PDA

View Full Version : Arkansas HB1051 - open carry bill




Bern
12-24-2010, 10:19 AM
Arkansas has now made it official - House Bill 1051 was pre-filed Tuesday by Representative Denny Altes of Fort Smith. HB1051, appropriately titled the Defensive Carry Restoration Act (DCRA), will restore the rights of citizens to freely carry handguns for self-defense.

This legislation (which will not affect the current Concealed Handgun Carry License Law in any way) is designed to allow open carry by the people of Arkansas without requiring an expensive permit. The carrying of a concealed firearm without a permit, however, will still be deemed illegal.
...

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-fort-smith/arkansas-legislator-files-open-carry-bill

I'm hoping Texas will step up to the plate. It's embarrasing to see the state in red here:

http://opencarry.org/images/opencarrymap.png

http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Pericles
12-24-2010, 11:31 AM
Anytime you see a situation map like that and TX is the same color as DC, NY, and IL, one should become immediately suspicious that something is very wrong.

Bern
12-24-2010, 11:53 AM
I emailed my Texas House rep just now asking if he would introduce a bill similar to the Arkansas one. If I get a response (other than the auto-response indicating the email was received), I'll let you know.

Southron
12-28-2010, 08:44 AM
IMO, NC should not be yellow.

AFPVet
12-28-2010, 11:29 AM
According to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms should light up ALL states as yellow! The 2nd Amendment was incorporated into the 14th—which means that states are bound by the 2nd Amendment! Alaska et al. are simply complying with the law!

devil21
12-28-2010, 05:02 PM
IMO, NC should not be yellow.

Why do you say that? Open carry is perfectly legal here.

Southron
12-29-2010, 06:26 AM
Unless you are "going armed to the terror of the public."

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

LedHed
01-19-2011, 05:03 AM
As a handgun owner and supporter of the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding, and responsible U.S. citizens, I OPPOSE HB1051. HB1051 is a poorly written and irresponsible bill. Instead, I would completely support a bill which would add the same requirements for open carry as now exist for those of us who possess Arkansas concealed carry permits. I have exercised my right to petition by sending the following message to Governor Beebe to express my views:

"Dear Governor Beebe, I am writing to express my concern and opposition to HB 1051 (Open Carry) presently being considered for passage by the Arkansas State Legislature. As a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I feel that HB 1051 as it is worded is both irresponsible and poorly reasoned in that it carries no provision to require a formal gun safety course, any demonstrated proof of competency in the use of firearms, age restriction, law violation or domestic abuse background/fingerprint check, or other licensing prerequisites currently enforced for issuance of a concealed carry permit. I feel that it would be negligent and at odds with the general safety and welfare of the public to pass any law granting and recognizing the right of a law abiding citizen to openly carry a holstered handgun in public without first requiring those same prerequisites for those of us who lawfully carry handguns in a concealed manner. This would ensure that any person who legally carried a firearm openly in public would be first be made aware of the profound responsibilities and liabilities inherent in doing so. I feel that such a licensing requirement would in no way inhibit or infringe upon my constitutional right to bear arms for my own self defense or other purpose or the rights of any other law abiding person who chooses to do the same. In closing, may I express my sincere petition that should HB 1051 pass and be forwarded to your desk for signature, that you will veto it from being passed into law for the sake of common sense and the safety of the public at large. Respectfully,"

I am sending similarly worded messages to as many state representatives as I can find addresses for.

With rights come responsibilities.

Promontorium
01-19-2011, 07:06 AM
LedHed, it isn't a right if it must come with a permission slip from papa government. Do you think we should need government approval before we are allowed to speak in public?

Promontorium
01-19-2011, 07:11 AM
That map isn't accurate for California. Open-carry is legal everywhere in the state except within a certain distance of schools. Though in cities it must be unloaded open carry, and beyond that the law gets confusing as some places in some counties allow open-loaded carry.

LedHed
01-19-2011, 07:21 AM
LedHed, it isn't a right if it must come with a permission slip from papa government. Do you think we should need government approval before we are allowed to speak in public?

Your response makes very little sense, but I can imagine you are used to hearing that. I support ALL rights recognized and guaranteed by our constitution, including the right to petition and express my views as well as your right to petition and express yours. If you support HB1051 as it's now written, and you are a resident of Arkansas, then I suggest that you have the same right, means, and opportunity as I have to write the governor and your representative to state your own opinion on this pending legislation.

You can either be a participant or a spectator in the process. The choice is yours.

Thanks.

Bern
01-19-2011, 11:00 AM
Your response makes very little sense, ...

You are arguing for attaching requirements to license people for open carry. A license is government permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. If it's illegal without a government license, it's not a right.

Toureg89
01-19-2011, 11:10 AM
Florida might be following suit as well. a bill has been introduced, and scott is supporting it, but i'm waiting till the bill's passed before i make any threads.

LedHed
01-19-2011, 01:49 PM
I just noticed that you show your location as Friendswood, TX. It all makes sense to me, now. Thanks!

Bern
01-19-2011, 02:06 PM
Glad I could provide you with some clarity.

pcosmar
01-19-2011, 02:07 PM
From the Arkansas Constitution.

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.

I believe you are confusing (unconstitutional) Gun Laws with Rights.
There is no permission required to exercise a right.

ALL Gun Laws are an infringement on that right.

keh10
01-19-2011, 02:58 PM
From the Arkansas Constitution.


I believe you are confusing (unconstitutional) Gun Laws with Rights.
There is no permission required to exercise a right.

ALL Gun Laws are an infringement on that right.

+1

I also have a concealed weapons license in Arkansas and it is kind of ridiculous. It costs something like $165 just to apply for a license and you have to use a certified instructor which will cost you around another $50. The fact that you have to pay money simply to legally protect yourself with a concealed weapon is bad enough, but this idea that you have to pay money to get a permit to protect yourself with an openly carried firearm is detestable.

Pericles
01-19-2011, 03:35 PM
In the overall scheme of things, Texas is good to its vets - we get a reduced rate of $35.

devil21
01-19-2011, 05:24 PM
Unless you are "going armed to the terror of the public."

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

I missed this reply earlier. What is your source for this? It's numbered so it's a copy and paste from somewhere. Where? Im not sure I buy the assertion regarding the NCSC basically making open carry illegal while there's no law on the books specifically against open carry. Need more research.

LedHed
01-19-2011, 06:11 PM
The citizens of Arkansas always have had the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, open carry is already legal on private property, but not on public property. The state constitution does not specify where one can bear arms.

Toureg89
01-19-2011, 10:46 PM
its legal to OC on private property in most states.

/facepalm

the only reason one should not be legally allowed to carry a firearm openly in public, is when the property owner of the the publically access property protests your right while on their property. the state or its laws are not required to accomplish this.

Promontorium
01-20-2011, 06:34 AM
The state constitution does not specify where one can bear arms.

Liberties of the people are not granted by laws, they are limited. What isn't law is by default, liberty.

The constitution also doesn't specify where one can breathe. Your life and liberty is not a grant from the state. Your philosophy is backwards.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 11:54 AM
Liberties of the people are not granted by laws, they are limited. What isn't law is by default, liberty.

The constitution also doesn't specify where one can breathe. Your life and liberty is not a grant from the state. Your philosophy is backwards.

Your comparison between someone carrying a loaded gun on their hip without knowing anything about it or without me knowing if the person is wanted for murder, been convicted of a felony, is a wife beater, or knows anything at all about the responsibilities and obligations of carrying a handgun with breathing as a universal liberty is totally incogent. In fact, why even HAVE a constitution?

However, I would accept unlicensed and unrestricted open carry of any handgun in public without complaint as long the handgun does not exceed the technologies available at the time the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution. Any handgun technology or improvements incorporated after 1787 would require a background check and handgun safety course.

That should be a completely fair solution, since it accepts "arms" literally as was known to exist at the time the 2nd amendment was written and provides exceptions for newer handguns.

Muskets and flintlocks for everyone!!! Let freedom ring!!!

"With rights come responsibilities"

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 12:25 PM
Your comparison between someone carrying a loaded gun on their hip without knowing anything about it or without me knowing if the person is wanted for murder, been convicted of a felony, is a wife beater, or knows anything at all about the responsibilities and obligations of carrying a handgun with breathing as a universal liberty is totally incogent. In fact, why even HAVE a constitution?


You really have no concept do you?

It is none of your business who that person is, what they know or have done. The fact that they are wearing a hat is none of your business.
The fact that they have a tool is none of your business

Unless they are doing something to threaten you, or others, or committing an obvious crime. It is none of your business..

Pericles
01-20-2011, 02:34 PM
Your comparison between someone carrying a loaded gun on their hip without knowing anything about it or without me knowing if the person is wanted for murder, been convicted of a felony, is a wife beater, or knows anything at all about the responsibilities and obligations of carrying a handgun with breathing as a universal liberty is totally incogent. In fact, why even HAVE a constitution?

However, I would accept unlicensed and unrestricted open carry of any handgun in public without complaint as long the handgun does not exceed the technologies available at the time the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution. Any handgun technology or improvements incorporated after 1787 would require a background check and handgun safety course.

That should be a completely fair solution, since it accepts "arms" literally as was known to exist at the time the 2nd amendment was written and provides exceptions for newer handguns.

Muskets and flintlocks for everyone!!! Let freedom ring!!!

