carrying w/o permit ... your view

[notos&w]

there are certain members of this forum who are carrying a handgun w/o a permit to do so. some have legitimate reasons including actual, immediate danger and inability to get a permit and some dont (in my view).

it is MY opinion that carrying a gun brings w/ it great responsibility and part of that responsibility is to abide by the law of your state for several reasons, not limited to a possible jail sentence and real harm to everyone else's RTKBA.
now of course there are situations where the danger is so real, so imminent that any sane person would choose to disobey the law rather than face grave circumstances. in my state those situations constitute defenses written into statute by the legislature and in most others they would be affirmative defenses. the burden may be higher for some states than others and the jury less sympathetic but they are still there.
nevertheless, in certain, albeit limited, circumstances there are defenses.

however, situations where a person should disregard the law are few and far between. someone caught carrying an illegal gun does nothing to help me defend my rights against the likes of sarah brady. a practice of regularly carrying a firearm w/o authorization has dire consequences for everyone.

now my opinion is biased b/c i live in a shall issue state. however, there was a time before i got my permit that i recognized the utility, perhaps need at times, for a self defense weapon but was prevented by law from having one. i respected that law for several reasons (2 listed above) and choose to alter my schedule and lifestyle in accordance w/ the threats presented. i had to give up a few things but my safety is paramount.
i feel it is better to alter your lifestyle and seek lawful alternatives instead of carrying illegally.

i am interested in your thoughts on the matter of whether a person should carry illegally. now i am not talking about situations when there is a very real threat. i am talking about a regular practice of carrying a weapon to almost all locations outside the home.

[braindead0]

There are also cases where the law says you can't, but it's okay if 'a prudent person' would be armed. Of course you get to prove that in court, and prudent person is whatever the jury thinks.. in theory. For example, in Ohio ;-)

So technically, it's illegal but there is an exception that is totally subjective.

[youngun]

The right to life - and to defend life - is not a gift from the state.
If you want protection from an armed aggressor, remember the first rule: bring a gun!

From another angle, ask how many folks with CCW/P have been "made" by anyone important.
There's a reason it's called "concealed."

If you ever have to use it, the law will not be your priority.
(Reread 1st lineof post.)

youngun
[also biased, in shall-issue OR.)

[cheygriz]

I would rather have a police officer catch me with it, than to have a mugger catch me without it.

Remember, it is far better to be tried by twelve good men than to be carried by six.

[Dfariswheel]

In some states there is absolutely NO provision for CCW except for "Duly Sworn, full time Police Officer's".

How about people who are just "Victims of Choice": Elderly, the handicapped, or small attractive women?

Since a firearm is the only viable defense option for them, the State is, in essence, saying they have no right to defend themselves, and must submit to whatever an unstable predator wants.

In these cases, I view carrying without a permit no different than owning a fire extinguisher, or seat belts. The fact that the State doesn't believe in private possession of fire extinguishers, when the area is overrun by arsonists, comes down to a matter of civil disobedience. The State has no valid authority to deny the right to life.

A State has lost any moral position when it places a blanket denial of self defense on those who have no other choice.

All citizens should have the right to qualify for CCW. But in a State that makes it a crime to attempt to fight off a viscious dog, what about the citizen who is physically unable to retreat or run away. The State is, in effect, saying "That's the law, you're just out of luck".

In these type cases, a citizen is morally justified in ignoring the law, in the interest of survival. You may have to explain it to a jury of your peer's, and they may or may not see it that way.

However, you will at least have the opportunity to explain it.

In some cases no alteration in life style or schedule is sufficient to insure safety. I have a friend who lives in a Mid-Western state that has no CCW provision. He moved from a large city and gave up a well paying job because of high crime. He moved to a tiny town in mid-state. He stays out of bars, and as far away from bad areas as possible. He makes a conscious effort to stay out of dangerous situations.
Still, he was robbed, then beaten and kicked almost to death, just because the thieves thought it was fun to bust up the crip. He used a cane before, now he uses a wheelchair.

He now carries a gun without benefit of a CCW permit.

Is he wrong????????

[notos&w]

[Quote] is he wrong?

thats what im asking.

[Quote] Since a firearm is the only viable defense option for them

i disagree. OC spray, stun guns, sword canes, knives, clubs, flashlights, etc can all be used to varying degrees of success. some or most are legal in most locals. BTW the risk of crime to elderly citizens is grossly overestimated and is much lower than some other age groups.

[Quote] The State has no valid authority to deny the right to life.

a lot of comfort that might be in a jail cell 'cause that defense aint gonna work.

cheygriz, i know of no state where it is lawful to respond to theft of possession w/ deadly force. now if the situation you posit involves forces then disregard.

dfariswheel. i agree w/ most of what you said but am mindful that morally right does not always equal legally right.

i would be willing to bet that the chances of being "made" while regularly carrying are equal or greater than those of being in a situation where one would be justified in using a firearm.


i am genuinely interested in everyone's opinion (thus this thread) and thank all contributors

[cheygriz]

However, you will at least have the opportunity to explain it.


