anyone in street clothes with a gun is automatically the bad guy. Hell, many departments have even trained that way for a long time, where they have these targets with people in street clothes holding different items like cell phones, hair dryers, etc. But everybody holding a gun gets shot. Horrible training. And they also treat people differently if they have a gun, even if they're not doing anything wrong. More than a few carriers have ended up cuffed at gunpoint for merely having a gun during a traffic stop, and that has to end.

At the same time, friendly fire is always going to be a possibility, and not just for law enforcement, but also for armed civilians trying to shoot their way to safety. Could easily look like multiple gunmen and confuse the hell out of everyone. It's happened before, and it's going to happen again. But that's a risk well worth taking. When that happens, usually only one person dies, vs. an unchallenged mass shooter who might rack up dozens of kills before police arrive. We can't let the media throw the baby out with the bathwater. The same has happened with the same frequency to off duty and undercover cops, and nobody for one second has ever suggested making them go unarmed off duty. They know the risk and accept it, as do we, and everyone is safer for it.

 

[Snattlerake]

I think it's definitely important for law enforcement to decondition themselves to equate gun with bad guy. Not just in a shots fired scenario, but in general. I feel like there's this mentality where the average person thinks anyone in street clothes with a gun is automatically the bad guy. Hell, many departments have even trained that way for a long time, where they have these targets with people in street clothes holding different items like cell phones, hair dryers, etc. But everybody holding a gun gets shot. Horrible training. And they also treat people differently if they have a gun, even if they're not doing anything wrong. More than a few carriers have ended up cuffed at gunpoint for merely having a gun during a traffic stop, and that has to end.

At the same time, friendly fire is always going to be a possibility, and not just for law enforcement, but also for armed civilians trying to shoot their way to safety. Could easily look like multiple gunmen and confuse the hell out of everyone. It's happened before, and it's going to happen again. But that's a risk well worth taking. When that happens, usually only one person dies, vs. an unchallenged mass shooter who might rack up dozens of kills before police arrive. We can't let the media throw the baby out with the bathwater. The same has happened with the same frequency to off duty and undercover cops, and nobody for one second has ever suggested making them go unarmed off duty. They know the risk and accept it, as do we, and everyone is safer for it.

Larger departments have a color of the day for off duty and sometimes UC officers to prevent friendly fire. Civilians I guess are on their own.

 

[cdschoonie]

Well I just have to comment on this I am CLEET certified with 120 hours police training and I don't have a concealed carry license due to the fact they still wanted me to pay and take half of the class , this is where I stand vs 8 hours to take a cc class , some of us don't have the cc license but have way more training , plus I was top gun out of 35 students in my class

This is the perfect reason why I admitted that I worded my comment wrong. I have no idea how you could ensure that someone knows what they are doing with a firearm. I’m gonna try one last time to word my thoughts on it lol…”I personally am not crazy about the idea that constitutional carry lets anyone with a pulse carry one in public, you just never know who is able to handle a firearm safely. Is there another way for me to know that, besides what little a ccw license shows, if so what is it? All I’m getting at, is it would make me feel better to know others understand safety. By what method used for me to get that knowledge so I’d feel better, is for someone a lot smarter than I am. This is just my own knee-jerk opinion about it, yes it’s confusing, and answers that are difficult, bordering on impossible. There comes a point when you have put trust in the public, or just forget it and move on. It’s pretty obvious not everyone can be trusted, but it’s been that way since Eve took the apple.” Hopefully that sounds better. I was raised around firearms, and my dad made me prove to him, that I could do it, and use them safely. I have read the stats on people who have jumped into firearms since covid. There are tons of the new owners who are also taking safety courses, buying books, reading on the internet, etc., to learn. I only got the ccw license, because of all the recent public shootings, and at the time, a license was required. I have little doubt that everyone on here is more than adequate. You’d have no interest in this site if it weren’t a passion of yours. If you were not passionate about firearms, you’d be playing Farm Cart, Cat Ville, Angry Buzzards, or whatever those games are.

 

[wawazat]

That is definitely worded better. I think it is something that most of us think about when we are out and about amongst the general public. I rely very heavily on situational awareness which gets dialed up a little bit more when my family is with me. My ears are open and eyes are sweeping. I think the same judgement we use at a gun range applies if we are in a scenario where someone carrying a firearm feels the need to draw it. My first thought is to quickly assess the person. Are they comfortable and confident with the way they draw and hold their weapon? Where is their trigger finger? Where is the firearm pointed? Where is their attention focused?

I use a much lighter version assessing people that come into and leave my immediate area. Quickly and casually assessing body language, tone, and what is holding their attention if anything. I typically rely on keeping a loose eye on the demeanor of the people in my vicinity to help alert me if something is off in their vicinity. We are a lot like herd animals and there are a lot of cues a person gives off as they adapt to changes in their environment. The cow that sees the coyote isn't always the first one to move out of danger's way.