"With rights come responsibilities"
Because computers and the internet were not available when the 1st Amendment was ratified, you have no right to post that here, and should be banned for not staying within the restrictions allowed.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 03:05 PM
You really have no concept do you?

It is none of your business who that person is, what they know or have done. The fact that they are wearing a hat is none of your business.
The fact that they have a tool is none of your business

Unless they are doing something to threaten you, or others, or committing an obvious crime. It is none of your business..

So you are arguing that it's subjective. Okay, I'll play. I consider anyone wearing a loaded gun on their hip in plain sight to be a subjective threat to my well being, health and life, unless they have proof that they have taken and passed a course in handgun safety, state laws regarding responsibilities, liabilities, and obligations regarding use of a handgun in self defense, and have passed a background check to ensure they have no felony convictions, or other law violations which would otherwise prohibit them by law from owning or possessing a handgun.

There, that should do it. See? It's all subjective. Thanks for playing.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 03:13 PM
Because computers and the internet were not available when the 1st Amendment was ratified, you have no right to post that here, and should be banned for not staying within the restrictions allowed.

Perhaps you are correct. But, since that's your argument, then you would also have to agree with the validity of mine and side with me regarding the requirement for a permit to wear a loaded modern handgun in a public place in plain sight without permit. Your argument would also prohibit you from posting as well. Tell you what. In the interest of fairness, you go first on the ban from posting to prove you are sincere in your belief, and I'll follow your example. Likewise, I'll not wear a gun on my hip without a permit if you do the same. How's that?

In all seriousness, the internet has probably done more harm to our society than it has done good, so maybe we should have permits for internet access as well.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 03:20 PM
So you are arguing that it's subjective.
.

No. it is not subjective. It is a human right . State laws are subjective.

There are many fools that can pass the tests. in fact some real friggin' idiots even work for the state and wear uniforms.
Those are the easily recognizable threat.

Self defense is a human right and being armed is (or was) a constitutionally protected right. Visible or not.

I kind of distrust folks that keep their arms hidden. I consider Open Carry to be more honest.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 04:06 PM
No. it is not subjective. It is a human right . State laws are subjective.

There are many fools that can pass the tests. in fact some real friggin' idiots even work for the state and wear uniforms.
Those are the easily recognizable threat.

Self defense is a human right and being armed is (or was) a constitutionally protected right. Visible or not.

I kind of distrust folks that keep their arms hidden. I consider Open Carry to be more honest.

It remains a constitutional right. You can keep and bear arms all day long and into forever if you are on your own property. As I said earlier, I support the wearing of a sidearm without restrictions or permits in public as long as the sidearm is of a technology no later than that available at the time the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution by the good folks who had no concept of a semi-automatic handgun. Any later technology would have to have a permit.

I see you are from (or live in) Michigan. Why are you so interested in what we do or what laws we pass in Arkansas? The federal constitution isn't what we are taking about. It's the Arkansas state constitution (Article 5) which applies ("The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense"). If you would like to become involved in changing the laws in Arkansas, why not move here? Likewise, I have no interest in changing the laws you have in Michigan unless I were to live in Michigan.

If we were to literally interpret the 2nd amendment, it could (and has been) argued that the intent was to provide the ability to mobilize a militia for common defense, since the US had no standing army or reserves of any size at the time the amendment was written. Since the Militia Act of 1903 (AKA The Dick Act) was passed, this same argument using a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment in context could be made that the 2nd amendment is archaic and uneccessary, as the Dick Act established a National Guard to replace the traditional militia as a concept of self defense. This in effect, rendered the 2nd amendment superfluous - according to this argument.

Another argument might be that the 2nd amendment refers to the "right of the PEOPLE (plural) to keep and bear arms" and not specifically to individuals. This taken literally might mean that you can keep and bear arms only as a group (such as when serving in a militia), and not as an individual, or it would say the "right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

While I don't support the above arguments, I do support the obvious fact that times have changed incredibly since the constitution was written, and we should accomodate these facts by the application of common sense. I think most of us here in this discussion might also agree that the 2nd amendment could have been a bit better written to be more specific in its meaning and intent.

"Rights require responsibilities"

amy31416
01-20-2011, 04:21 PM
Perhaps you are correct. But, since that's your argument, then you would also have to agree with the validity of mine and side with me regarding the requirement for a permit to wear a loaded modern handgun in a public place in plain sight without permit. Your argument would also prohibit you from posting as well. Tell you what. In the interest of fairness, you go first on the ban from posting to prove you are sincere in your belief, and I'll follow your example. Likewise, I'll not wear a gun on my hip without a permit if you do the same. How's that?

In all seriousness, the internet has probably done more harm to our society than it has done good, so maybe we should have permits for internet access as well.

So, in other words, you have zero respects for anyone's rights, including your own--crime committed or not. Would that be correct?

LedHed
01-20-2011, 05:03 PM
So, in other words, you have zero respects for anyone's rights, including your own--crime committed or not. Would that be correct?

Nope. Not correct. Next question.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 05:09 PM
Nope. Not correct. Next question.

Then why do you desire for your and my rights to be taken away/undermined/destroyed when no crimes have been committed?

Pericles
01-20-2011, 05:20 PM
Perhaps you are correct. But, since that's your argument, then you would also have to agree with the validity of mine and side with me regarding the requirement for a permit to wear a loaded modern handgun in a public place in plain sight without permit. Your argument would also prohibit you from posting as well. Tell you what. In the interest of fairness, you go first on the ban from posting to prove you are sincere in your belief, and I'll follow your example. Likewise, I'll not wear a gun on my hip without a permit if you do the same. How's that?

In all seriousness, the internet has probably done more harm to our society than it has done good, so maybe we should have permits for internet access as well.

No - that is your argument, not mine. I see how you got the -rep, to which I will add based on your posts in this thread.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 06:50 PM
I see you are from (or live in) Michigan. Why are you so interested in what we do or what laws we pass in Arkansas? The federal constitution isn't what we are taking about. It's the Arkansas state constitution (Article 5) which applies ("The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense"). If you would like to become involved in changing the laws in Arkansas, why not move here? Likewise, I have no interest in changing the laws you have in Michigan unless I were to live in Michigan.


I am, and we have a multitude of laws here that need correcting. it was this very subject that got me involved.
(searching for my lost rights)
All of these state laws are related, and all came about the same way. So laws of other states (victories and defeats) concern me.

You see due to these unconstitutional laws. I am infringed.

Your citing of unconstitutional laws and the perversion of the Militia does not help your case.
You will find there are many constitutional militia men here as well.
Unfortunately, as the present laws stand I am not militia. I am a friend of the militia.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 07:37 PM
Then why do you desire for your and my rights to be taken away/undermined/destroyed when no crimes have been committed?

Do you live in Arkansas?

LedHed
01-20-2011, 07:41 PM
No - that is your argument, not mine. I see how you got the -rep, to which I will add based on your posts in this thread.

Gosh! Thanks for adding to my "rep." It means the world to me.*

*Kidding. I think adding "rep" to someone for disagreeing with a position underscores why I advocate having a gun safety course and background check before being lawfully permitted to carry a loaded gun unrestricted.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 07:48 PM
background check before being lawfully permitted to carry a loaded gun unrestricted.

So, you are a racist.
Gun laws came about in an attempt to keep "certain" people from having guns.
Your support of these racist laws would be expected if you were also a racist.

Go ahead an research the origins of these laws.

By the way, I learned to shoot a 4 yrs old. passed a hunter safety course in 72. I was qualified with every infantry weapon available in the mid 70s as well as mortars and anti tank.

why should I have to pay some idiot that likely can't shoot as well as I can, to sign some permission slip?

LedHed
01-20-2011, 07:52 PM
I am, and we have a multitude of laws here that need correcting. it was this very subject that got me involved.
(searching for my lost rights)
All of these state laws are related, and all came about the same way. So laws of other states (victories and defeats) concern me.

You see due to these unconstitutional laws. I am infringed.

Your citing of unconstitutional laws and the perversion of the Militia does not help your case.
You will find there are many constitutional militia men here as well.
Unfortunately, as the present laws stand I am not militia. I am a friend of the militia.

Sorry that you are "infringed." Is this a medical condition?

Examples, please of unconstitutional laws and "perversion of the militia?"

I'm in the Arkansas Army National Guard (total combined service of over 30 years, now). What, exactly, is a "constitutional militia man?" Are those the pot bellied guys who couldn't quite make it into or in the military and who run around (slowly) in the deer woods on pleasant weekend days with their buddies playing soldier in store bought camo and making up guerilla tactics to prepare for the Armageddon which is certain to happen under the present socialist/commie regime of Nobama and his cronies? Those the guys? If they are, then you have definitely further convinced me that Arkansas certainly doesn't need an unrestricted open carry law.

What is a "friend of the militia?" Seriously. I have no idea what that is. I'm a "friend of the National Guard." Does that count?

amy31416
01-20-2011, 07:53 PM
Do you live in Arkansas?

Where I live is none of your business.

I guess you have no response to the question. Fair enough.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 07:57 PM
Gosh! Thanks for adding to my "rep." It means the world to me.*

*Kidding. I think adding "rep" to someone for disagreeing with a position underscores why I advocate having a gun safety course and background check before being lawfully permitted to carry a loaded gun unrestricted.