AMEN! It is easier to get out of a jail than it is to get out of a cemetery!

[70-101]

I personally, am against anyone carrying a concealed handgun without a license.

[maxinquaye]

Remember, it is far better to be tried by twelve good men than to be carried by six.

What on earth makes you think you will be judged by 12 "good men"? Most hard-working, rational people I know do everything they can to get out of jury duty (not excusing this kind of behavior, just stating facts). The people who will be judging you are people who have nothing better to do all day then sit at home and watch "Rosie" :barf: ...what do you think their bias will be?

Good luck pal...it's a sad state, but it's reality in many areas.

[Green Republican]

My editorial that was recently submitted for print. Haven't heard back so it might not make it:
"America and the 2nd Amendment"
"A year has passed. We've had time to reflect. Many have gained (or rediscovered) a profound sense of patriotism as shown by the number of flags displayed everywhere. With last year's attacks behind us, we now keenly understand what is America. Our country was attacked because our Freedom is a threat to tyrants.
Sixteen years ago with the brisk morning air hitting our faces, I stood at the edge of the Potomac. There, at our initial military training in Quantico, VA, I had to strain to keep my composure while singing "God Bless America" on the Marine Corps Birthday. Nearby stood Bobo Hall, a monument to a very special Marine in Vietnam. Lt. Bobo dug the stump of his blown off leg into the mud while laying down fire so his Marines could advance. It occured to me then that we stood in the same exact shoes that the good Lt. once stood. Does America mean to you what it did to Lt. Bobo? And, would you do as he did on that hill? Many of you, no doubt, can easily answer yes and yes.
Our nation became what it is today, in large part, by following the guidelines layed out in The US Constitution. Each Article is a crucial cornerstone to our Freedom. The 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is as important today as ever, although many are so far removed from the reality of this concept for it to make sense or to even know that New Jersey has no provision for lawful concealed carry. Those who blindly oppose the right for the people to obtain a concealed carry permit refuse to adknowledge the fact that crimes committed by lawful concealed carry permit holders nationwide are virtually non-existant.
We are under attack and the end is not near. Responsible, law abiding citizens in New Jersey need the means to protect themselves (and others) should they so desire. Now's the time for the elected lawmakers of our state to act or for the voters to make the required changes at the booth."

My opinion: Don't do it. I'll take my chances against the bad guys (whom I'm not afraid of), but don't care to go head to head with our liberal circus. I've got a lawful knife and someone who's determined to be a deadly threat to me or my family will be carried out in several body bags.

[braindead0]

i disagree. OC spray, stun guns, sword canes, knives, clubs, flashlights, etc can all be used to varying degrees of success.

The effectiveness of OC sprays is debatable (last I heard, Berkeley stopped using OC due to ineffectiveness). Your other options require close contact or serious training to be effective. A firearm can be used in defense effectively with a reasonable amount of training and only requiring minimal strength (depending on caliber of course).

[EOD Guy in VA]

Breaking the law because you don't like the law puts you on the same ethical level with the people you carry it to protect youself from. Re: "... the law says you can't, but it's okay..." Ya , right, try that one on a judge.

If you get caught, you not only risk your future ability to carry if the law changes, but you give CCW opponents ammunition to use against us.

Become an activist to get the law changed and until then carry one of the many non-lethal means available.

[braindead0]

Breaking the law because you don't like the law puts you on the same ethical level with the people you carry it to protect youself from.

Now there's a leap of logic. The two having nothing in common. Breaking the law with the intent to harm others is one thing, breaking the law with sole purpose of defending yourself (and loved ones presumably) is an entirely different thing.

If there were non-lethal options that were effective against a thug armed with a handgun, the police wouldn't need to carry firearms at all.

[EOD Guy in VA]

"If there were non-lethal options that were effective against a thug armed with a handgun, the police wouldn't need to carry firearms at all." Talk about a leap of logic!

[Dfariswheel]

Lets try this: I too, use a wheelchair. For about 50 years now.

I was a power lifter, and took hand-to-hand combat from a former Special Forces instructor. I've studied defensive knife, club, and chemical defense. Also Tazor, and stun guns. While everyone else was talking about this, I was actually learning about it, and practicing it.

My defense stratigy was this: The inclination for an attacker is to turn you and your "bike" over, then have you at his mercy. My "defense" was to HELP him turn me over and dump me on the ground, but in doing so, I would take him down with me. While on the ground I would use my strength and combat skills to make SURE he never got up again. EVER.