Who gets to "hold" that list of gun owners and decide what hoops you need to jump through, eh chief? Could it be the same folks who decide whether or not to raid your home, sometimes based on a whim?

Do you understand the philosophy behind the 2nd Amendment, or do you just like yapping on about muskets as if they're relevant to the actual reasoning behind it?

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 07:58 PM
. I'm a "friend of the National Guard." Does that count?

Nope,
That is NOT the militia. By definition.
:(

But you are beginning to sound like a troll. by definition.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 08:01 PM
So, you are a racist.Gun laws came about in an attempt to keep "certain" people from having guns.
Your support of these racist laws would be expected if you were also a racist.

Go ahead an research the origins of these laws.

By the way, I learned to shoot a 4 yrs old. passed a hunter safety course in 72. I was qualified with every infantry weapon available in the mid 70s as well as mortars and anti tank.

why should I have to pay some idiot that likely can't shoot as well as I can, to sign some permission slip?

Wow! Now I'm a "racist?" That's such a stretch of logic that I'm going to nickname you (respectfully, of course) "Stretchy."

You won't have to pay anyone, Stretchy. Because, as we've established, you do not live in Arkansas.

I'm also adding to your "rep," because I like you.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 08:04 PM
Sorry that you are "infringed." Is this a medical condition?

Examples, please of unconstitutional laws and "perversion of the militia?"

I'm in the Arkansas Army National Guard (total combined service of over 30 years, now). What, exactly, is a "constitutional militia man?" Are those the pot bellied guys who couldn't quite make it into or in the military and who run around (slowly) in the deer woods on pleasant weekend days with their buddies playing soldier in store bought camo and making up guerilla tactics to prepare for the Armageddon which is certain to happen under the present socialist/commie regime of Nobama and his cronies? Those the guys? If they are, then you have definitely further convinced me that Arkansas certainly doesn't need an unrestricted open carry law.

What is a "friend of the militia?" Seriously. I have no idea what that is. I'm a "friend of the National Guard." Does that count?

These guys:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bew_9GeuGA4&feature=related

(2 more parts if you're interested.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bew_9GeuGA4&feature=related

Let me ask you this--do you really think you're going to convince anyone here that the 2nd Amendment needs more legal restrictions?

LedHed
01-20-2011, 08:08 PM
Nope,
That is NOT the militia. By definition.
:(

But you are beginning to sound like a troll. by definition.

In my experience, calling someone a "troll" on an open forum usually happens when the person being called a "troll" establishes advantages in a debate through superior logic or fact which the person calling the name is unable to counter effectively through intelligent rebuttal, so they resort to using the term "troll." I'm pretty certain that Dr. Paul would be disappointed in your tactics, which is equivelent to being an online bully.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 08:20 PM
Wow! Now I'm a "racist?" That's such a stretch of logic that I'm going to nickname you (respectfully, of course) "Stretchy."

You won't have to pay anyone, Stretchy. Because, as we've established, you do not live in Arkansas.

I'm also adding to your "rep," because I like you.

No I don't live in Arkansas, But I deal with the same FEDERALLY MANDATED laws here in Michigan.
I have also lived and worked in several other states.

Since you are uneducated on this subject, and unable to search for the truth of what I said, I will give you some links,
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html

"All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people...."
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

Please use these as a start. I hope it's helpful.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 08:21 PM
In my experience, calling someone a "troll" on an open forum usually happens when the person being called a "troll" establishes advantages in a debate through superior logic or fact which the person calling the name is unable to counter effectively through intelligent rebuttal, so they resort to using the term "troll." I'm pretty certain that Dr. Paul would be disappointed in your tactics, which is equivelent to being an online bully.

I calls them as I sees them.

Prove me wrong by not being an ass.

By the way, You were the one that came to a Forum dedicated to Liberty and Constitutional restoration opposing a law that would restore some of the lost liberty in one state.
And folks here work on issues from all states.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 08:43 PM
I watched all three videos of Mr. Johnson appearing before a senate subcommitee, and he made a very good representation, except starting at 1:00 of video 3. Fred Thompson asked some very interesting questions. My issue with militias is that many are simply not as "self regulated" as they would have anyone believe. Mush like your responses to my positions, militias draw many who cannot or are not capable of hearing the opposite side of an argument and make a cogent and effective counterpoint. They also do not have any system of discipline which would exclude or remove someone who has had a violent background or severe mental issues.

Having said this, I do not see how this in any way relates to my opposition to a pending bill which would allow unrestricted legal open carry in my state or how it relates to what your own state has in effect regarding this issue. If you truly uphold the constitution of the US and your state, then you would agree that these issues are subject to debate and public scrutiny prior to being voted on in the legislature, and that every citizen retains the also sacred right to petition with their own views pertaining to any bill being considered for passage.

I invite any resident here from the state of Arkansas who has an opposing view to my own to get involved in the process and make use of the same right as I enjoy to voice my concerns to my representative and governor.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 08:46 PM
Let me ask you this--do you really think you're going to convince anyone here that the 2nd Amendment needs more legal restrictions?

Nope. Their minds are closed. Do you really think you're going to further your own position by calling anyone who disagrees with you a "troll?"

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 09:01 PM
It's a good Bill. I hope it passes.
http://www.arkansascarry.com/the-history-and-need-for-hb1051.html

Open Carry was once the legal and polite means of carrying a firearm for self-defense. Arkansas law once allowed this practice. Most people would be surprised to learn exactly why our law was changed in the first place. The short version- because in the post-civil war era, a primary objective of southern legislatures was to keep firearms out of the hands of freed men. That means they didn't want blacks to have guns. That is why, surprisingly enough, we find some of our most restrictive gun laws in southern states. Laws were written and passed, but selectively enforced.


A lot of us are satisfied with the appeasement offered to us. We have been offered a privilege as a substitute for the recognition of our rights. We have sold ourselves out for a cheap price. Once again, this is sad. Maybe you and I are happy in our own little worlds with our permits- and in that contentment many do not see the need to offer the citizens of this state an actual right. I hope we will not sell any of our other rights at so cheap a price.


. I am shocked that many so-called pro-2A people (some of whom are my friends and colleagues) scoff at Open Carry or unlicensed carry. I have made this statement before and it has not gone over well- but I will say it again: Anyone who does not believe in the right to carry a firearm without a license does not really believe in gun rights.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:06 PM
Nope. Their minds are closed. Do you really think you're going to further your own position by calling anyone who disagrees with you a "troll?"

I never called you a damn thing, except for "chief."

And it's not about being close-minded, it's about understanding what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 09:14 PM
I never called you a damn thing, except for "chief."

And it's not about being close-minded, it's about understanding what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Jeez...

AGAIN.... I FULLY support the 2nd amendment rights of anyone to openly carry a handgun without restrictions as long as the handgun is of no later technology than was available at the time the 2nd amendment was written. An "arm" at that time was by definition a single shot, black powder, unrifled weapon.

How in the H could anyone have an issue with that?

In fact, this inspires me to write another message to Governor Beebe supporting my article 5 rights as expressed above.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:16 PM
I watched all three videos of Mr. Johnson appearing before a senate subcommitee, and he made a very good representation, except starting at 1:00 of video 3. Fred Thompson asked some very interesting questions. My issue with militias is that many are simply not as "self regulated" as they would have anyone believe. Mush like your responses to my positions, militias draw many who cannot or are not capable of hearing the opposite side of an argument and make a cogent and effective counterpoint. They also do not have any system of discipline which would exclude or remove someone who has had a violent background or severe mental issues.

Having said this, I do not see how this in any way relates to my opposition to a pending bill which would allow unrestricted legal open carry in my state or how it relates to what your own state has in effect regarding this issue. If you truly uphold the constitution of the US and your state, then you would agree that these issues are subject to debate and public scrutiny prior to being voted on in the legislature, and that every citizen retains the also sacred right to petition with their own views pertaining to any bill being considered for passage.

I invite any resident here from the state of Arkansas who has an opposing view to my own to get involved in the process and make use of the same right as I enjoy to voice my concerns to my representative and governor.

I've heard the opposite side of the debate and ultimately rejected it--and I was not raised in a house with guns where the 2nd Amendment or militias were ever even discussed. I was in academia and around the staunchest, most anti-2nd Amendment liberals you can possibly imagine for several years...I know the counter-arguments, and yet, for some reason--I still find that your desire to restrict other people's rights based on the crimes of an individual to be illogical and harmful. I wouldn't make you pay a price for what someone like Loughner did, and is it irrational for a person to protest when you'd like to make them pay for what he did?

It's not a tough concept.

If you only want to debate with people from Arkansas, you're in the wrong place. I'm sure it's not too difficult to comprehend that what happens in one state can have an effect on another.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 09:16 PM
I never called you a damn thing, except for "chief."

And it's not about being close-minded, it's about understanding what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Somehow he is confusing you with me (odd as that seems) and I did not "Call him a Troll" but only said he was sounding like one. Considering he joined this board, and his first post is in opposition to some liberty restoring legislation. (and continuing opposition) It does call his purpose into question.
Perhaps he can learn,,, perhaps not.
Time will tell.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:17 PM
Jeez...

AGAIN.... I FULLY support the 2nd amendment rights of anyone to openly carry a handgun without restrictions as long as the handgun is of no later technology than was available at the time the 2nd amendment was written. An "arm" at that time was by definition a single shot, black powder, unrifled weapon.

How in the H could anyone have an issue with that?