As a real-life test, we experimented with this, and found that it only worked about 1-2 times out of 10, and that was against ordinary people, NOT against trained people.
Other hand-to-hand and knife defense techniques were egually ineffective. I was enormously strong, unusually fast, very agile, and none of it worked reliably.

I came to the conlclusion that nothing was as valid as a firearm, so I moved to a CCW state. Now that I'm older, and am not in that kind of physical condition, this is even more valid.

Unless you are a physically agile, WELL practised person, you're fooling yourself about the non-lethal options. The effectiveness will be in that 1-2 times out of 10 area.
Anybody care to purchase a gun that jams 8 times out of 10?

In my best days, I was no real match for some 125 pound punk that could walk, and I knew it. People who are handicapped or who are small or weak are fooling themselves if they think they are. Now that I'm older, this is even more so.

I've come to the opinion that firearms are the most effective defensive tool available.

In most states, there is little difference in law whether you are armed with a knife, club, Tazer, or gun. The law prohibits all of them. Any time somebody discovers a new defensive device or technique, the state takes that as a personal affront, and rushes to ban it too.

The question come down to: Are you willing to break the law, and suffer the consequences, in order to preserve the lives of you and your family?

My decision was to "vote with my feet"...... I moved. Others don't have this option. In that case, the individual must make a moral choice: Is my life worth being a good citizen and obeying the law?
This is strictly a personal decision. My friend in the Mid-West made his. In his "salad days" he was half my size, and probably 1/3 as strong as I was.
His state has said that his life has no value compared to a law. He thinks it does, so he carries, and knowingly takes the risk of going to jail.

I can't fault him.

[mguffey]

The is the option, sometimes, to move to another state.

If I were to plan to break the law, if I had broken the
law I would not be inclined to speak of it. That does
not mean I have not so planned or have not so done.
It's a private decision each individual must make.

I now live in a CCW state, and I would never move back
to one where this is not allowed.

[Rovert]

I also live in NJ (or, should I say, the Gulag) and have grappled with the same issue.

The problem with sititng in a 'shall issue' state, is that we forget that the criminal choses the time, place, and circumstances, for an attack. It can come at any time, in any neighborhood, in any form, with any type of weapon.

Case in point, I'll remind you of the elderly couple who were attacked in their Bergen County NJ home by some Baltimore thugs that drove up, broke into the house, and killed the husband, while looking for the safe that in actuality, didn't even exist. This is particularly alarming to me, because my parents live about 20 minutes from where this happened.

I have a question for those of you who advocate not breaking the law for those of us who have to endure these idiotic, unjust, limitations.

How would you feel if, tomorrow, an obituary message was posted here at TFL in memorium of either AnklePocket, or Ray Woodrow III, or JMC, or any other NJ member, because the law didn't allow us to have a gun on us when we needed it, and we were shot to death in a mall parking lot while being mugged, or while being carjacked?

The real issue, and question is this: Those of you in 'free' states who have it made in the shade... what are YOU guys doing to help us? It's easy to pontificate about not breaking the law, when that law doesn't apply to you.

It's clear that we here in NJ are subjects of the Police State, and have no voice in Government (just look at what's happening with McGreevey), so if you value your own rights, don't you think that, like cancer, this anti-gun nonsense will eventually spread to your state? If you think you're immune... think again!

Please help us fight for our rights in NJ, MA, DC, CA, and other anti-gun states... because the rights you save, just may be your own!!!

[Drjones]

i disagree. OC spray, stun guns, sword canes, knives, clubs, flashlights, etc can all be used to varying degrees of success. some or most are legal in most locals.

Well, if this is so true, then why do you carry a gun? Why don't you instead carry a "less than lethal" device? I suppose it can be argued that you really DO wish to kill someone, instead of just neutralize the threat?

Obviously the answer is that a firearm is the most effective device for personal protection. If you want to take your chances with "varying degrees of success", you go right on ahead. Let's see you trade your gun for OC spray or a baton!

Since so many people here are so vehemently pro 2A and anti big govt., you must admit that the RKBA is not a right bestowed upon us by the govt. I would hope that most of the people here would argue that every human being has a right to life. With that right to life comes the right to defend onesself from whatever harm another may wish to bestow upon that individual. Without the right to self-defense, the right to life is negated. To infringe upon this right is wholly immoral, unethical, illogical, and the last time I checked the BOR, any laws infringing upon the RKBA are entirely illegal as well.

I fully understand the concern that a person who carries without a permit does nothing to help the RKBA movement, however I'm also not going to tell that individual that he has no means of defending himself while away from his home. Do you want to say that to that person?

There have been concerns expressed here about the US becoming a police state, and how prone we are to authoritarianism and so on. Why, suddenly, are some people jumping on the side of the "police state?" That one should do exactly as the govt. says? Remember that thread about "Mommy Govt.???" That was a good read!

There are strong things to be said, IMO, about willful disobedience. I see Ghandi quoted here a fair amount. Did you suddenly forget him?