In fact, this inspires me to write another message to Governor Beebe supporting my article 5 rights as expressed above.

Get off the computer and write me on parchment, written with a quill pen, otherwise your argument is a bunch of bunk.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:20 PM
Somehow he is confusing you with me (odd as that seems) and I did not "Call him a Troll" but only said he was sounding like one. Considering he joined this board, and his first post is in opposition to some liberty restoring legislation. (and continuing opposition) It does call his purpose into question.
Perhaps he can learn,,, perhaps not.
Time will tell.

Nah, I doubt it. He's not here to learn anything, just to "educate" us, probably because he believes that he holds some superior wisdom...or something.

It is kinda funny that he confused me with you, I think that's a first!

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:24 PM
Jeez...

AGAIN.... I FULLY support the 2nd amendment rights of anyone to openly carry a handgun without restrictions as long as the handgun is of no later technology than was available at the time the 2nd amendment was written. An "arm" at that time was by definition a single shot, black powder, unrifled weapon.

How in the H could anyone have an issue with that?

In fact, this inspires me to write another message to Governor Beebe supporting my article 5 rights as expressed above.

Nah , they were rifled .

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:28 PM
And highly accurate . The expression barking a squirrel is from the frontier in that time . That means you aim next to the squirrels head and the bark knocks it down , dazed , to be dispatched for dinner .

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:29 PM
Get off the computer and write me on parchment, written with a quill pen, otherwise your argument is a bunch of bunk.

I can make and use quill pens ...

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:32 PM
From the Arkansas Constitution.


I believe you are confusing (unconstitutional) Gun Laws with Rights.
There is no permission required to exercise a right.

ALL Gun Laws are an infringement on that right.

Yes . "shall not be infringed " .

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 09:35 PM
Nah , they were rifled .

There were also "Pepper boxes", but that does not make his point any more correct.

"Arms" meant weapons. Any and all weapons. It means the same thing today.

LedHed
01-20-2011, 09:37 PM
Get off the computer and write me on parchment, written with a quill pen, otherwise your argument is a bunch of bunk.

No problem. Send me your address. ;)

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:37 PM
I can make and use quill pens ...

That's pretty awesome...but can you make and use a musket? :p

LedHed
01-20-2011, 09:38 PM
There were also "Pepper boxes", but that does not make his point any more correct.

"Arms" meant weapons. Any and all weapons. It means the same thing today.

Nope. Arms means what they knew to be weapons at the time it was written.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:42 PM
No problem. Send me your address. ;)

Mmmkay. I'll expect it to be delivered by some dude on a horse. Then you can expect my scathing, rapier-sharp, witty response within 6 months, unless of course the postal guy is apprehended by Injuns.

amy31416
01-20-2011, 09:42 PM
Nope. Arms means what they knew to be weapons at the time it was written.

Okey-doke, Nostradamus.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 09:44 PM
Nope. Arms means what they knew to be weapons at the time it was written.

:rolleyes:
:(

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:44 PM
That's pretty awesome...but can you make and use a musket? :p

I can use it , not skilled enough to make it . Takes me awhile to reload . they have in line ones now that you can load easier .

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:49 PM
There were also "Pepper boxes", but that does not make his point any more correct.

"Arms" meant weapons. Any and all weapons. It means the same thing today.

Yes , privately owned cannon were common. The intent of Jefferson was that each man be armed the same as current military . There is an obvious reason why that intent is beneficial to a free society .

oyarde
01-20-2011, 09:55 PM
There were also "Pepper boxes", but that does not make his point any more correct.

"Arms" meant weapons. Any and all weapons. It means the same thing today.

One of those authentic pepper boxes from that period would probably bring thousands at auction.

Pericles
01-20-2011, 11:52 PM
Nope. Arms means what they knew to be weapons at the time it was written.
Then why is the US Army equipped with automatic weapons?

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
- Alexander Hamilton



"The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."Tench Coxe

- Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788



"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787



"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788




Got Arms?


http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt317/Pericles-photo/armyarms.jpg

Anti Federalist
01-21-2011, 12:13 AM
When did AxisMundi set up a sock puppet account?

I give LedHed negative five Collins.

- :collins::collins::collins::collins::collins:

devil21
01-21-2011, 01:20 AM
So you are arguing that it's subjective. Okay, I'll play. I consider anyone wearing a loaded gun on their hip in plain sight to be a subjective threat to my well being, health and life,

Must suck to live your life in fear of everyone else. Are you always a scared little girl?

Btw, I concur with AF. It's that same AxisMundi troll on another name. The wordy circular argument post style is the same.

low preference guy
01-21-2011, 01:35 AM
However, I would accept unlicensed and unrestricted open carry of any handgun in public without complaint as long the handgun does not exceed the technologies available at the time the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution. Any handgun technology or improvements incorporated after 1787 would require a background check and handgun safety course.



would you also require the weapons of the police to not exceed the technologies available at the time the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution?

LedHed
01-21-2011, 04:52 AM
So, let's get back on track and discuss AR HB1051.

Who here supports 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms in public without restriction or requirements for permit to do so and feels that any requirement for a permit in order to carry a weapon is in effect an unconstitutional and unlawful requirement?

(Please simply say "I do" if you agree with the above. Thanks.)

pcosmar
01-21-2011, 08:53 AM
So, let's get back on track and discuss AR HB1051.

Who here supports 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms in public without restriction or requirements for permit to do so and feels that any requirement for a permit in order to carry a weapon is in effect an unconstitutional and unlawful requirement?

(Please simply say "I do" if you agree with the above. Thanks.)

I DO
Without Restriction
Without registration
Without interference
Without question

"Shall not be infringed"

Anti Federalist
01-21-2011, 09:10 AM
So, let's get back on track and discuss AR HB1051.

Who here supports 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms in public without restriction or requirements for permit to do so and feels that any requirement for a permit in order to carry a weapon is in effect an unconstitutional and unlawful requirement?

(Please simply say "I do" if you agree with the above. Thanks.)

Make sure you got your sitrep report to DHS correct, it's ANTI Federalist, OK?

I do, no restrictions.

Further, there should be no restrictions on type of arms as well.

Every type of arm that you would expect any well equipped soldier, in any MOS, to have, the people have a right to have access to as well.

Full auto weapons, grenades, RPGs, anti air and anti armor weapons, all of it.

The people are the last hold out against a heavily armed tyrannical government.

The amendment means what it says.

LedHed
01-21-2011, 09:10 AM
I DO
Without Restriction
Without registration
Without interference
Without question

"Shall not be infringed"

Thanks. That's TWO people who responded. Anyone else?

pcosmar
01-21-2011, 09:18 AM
Thanks. That's TWO people who responded. Anyone else?

You will find, (even if they don't post in this thread) that most here do. As does Ron Paul. (who this forum was inspired by).

The only politician that is in favor of repealing the GCA of 1934, as far as I know. You might read my sig line again.

edit. (that "only politician", might need to add GunnyFreedom to that)

LedHed
01-21-2011, 09:42 AM
You will find, (even if they don't post in this thread) that most here do. As does Ron Paul. (who this forum was inspired by).

The only politician that is in favor of repealing the GCA of 1934, as far as I know. You might read my sig line again.

edit. (that "only politician", might need to add GunnyFreedom to that)

Okay, let's assume that everyone here would say "I do" to the question I posed.

Now, of those, who here would fully endorse the passage of AR HB 1051 as is now written (if they were Arkansas residents)?

Just a simple "I do" will again suffice.

Thnaks.

amy31416
01-21-2011, 09:45 AM
Thanks. That's TWO people who responded. Anyone else?

No restriction without a conviction. And for those who have been convicted of something, it must be a clear weapons-related violation of another individual's rights, with a way for the convicted person to "earn" back his or her right to bear arms.

That goes for cops too.

Danke
01-21-2011, 09:59 AM
It remains a constitutional right. You can keep and bear arms all day long and into forever if you are on your own property.

Can I have a nuke if I keep it on my own property?

Toureg89
01-21-2011, 10:52 AM
Your comparison between someone carrying a loaded gun on their hip without knowing anything about it or without me knowing if the person is wanted for murder, been convicted of a felony, is a wife beater, or knows anything at all about the responsibilities and obligations of carrying a handgun with breathing as a universal liberty is totally incogent. In fact, why even HAVE a constitution?

However, I would accept unlicensed and unrestricted open carry of any handgun in public without complaint as long the handgun does not exceed the technologies available at the time the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution. Any handgun technology or improvements incorporated after 1787 would require a background check and handgun safety course.

That should be a completely fair solution, since it accepts "arms" literally as was known to exist at the time the 2nd amendment was written and provides exceptions for newer handguns.

Muskets and flintlocks for everyone!!! Let freedom ring!!!

"With rights come responsibilities"
why do we need the government to regulate OC when its in the interests of private property owners with publically accessed property to make their own determination with how their property is used?

statist much.

you are technically infringing on the property rights of business owners, by straight out outlawing OC on their property. what if the property owners would like all their customers to OC?

pcosmar
01-21-2011, 11:13 AM
Perhaps you thought I was being flippant with the earlier question/statement.

So, you are a racist.
Gun laws came about in an attempt to keep "certain" people from having guns.
Your support of these racist laws would be expected if you were also a racist.



But here is the statement of your Sec of State.
http://www.arkansascarry.com/secof-state-mark-martin-on-open-carry-laws.html

HB2184 – Open Carry in Arkansas

Posted on March 10th, 2009


The firearm open carry law in Arkansas is among the most restrictive in the nation. Only five (5) other states are non-permissive. Typically considered the most firearm restrictive states in the country, California and Illinois are more open than Arkansas. In a situation that seems contradictory, many of the most restrictive states are in the south where you would think that the opposite would be the case. Why is this true?

I believe that the current restrictions have their roots in the dark and embarrassing history of racism in the south. The current laws have their origins in what were referred to as “Slave Codes”, later renamed “Black Codes”.

The “Slave Codes” did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights as whites, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This view can shamefully be found all through the infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are full of denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. However, laws written to appear neutral by disarming through economic means or selective enforcement remained in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. Arkansas, like other southern states, put laws on the books, but selectively enforced these laws based on racial decisions. Now those laws are being applied to all law-abiding citizens.

I considered not even running the bill because in some ways, our restrictive gun laws are a just reward for the injustice in their origins. Instead, I decided that it is more important to restore a right to those who have never enjoyed that right and to all people without regard to the ironic justice of the situation. Let’s let this be a valuable lesson and never forget: It is not possible to deny the liberty of one single individual without jeapardizing the liberty of all people. In this instance, we have undeniable proof.

Anti Federalist
01-21-2011, 01:48 PM
Can I have a nuke if I keep it on my own property?

No nukes, bio or chemical weapons.

They are offensive weapons, designed to kill large swaths of humanity in a preliminary or punitive strike.

They are not defensive weapons, and as such, they are a violation of the NAP just by existing.

However, you can have "da bomb":

<<<insert fat girl pic here>>>

Danke
01-21-2011, 02:04 PM
No nukes, bio or chemical weapons.

They are offensive weapons, designed to kill large swaths of humanity in a preliminary or punitive strike.

They are not defensive weapons, and as such, they are a violation of the NAP just by existing.

However, you can have "da bomb":

http://justhow2.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/fat-chick.jpg

Still looking for a suitor for your daughter?

LedHed
01-21-2011, 05:24 PM
Okay, let's assume that everyone here would say "I do" to the question I posed.

Now, of those, who here would fully endorse the passage of AR HB 1051 as is now written (if they were Arkansas residents)?Just a simple "I do" will again suffice.

Thnaks.

Still no one will answer this question? Hmmmm... Has no one here other than myself even read the bill?

oyarde
01-21-2011, 05:33 PM
Still no one will answer this question? Hmmmm... Has no one here other than myself even read the bill?

What specifically do you oppose ? I think no permit and any type of carry should be norm for all states .

LedHed
01-21-2011, 05:36 PM
Sorry. You didn't answer the question as it was asked, so here it is again:

Now, of those, who here would fully endorse the passage of AR HB 1051 as is now written (if they were Arkansas residents)?

(sound of crickets...)

mrsat_98
01-21-2011, 05:55 PM
Sorry. You didn't answer the question as it was asked, so here it is again:

Now, of those, who here would fully endorse the passage of AR HB 1051 as is now written (if they were Arkansas residents)?

(sound of crickets...)

I support the bill, don't support your suggestions, don't like your attitude, don't like being called a resident and consider your a threat to my well being. And live on the land known as Arkansas. 34 post and all ready starting trouble. You probably think I need a drivers license as well.

LedHed
01-21-2011, 06:05 PM
That's one who completely supports the bill as written. Anyone else?

You guys were all pretty vocal about it last night. What happened? No one else supports the bill?

keh10
01-21-2011, 06:08 PM
I also support the legislation. The Arkansan crickets are pretty loud tonight.

LedHed
01-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Thanks for your straightfoward answer, keh10! Yes, seems like few are willing to say they support the HB as written, so I have to presume they either really haven't read the proposed bill, or they aren't actually willing to say they support it.

Cricket sounds in the winter. Who would have thought?

Anyone else?

osan
01-21-2011, 06:24 PM
...I would completely support a bill which would add the same requirements for open carry as now exist for those of us who possess Arkansas concealed carry permits.

It would appear you do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes a right.

The John Uoft dictionary of 1785 defines “right”:

Right – noun

5. Just claim
6. That which justly belongs to one
7. Property interest
8. Power; prerogative

By these definitions, it is clear that no person or other entity such as "government", "the law", or "the state" holds any legitimate authority whatsoever to place any restriction upon a right, regardless of its nature. The Second Amendment not only explicitly enumerates the right to keep and bear arms, it very explicitly and redundantly forbids infringement, which is to say trespass. The "state" holds absolutely zero authority to place any demands upon those exercising a right.


I feel that HB 1051 as it is worded is both irresponsible and poorly reasoned in that it carries no provision to require a formal gun safety course, any demonstrated proof of competency in the use of firearms, age restriction, law violation or domestic abuse background/fingerprint check, or other licensing prerequisites currently enforced for issuance of a concealed carry permit.

This language seems to strongly suggest you are a statist. These are not the words of a person who understands, accepts, and wants liberty.



With rights come responsibilities.

This may be so, but it is not within the legitimate power of "government" to impose arbitrary restrictions. What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?

oyarde
01-21-2011, 06:38 PM
Still no one will answer this question? Hmmmm... Has no one here other than myself even read the bill?

Where is a copy of the bill ?

LedHed
01-21-2011, 06:40 PM
So, Osan. You aren't answering my question. Do you support HB 1051 as it is written or not?

low preference guy
01-21-2011, 06:41 PM
Who here supports 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms in public without restriction or requirements for permit to do so and feels that any requirement for a permit in order to carry a weapon is in effect an unconstitutional and unlawful requirement?

i don't answer stupidly obvious questions.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 06:45 PM
so, let's get back on track and discuss ar hb1051.

Who here supports 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms in public without restriction or requirements for permit to do so and feels that any requirement for a permit in order to carry a weapon is in effect an unconstitutional and unlawful requirement?

(please simply say "i do" if you agree with the above. Thanks.)

i do

LedHed
01-21-2011, 06:46 PM
Where is a copy of the bill ?

Here's a link, Oyarde. Please let me know what you think after you read it. Thanks.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB1051.pdf

LedHed
01-21-2011, 06:47 PM
i don't answer stupidly obvious questions.

Then I'll put you on the "No" column by default. Thanks!

oyarde
01-21-2011, 06:49 PM
Here's a link, Oyarde. Please let me know what you think after you read it. Thanks.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB1051.pdf

tHANKS , i LOOKED AND COULD NOT FIND IT .

oyarde
01-21-2011, 06:53 PM
Here's a link, Oyarde. Please let me know what you think after you read it. Thanks.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB1051.pdf

i HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. The current law prohibits concealed knives and clubs in a vehicle ? This just means you can open carry without a permit. Concealed carry would require one ?

mrsat_98
01-21-2011, 07:12 PM
i HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. The current law prohibits concealed knives and clubs in a vehicle ? This just means you can open carry without a permit. Concealed carry would require one ?

The current law prohibits carrying weapons with the intent to use them on a person. Just keep your paper weight on top of your papers while on a journey.

LedHed
01-21-2011, 07:12 PM
i HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. The current law prohibits concealed knives and clubs in a vehicle ? This just means you can open carry without a permit. Concealed carry would require one ?

Yes. Both the current law as well as the proposed law prohibit concealed knives and clubs in a vehicle as I read it. (Pretty ambiguous, eh?)

The current law prohibits open carry (with a few vague exceptions as well as on private property with permission of the owner/lessee.) HB 1051 would allow open carry without requirement for a permit in compliance with AR Code 5-73-301. Concealed carry statutes would be pretty much unchanged under proposed HB 1051 and would still require conformance with the requirements stated in AR Code 5-73-301.

http://www.asp.state.ar.us/divisions/rs/pdf/CHCL%20statutes_effective%20073107_010109.pdf

oyarde
01-21-2011, 07:16 PM
Yes. Both the current law as well as the proposed law prohibit concealed knives and clubs in a vehicle as I read it. (Pretty ambiguous, eh?)

The current law prohibits open carry (with a few vague exceptions as well as on private property with permission of the owner/lessee.) HB 1051 would allow open carry without requirement for a permit in compliance with AR Code 5-73-301. Concealed carry statutes would be pretty much unchanged under proposed HB 1051 and would still require conformance with the requirements stated in AR Code 5-73-301.

http://www.asp.state.ar.us/divisions/rs/pdf/CHCL%20statutes_effective%20073107_010109.pdf

Yes , that is the way I read it . I am trying to figure out how the house ever voted against a knife in a vehicle in the first place ..

LedHed
01-21-2011, 07:20 PM
Yes , that is the way I read it . I am trying to figure out how the house ever voted against a knife in a vehicle in the first place ..

Couldn't tell you, but it sure leaves a lot open to subjective interpretation, huh?

Let me know what you think of HB 1051 once you've had a chance to consider it, please? For or against?

Toureg89
01-21-2011, 07:20 PM
i do need to read a law in order to tell you i support it if it legalies a right that the government considers illegal.

is it currently illegal? i would think so, idk, i live in Fl.

if it is illegal, does this law legalize some kind of OC? if it does, then i support it.

more freedom is never worse than less freedom.

our rights more respected is never worse than less respected.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 07:22 PM
If I were a rep , I would have to vote yes , purely on the principle that it allows more liberty. People should not have to pay for permits or even be required to have them . I would also introduce legislation that would allow clubs , knives etc to be carried in vehicles .