Also the very fact that there ARE people on this forum who carry w/o permits speaks volumes about them as individuals; they obviously understand fully the responsibilities and consequences of carrying a weapon, "legally or illegally" and the fact that they are here on this forum learning about firearms, carrying, laws, and so forth gives me way more comfort than some guy who happened to pass the background check and has a govt.-issued card.

Some here say that "Owning a gun does not make one a marksman anymore than owning a piano makes one a musician." Well, I think it can also be said that just because someone has a permit does not at all mean that they are a person who most of us here would really want carrying a gun.

I take more comfort in a TFL member carrying than I do some average joe who got his permit, tucked it and his gun away, and left it at that. People who are actively trying to learn and further their skills are safer "better" gun-owners and carriers, IMO.

For all you know, those here who do carry w/o a permit just might be able to outshoot most of you WITH permits!

There's also the timeless; "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Drjones

[Peter Gun]

I carried illeagally in MD shortly before I moved. Normally I did not, but in the last months i lived there, there was a rash of crack-related crimes including rape and armed robbery in the shopping plaza in which I worked. I routinely unloaded thousands of dollars of merchandise by myself at night and worked a cash register alone at night. I got the application permit for CCW and found the fees unaffordable and they made it clear from the questions on the form I was not going to get one. Since I was leaving the state soon anyway, I weighed the risk of getting caught versus getting dead and decided I should carry.
The morality of breaking laws is not an issue. I accept the risk of breaking the law and will work to change it, but i won't cringe at defying government If I beleive I am "right". However, I wont whine when I get caught either, I'll just get a good lawyer and pay the piper. I can accept the result of a carefully weighed gamble.

[notos&w]

i do carry less than lethals. everyone who carries a gun should. a gun is an absolute last line of defense, wholly inappropriate in all but the rarest sitautions. bridge weapons are an absolute must.

the number of situations where a bridge weapon can be used, and should be used, instead of a gun are vastly superior those requiring lethal force. there is mountains of data to back this up and i think almost any instructor will concur.


[Quote]
so if you value your own rights, don't you think that, like cancer, this anti-gun nonsense will eventually spread to your state? If you think you're immune... think again!


see my original post: someone caught carrying an illegal gun does nothing to help me defend my rights against the likes of sarah brady. a practice of regularly carrying a firearm w/o authorization has dire consequences for everyone.


again, thanks for everyone's opinion. i think this is a great way for all of us to make a very reflective decision on an important issue.

[Christopher II]

I am never going to understand the predilection for otherwise intelligent people to act (or at least to appear) 'law-abiding.'

Let's face it. The law, as presently exists in this country, is written, enforced and interpreted (for the most part) by idiots and amoral, power-seeking criminals. Why in the name of JMB would anyone feel the need to subjugate his own conscience to such a provably rotten system?

Carry where you want to carry, consistent with your ability to stay out of jail.

- Chris

[Green Republican]

I'll have to revisit that Glock 26 vs. Kahr P9 thread. Just kidding Governor Shmucatelli. Someone please stop me.

[johnwill]

The real issue, and question is this: Those of you in 'free' states who have it made in the shade... what are YOU guys doing to help us? It's easy to pontificate about not breaking the law, when that law doesn't apply to you.

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you want me to do for you, being a resident of PA, I do indeed get to carry legally, own those "deadly" full capacity magazines and evil looking rifles, etc. I fail to see what residents of other states are going to do for NJ residents in this regard, so please tell me what you have in mind.

[Oleg Volk]

I support carrying tools for self-defense regardless of the law as a matter of civil disobedience. On a practical level, it is easier to move to a shall-issue state. From the ethical standpoint, though, it is morall just to be prepared to protect self and dependents from any criminal attack, which would include attempts to enforce unjust laws. That approach may or may not be practical, but it is ethically supported by my value system.

[vulcan]

Hi, I think I would qualify for a permit anywhere else except NJ. I'm a locksmith & work emergency calls at night in the worst neighborhoods, when I refuse a customer in need , I get called a racist for not going on the job. I get paid in cash for most jobs. I do evictions/forclosures(also in bad neighborhoods). When I get paid curbside after a job, I think what are my chances of getting to my van & out this neighborhood intact? These are areas of town where people don't stop at stop signs at night for fear of getting carjacked! I served my country as a Paratrooper for 6 years & don't like being treated like a criminal when applying for a target/premesis permit( The process also took 6 months). I would also think that the police would not like my entry tools(opening cars,safes, & houses) to fall into the wrong hands if I'm robbed. When I tried to apply for carry permit, I was told forgeeetaboutit! I had close calls & had to resort to my ball peen hammer to defend myself. I'm doing the best I can with body armor & a hammer! I got to move to a "common sense" state. Sorry, Just had to vent!