LedHed
01-21-2011, 07:27 PM
i do need to read a law in order to tell you i support it if it legalies a right that the government considers illegal.

is it currently illegal? i would think so, idk, i live in Fl.

if it is illegal, does this law legalize some kind of OC? if it does, then i support it.

more freedom is never worse than less freedom.

our rights more respected is never worse than less respected.

Links to the proposed bill have been provided. Click the link to read the proposed bill.

Toureg89
01-21-2011, 07:29 PM
i dont need to read it. youve said you read it. you admitted it legalized a certain level of freedom you were not comfortable with.

therefore, it respects more of our rights. i support it.

LedHed
01-21-2011, 07:30 PM
If I were a rep , I would have to vote yes , purely on the principle that it allows more liberty. People should not have to pay for permits or even be required to have them . I would also introduce legislation that would allow clubs , knives etc to be carried in vehicles .

Thanks for your courteous reply and for taking the time to ask more questions. I don't entirely agree with you on the knives and clubs thing, but I'll send you a PM soon to explain something you may not have considered.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 07:31 PM
Thanks for your courteous reply and for taking the time to ask more questions. I don't entirely agree with you on the knives and clubs thing, but I'll send you a PM soon to explain something you may not have considered.

Yes If I am missing something obvious , tell me .

oyarde
01-21-2011, 08:33 PM
Yes. Both the current law as well as the proposed law prohibit concealed knives and clubs in a vehicle as I read it. (Pretty ambiguous, eh?)

The current law prohibits open carry (with a few vague exceptions as well as on private property with permission of the owner/lessee.) HB 1051 would allow open carry without requirement for a permit in compliance with AR Code 5-73-301. Concealed carry statutes would be pretty much unchanged under proposed HB 1051 and would still require conformance with the requirements stated in AR Code 5-73-301.

http://www.asp.state.ar.us/divisions/rs/pdf/CHCL%20statutes_effective%20073107_010109.pdf

During spring months , which I will call fishing season for myself ,I often have a couple of filet knives in my vehicle. I take it that would be illegal in Arkansas ?

oyarde
01-21-2011, 08:39 PM
I have a hammer and a lug wrench in the trunk , are those clubs ?

oyarde
01-21-2011, 08:47 PM
Since ignorance of strange law is never enough to keep you from becoming an inadvertant criminal , what should people be allowed to have in a vehicle that they can use on the highway passing from one state to the next and remain legal ? Weapons laws probably need to go ....

oyarde
01-21-2011, 09:01 PM
Just things to consider , have any weapons laws ever made people safer ?

low preference guy
01-21-2011, 09:05 PM
Just things to consider , have any weapons laws ever made people safer ?

yeah, at least for a group of people. those laws made being a criminal safer.

Anti Federalist
01-21-2011, 09:05 PM
Still looking for a suitor for your daughter?

Keep it up, I'll send ya more.

mrsat_98
01-21-2011, 09:08 PM
During spring months , which I will call fishing season for myself ,I often have a couple of filet knives in my vehicle. I take it that would be illegal in Arkansas ?


I have a hammer and a lug wrench in the trunk , are those clubs ?

Only if it there to use on a person. Read the whole rule.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 09:09 PM
Mmmkay. I'll expect it to be delivered by some dude on a horse. Then you can expect my scathing, rapier-sharp, witty response within 6 months, unless of course the postal guy is apprehended by Injuns.

I imagine the rejection like that would crush my pure and simple heart , so I will have to stay on the straight and narrow path : )

oyarde
01-21-2011, 09:10 PM
Only if it there to use on a person. Read the whole rule.

Yeah , ok who determines if I may do that ? and by what logic ?

oyarde
01-21-2011, 09:54 PM
yeah, at least for a group of people. those laws made being a criminal safer.

I tend to agree .

keh10
01-22-2011, 01:11 AM
This bill is so clean. It is what other bills should be modeled after. If it weren't for the title and description, the bill would literally be less than a page long. If this bill passes, I think it will be one of the most productive bills to come out of Arkansas' 88th General Assembly.

I sent a letter to my representative several weeks ago when I first heard about this bill. Mrsat_98 and to any other Arkansas residents, I highly urge you to do the same. Also, there is a petition to Gov. Bebe and the legislature to pass HB1051 here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ARPFOCOH/petition.html

Of Course, you need to be a resident of Arkansas to sign it. There are over 4,700 signatures already.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 06:03 AM
This bill is so clean. It is what other bills should be modeled after. If it weren't for the title and description, the bill would literally be less than a page long. If this bill passes, I think it will be one of the most productive bills to come out of Arkansas' 88th General Assembly.

I sent a letter to my representative several weeks ago when I first heard about this bill. Mrsat_98 and to any other Arkansas residents, I highly urge you to do the same. Also, there is a petition to Gov. Bebe and the legislature to pass HB1051 here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ARPFOCOH/petition.html

Of Course, you need to be a resident of Arkansas to sign it. There are over 4,700 signatures already.

That explains why there was immediate opposition to it, as soon as it was posted to an activist site.
;)

LedHed
01-22-2011, 06:55 AM
This bill is so clean. It is what other bills should be modeled after.

Why do you describe HB 1051 as "clean?" What do you mean?

By your support of this bill, I respectfully submit that you concede that the state of Arkansas is empowered to require a permit to carry a weapon as proscribed by AR Code 5-73-301, which as indicated in HB 1051 would still be in effect. Isn't that exactly what most of the good people here vehemently oppose? That ANY provision in a law requiring a background check or any other preconditions or a permit in order to bear arms is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment?

Help me understand how you could in good conscience advocate passing a law which is explicitly against what most in this thread interpret as their rights under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms without government restriction, regulation, or prerequisite to enjoy that right? How is HB 1051 a "clean" bill, and are you advocating that other states which do not now require a permit to carry should follow suit and amend their own laws to require a permit to carry concealed using HB 1051 as a model?

A "clean" bill would either require the same prerequisites and permit for open carry as now exist for concealed carry OR it would remove ALL permit requirements for either carrying openly or concealed to make it equitable to ALL citizens who wish to enjoy their 2nd amendment and article 5 right to bear arms in any manner. A "fair" law would make no distinction between the manner in which one wishes to carry a firearm.

As I stated at the beginning, this is a poorly written bill and should be opposed. But while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your opinion.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 07:08 AM
Why do you describe HB 1051 as "clean?" What do you mean?

By your support of this bill, I respectfully submit that you concede that the state of Arkansas is empowered to require a permit to carry a weapon as proscribed by AR Code 5-73-301, which as indicated in HB 1051 would still be in effect. Isn't that exactly what most of the good people here vehemently oppose? That ANY provision in a law requiring a background check or any other preconditions or a permit in order to bear arms is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment?

Help me understand how you could in good conscience advocate passing a law which is explicitly against what most in this thread interpret as their rights under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms without government restriction, regulation, or prerequisite to enjoy that right? How is HB 1051 a "clean" bill, and are you advocating that other states which do not now require a permit to carry should follow suit and amend their own laws to require a permit to carry concealed using HB 1051 as a model?

A "clean" bill would either require the same prerequisites and permit for open carry as now exist for concealed carry OR it would remove ALL permit requirements for either carrying openly or concealed to make it equitable to ALL citizens who wish to enjoy their 2nd amendment and article 5 right to bear arms in any manner. A "fair" law would make no distinction between the manner in which one wishes to carry a firearm.

As I stated at the beginning, this is a poorly written bill and should be opposed. But while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your opinion.

There should be NO Permit to Carry Laws . Period.

You are correct that there should be no distinction. There should be NO laws at all affecting Ownership or Carry of Arms.
This is a step in the right direction.. just as CCW laws were a step. Next step is making CCW an unhindered and unquestioned right.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 07:55 AM
So, you are also in support of this bill even though it infringes on 2nd amendment rights. Ergo, you are in support of a law which would ignore or refuse to acknowledge constitutional rights. According to most posts I've read here on this issue, any law which does that is a BAD law, and is a step in the WRONG direction. Your willingness to roll over and accept such a law as a "step in the right direction" is puzzling given the posts from you I've read. Why are you so willing to compromise on your constitutional rights? Are they not sacred to you?

In fact, your signature quote from Dr. Paul reads:

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004

Do you not live what you believe to be true?

chudrockz
01-22-2011, 09:05 AM
It's really not that complicated.

Roughly six years ago, Minnesota passed a permit-to-carry law, making it a "shall-issue" state. That meant that the vast majority of counties went from places where permits were entirely at the discretion of local police - and rarely granted - to one where, if one passed a safety / proficiency class and paid for a background check (and passed it) that person was granted a permit to carry a gun.

I'm apparently with the majority here in feeling that the "new" law *is* still an infringement. In my opinion, anyone who is sentient enough to be able to say and comprehend the words "I have the right to self-defense" has an absolute right to it.

But is the new law an improvement over the old? HELL yes.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 09:07 AM
Do you not live what you believe to be true?

The Laws we presently have are Unconstitutional and Wrong.

CCW, Permits are a compromise, and better that nothing. but hardly "good Laws". And In my Own State, the gun laws are confusing, contradictory, selectively enforced and in violation of the state constitution and the Constitution of the US.
Open Carry is legal here, however it is encumbered by other laws Auto transportation, comes to mind.
Concealed is legal, but is incumbent as well.
I have watched the laws change over the years. What was once common and unquestioned was made illegal, and it has been a fight to bring it back.

I would like my restoration of rights to be recognized and respected. It is not at present. And that is why I got involved and why I have researched the laws, and why I hope to see them returned to what was intended.
Understanding How they were taken is part of that. Getting them back incrementally, is better than not getting them back at all.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 09:18 AM
The Laws we presently have are Unconstitutional and Wrong.

Understanding How they were taken is part of that. Getting them back incrementally, is better than not getting them back at all.

"I was once a slave with handcuffs. They came and took my handcuffs off so I could do more work, but they said I was still their slave. I will accept that with happiness, because I feel one step closer to no longer being a slave, and that's better than nothing."

Same logic.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 09:25 AM
"I was once a slave with handcuffs. They came and took my handcuffs off so I could do more work, but they said I was still their slave. I will accept that with happiness, because I feel one step closer to no longer being a slave, and that's better than nothing."

Same logic.

In a sense.

Freer is freer. Without the handcuffs, I at least have the chance to fight back. Without the leg irons I can run.

I have lived in a cage. I understand freedom. Even with the restrictions of Parole, it was better than the cage.

Now I am off parole and free (or as much as possible).
I understand Freedom. I want it for all.

keh10
01-22-2011, 10:19 AM
Why do you describe HB 1051 as "clean?" What do you mean?

By your support of this bill, I respectfully submit that you concede that the state of Arkansas is empowered to require a permit to carry a weapon as proscribed by AR Code 5-73-301, which as indicated in HB 1051 would still be in effect. Isn't that exactly what most of the good people here vehemently oppose? That ANY provision in a law requiring a background check or any other preconditions or a permit in order to bear arms is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment?

Help me understand how you could in good conscience advocate passing a law which is explicitly against what most in this thread interpret as their rights under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms without government restriction, regulation, or prerequisite to enjoy that right? How is HB 1051 a "clean" bill, and are you advocating that other states which do not now require a permit to carry should follow suit and amend their own laws to require a permit to carry concealed using HB 1051 as a model?

A "clean" bill would either require the same prerequisites and permit for open carry as now exist for concealed carry OR it would remove ALL permit requirements for either carrying openly or concealed to make it equitable to ALL citizens who wish to enjoy their 2nd amendment and article 5 right to bear arms in any manner. A "fair" law would make no distinction between the manner in which one wishes to carry a firearm.

As I stated at the beginning, this is a poorly written bill and should be opposed. But while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your opinion.

When I say the bill is clean, I'm not referring to its thoroughness, but rather its simplicity and quality. I am also against any kind of certification to carry a concealed weapon and if I had it my way, the bill would have one more paragraph expelling the licensing of concealed carry permits and make it legal to carry a concealed weapon without any form of licensing. However, I've learned that when it comes to liberty, it's important to pick your battles. Yes, I oppose the idea of a concealed carry licenses, but it is the lesser of two evils when compared to outright restriction. Therefore, I must support concealed carry licensing until it becomes practical to push for legalized concealed carry.

You say the bill is poorly written. How so? Which lines? In my opinion, the bill is very concise and to the point. There is no line that is superfluous. Personally, I would be happy to add a few lines easing the tension of gun restriction, but I know that for every gun restriction removed so too are the odds of this bill passing removed. I think currently as written, the bill can pass and has a lot of grassroots support. There is nothing in the bill that I disagree with so even though it's a tiny step towards true liberty, it is a step worth fighting to take.

Southron
01-22-2011, 10:39 AM
I missed this reply earlier. What is your source for this? It's numbered so it's a copy and paste from somewhere. Where? Im not sure I buy the assertion regarding the NCSC basically making open carry illegal while there's no law on the books specifically against open carry. Need more research.

I believe this is where I found it.

http://www.grnc.org/firearms.htm

Essentially, from what I understand, it only makes OC illegal when your intent is to "terrorize", but that is at the discretion of the police.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 10:54 AM
When I say the bill is clean, I'm not referring to its thoroughness, but rather its simplicity and quality. I am also against any kind of certification to carry a concealed weapon and if I had it my way, the bill would have one more paragraph expelling the licensing of concealed carry permits and make it legal to carry a concealed weapon without any form of licensing. However, I've learned that when it comes to liberty, it's important to pick your battles. Yes, I oppose the idea of a concealed carry licenses, but it is the lesser of two evils when compared to outright restriction. Therefore, I must support concealed carry licensing until it becomes practical to push for legalized concealed carry.

You say the bill is poorly written. How so? Which lines? In my opinion, the bill is very concise and to the point. There is no line that is superfluous. Personally, I would be happy to add a few lines easing the tension of gun restriction, but I know that for every gun restriction removed so too are the odds of this bill passing removed. I think currently as written, the bill can pass and has a lot of grassroots support. There is nothing in the bill that I disagree with so even though it's a tiny step towards true liberty, it is a step worth fighting to take.

You're happy with its quality? As far as "superfluous" is concerned, the bill as written repeats the phrase "or for other purpose" immediately after using the same phrase in the description, so not much care was taken in writing it at all. So not much care was taken in writing it at all. (See? Superfluous.) However, I've lived in Arkansas for about 20 years, now, so I'm used to things having to be done twice to be done right here.

You write that "there is nothing in the bill that I disagree with," but it explicitly goes against what most here describe as their rights under the 2nd amendment by retaining requirements for concealed carry.

I agree that it would stand little chance of passing if the restrictions were removed. Why is that, do you think?

By the way, HB 1051 was read in the House and referred back to the House Judiciary Committee for discussion. This means the bill may well die in commitee much like the one introduced last year by former Representative Mike Martin, now the AR Secretary of State. I have written for permission to appear before the Judiciary Commitee to express my reservations about HB 1051, and my representative has asked if I would be available on short notice to do so. I'm looking forward to it if it happens. Hopefully, someone who supports the bill as written will also appear to give their opinion as well and participate in our democratic process.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 10:57 AM
I believe this is where I found it.

http://www.grnc.org/firearms.htm

Essentially, from what I understand, it only makes OC illegal when your intent is to "terrorize", but that is at the discretion of the police.

Damn, what a convoluted and conflicting mess that is. It is as bad as Michigan.
I also notice that it all starts with Federal Laws. (Top of the Page)

"Shall not be infringed" is much simpler.

And yes "Open Carry" of virtually any tool can be a crime under that law, if any officer chooses.

Officer Discretion ? What a horrible concept.
:mad:

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 11:15 AM
Why do you describe HB 1051 as "clean?" What do you mean?

By your support of this bill, I respectfully submit that you concede that the state of Arkansas is empowered to require a permit to carry a weapon as proscribed by AR Code 5-73-301, which as indicated in HB 1051 would still be in effect. Isn't that exactly what most of the good people here vehemently oppose? That ANY provision in a law requiring a background check or any other preconditions or a permit in order to bear arms is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment?

Help me understand how you could in good conscience advocate passing a law which is explicitly against what most in this thread interpret as their rights under the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms without government restriction, regulation, or prerequisite to enjoy that right? How is HB 1051 a "clean" bill, and are you advocating that other states which do not now require a permit to carry should follow suit and amend their own laws to require a permit to carry concealed using HB 1051 as a model?

A "clean" bill would either require the same prerequisites and permit for open carry as now exist for concealed carry OR it would remove ALL permit requirements for either carrying openly or concealed to make it equitable to ALL citizens who wish to enjoy their 2nd amendment and article 5 right to bear arms in any manner. A "fair" law would make no distinction between the manner in which one wishes to carry a firearm.

As I stated at the beginning, this is a poorly written bill and should be opposed. But while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your opinion.
i see what you did there.

you initially disagreed with the bill because it went to far.

and now, you are trying to get us to disagree with it because, according to our strict constitutionalist interpretation, it doesnt go far enough.

so, if we refrain from supporting it, and refrain from getting a 50% more satisfaction from a not-going-far-enough/doesn't-completely-stand-on-principle bill, you get 100% satisfaction, because you dont want un-restricted OC period.

you my friend, have truelly made trolling in to an art.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 11:39 AM
i see what you did there.

you initially disagreed with the bill because it went to far.

and now, you are trying to get us to disagree with it because, according to our strict constitutionalist interpretation, it doesnt go far enough.

so, if we refrain from supporting it, and refrain from getting a 50% more satisfaction from a not-going-far-enough/doesn't-completely-stand-on-principle bill, you get 100% satisfaction, because you dont want un-restricted OC period.

you my friend, have truelly made trolling in to an art.

In this case, both arguments have merit to me for opposing the bill, although my original position as stated to Governor Beebe states my primary concern in doing so. Since when is engaging in all sides of a discussion considered "trolling?" If it's "trolling" then what is your definition of debate? Google the terms "rhetoric," "pragmatism," and "logic" and get back with me. Any effective debater can advocate for either side of a valid issue equally.

Have a great day. ;)

keh10
01-22-2011, 11:40 AM
You're happy with its quality? As far as "superfluous" is concerned, the bill as written repeats the phrase "or for other purpose" immediately after using the same phrase in the description, so not much care was taken in writing it at all. So not much care was taken in writing it at all. (See? Superfluous.) However, I've lived in Arkansas for about 20 years, now, so I'm used to things having to be done twice to be done right here.


That kind of language is used all the time in titles of bills. You'll notice that it's separated by a semicolon and was used intentionally. I don't know why you are trying to marginalize this bill and anyone who supports it, but you are clearly set in your ways. The actual text of the bill is what is truly important and again, I stand by my statement that there is no superfluous language within it.




I agree that it would stand little chance of passing if the restrictions were removed. Why is that, do you think?


I think it represents the typical situation we face as defenders of liberty: An uphill battle against many powerful special interest groups and a tyrannical majority who have been misdirected through fear in the media and lied to in their education.




You write that "there is nothing in the bill that I disagree with," but it explicitly goes against what most here describe as their rights under the 2nd amendment by retaining requirements for concealed carry.


This has been gone over several times already in this thread, but I will explain again. There is nothing negative about this bill. Meaning that at its worst, the bill maintains the status quo with the added benefit of legalizing open carry. To summarize, liberty is restored in one hand without taking more from another hand.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 11:43 AM
Any effective debater can advocate for either side of an issue equally.

I believe that is true of pathological liars too. And Lawyers.

:(

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-22-2011, 11:48 AM
The only states that should be yellow on that map is AZ, AK, and VT as they are the only three as far as I am aware (pending incoming NH legislation to repeal the requirement of a permit to CCW), that has no law abridging the right of CCW. NH should be added to this list quite soon too. Frankly, most Americans do not even know what it means to be free, and what rights are. I hope to see at least one State nullify the 1934, 1968, and 1986 Gun laws. That would be a joyous day for all. As for this legislation, while it is better than what we have now, it is about as good as empty rhetoric. Southern States aren't known for their liberty appealing positions anyways, as many are as bad as their Northern counter-parts.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 11:58 AM
I believe that is true of pathological lairs too. And Lawyers.

:(

Batman has a lair. You don't like Batman?

As far as lawyers, you are correct. An effective attorney must be able to anticipate what argument from the other side of the one he represents will most likely be used in order to effectively anticipate and proactively counter the other side's position. Would you want an attorney to represent your interests who didn't have that skill set? I wouldn't!

That's one reason the good ones get the big bucks. ;)

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 12:09 PM
except you have yet to reply to my responses concerning your advocation of infringement on property rights, and statism.

why the need to regulate firearm possession on publically accessed private property when property owners can regulate it themselves.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 12:14 PM
This has been gone over several times already in this thread, but I will explain again. There is nothing negative about this bill. Meaning that at its worst, the bill maintains the status quo with the added benefit of legalizing open carry. To summarize, liberty is restored in one hand without taking more from another hand.

That's known as "compromise. You are saying you are willing to compromise your 2nd amendment/article 5 rights by conceding the state has the SUPERIOR right to require permits for carrying a weapon by failing to challenge the validity of one side of the bill (concealed carry) while accepting the other (open carry). This is what you call "defending liberty?" Defending liberty would be to challenge the bill as being inequitable in its application. Neither the 2nd amendment nor article 5 of the Arkansas constitution specifies any distinction between open or concealed carry, so why should any proposed law.

Whether handcuffs are worn on only one of your wrists or both, it stills means you are wearing handcuffs.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 12:21 PM
That's known as "compromise. You are saying you are willing to compromise your 2nd amendment/article 5 rights by conceding the state has the SUPERIOR right to require permits for carrying a weapon by failing to challenge the validity of one side of the bill (concealed carry) while accepting the other (open carry). This is what you call "defending liberty?" Defending liberty would be to challenge the bill as being inequitable in its application. Neither the 2nd amendment nor article 5 of the Arkansas constitution specifies any distinction between open or concealed carry, so why should any proposed law.

Whether handcuffs are worn on only one of your wrists or both, it stills means you are wearing handcuffs.
^^^^^^^
TROLL POST

CCW permits are the handcuffs. You can still keep yours.
This gives everyone else the opportunity to dispense with them.

Icymudpuppy
01-22-2011, 12:32 PM
To be fair, I think Lawyers, Actors, or anyone else who can "take either side" should be barred from holding public office as they are nothing more than professional liars.

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 12:47 PM
^^^^^^^
TROLL POST.
ding ding ding.

his end goal is to have us not be in favor of less restrictions on OC, but his reasons for this are different than ours.

our reasons are because we want zero restrictions, and his reasons are because he wants more restrictions, but he's using the argument that our complete ideal reality is not being met in order to justify not supporting this bill, which would create a partial ideal reality.

and he's doing it under the guise of "oh, i'm just civilly debating".

LedHed
01-22-2011, 01:36 PM
To be fair, I think Lawyers, Actors, or anyone else who can "take either side" should be barred from holding public office as they are nothing more than professional liars.

That's an interesting statement. Lincoln was a lawyer, and Reagan was an actor. But I guess you already knew that.

keh10
01-22-2011, 01:40 PM
Haha, case and point!

LedHed
01-22-2011, 01:50 PM
ding ding ding.

his end goal is to have us not be in favor of less restrictions on OC, but his reasons for this are different than ours.

our reasons are because we want zero restrictions, and his reasons are because he wants more restrictions, but he's using the argument that our complete ideal reality is not being met in order to justify not supporting this bill, which would create a partial ideal reality.

and he's doing it under the guise of "oh, i'm just civilly debating".

Yeah, I'm sneaky like that. Calling out the poseur libertarians by using their own logic in a debate on constitutional rights and liberties. How unfair of me. I should be ashamed of poking sticks at those without the skills to defend their untenable positions. I thought this board had some smart folks on it who admired Ron Paul. Guess I was wrong.

BTW, what's the matter? Your shift key for caps doesn't work anymore on your Commodore 64?

osan
01-22-2011, 02:13 PM
So, Osan. You aren't answering my question. Do you support HB 1051 as it is written or not?

I have yet to read it. If it recognizes the unconditional right to keep and bear arms, then I support it fully. Period.

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I'm sneaky like that. Calling out the poseur libertarians by using their own logic in a debate on constitutional rights and liberties. How unfair of me. I should be ashamed of poking sticks at those without the skills to defend their untenable positions. I thought this board had some smart folks on it who admired Ron Paul. Guess I was wrong.

you started debating in this thread for licensed restriction of OC, whereas everyone else is in favor of unrestricted OC. who is the libertarian poser again?

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 02:20 PM
I would completely support a bill which would add the same requirements for open carry as now exist for those of us who possess Arkansas concealed carry permits.
talk about a ninja troll.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 02:29 PM
I have yet to read it. If it recognizes the unconditional right to keep and bear arms, then I support it fully. Period.

http://arkansasmatters.com/news-fulltext?nxd_id=374977

"The conceal carry is working beautiful,” said Don Hill.

Don Hill, though, owner of Don's Weaponry in North Little Rock says he's not so sure. An open carry, he says, could mean the bad guys know exactly where your gun is.

"Somebody could easily come up behind me and snap my holster and jerk my gun out," Hill said.

Don Hill sounds like the usual Idiot shill. Fear mongering a baseless argument.

The bill is here,
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1051
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB1051.pdf

Danke
01-22-2011, 02:30 PM
To be fair, I think Lawyers, Actors, or anyone else who can "take either side" should be barred from holding public office as they are nothing more than professional liars.

With the original 13th Amendment lawyers were.

pcosmar
01-22-2011, 02:36 PM
DCRA Q & A
http://www.arkansascarry.com/dcra-q-aa.html

The Defensive Carry Restoration Act (DCRA) is a bill filled by Rep. Denny Altes (R-Fort Smith) on behalf of Arkansas Carry to restore the right to carry firearms freely to all Arkansans.

LedHed
01-22-2011, 03:54 PM
you started debating in this thread for licensed restriction of OC, whereas everyone else is in favor of unrestricted OC. who is the libertarian poser again?

Although I do pose for pictures from time to time, I never said I was a libertarian. Yours is a limp attempt to divert the discussion, though. Maybe a boner pill would help you.

The word, BTW, is p-o-s-e-u-r. I believe it was first coined for people who are all hat and no cattle, or for folks who wear Harley clothes, but never ride. If someone claims to be an activist, then get involved with the democratic process. In other words, get some cattle to go with your hat.

I just came back from my local gun store after buying a Crimson Trace laser for my trusty SR9, and the guys there (not Don's) are in agreement with my position. They also said this bill has no chance to pass if there isn't a requirement for a proficiency course and background check built into the open carry provision. We'll have to see what happens. :)

I'm off to the movies! Ciao!

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 04:28 PM
limp diversion. lol. where did i try to divert the conversation to something off topic?

your opinion on OC is not a diversion from a thread concerning the legalization of OC.

now your poser comment was kind of a diversion, more of an attempt at character smear. especially since you're the closest one here to being a poser.

and you have yet to reply to my question: why do you want to use state coercion to dictate what firearm owners can carry on publicaly accessed private property when property owners can regulate consumer behavior themselves?

LedHed
01-22-2011, 10:24 PM
Back from the movies with a recommendation NOT to see "Season of the Witch." I guess Nicholas Cage really needed the money if he accepted that one or he just didn't read the script beforehand.

Toureg89
01-22-2011, 11:18 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__Xj7En3AJDE/TRjAI9G5HsI/AAAAAAAADpU/RjFkBBQEE_A/s1600/troll-dolls.jpg

LedHed
01-23-2011, 07:22 AM
Cute picture of your kids, Toureg! I'll bet they look just like their daddy and are every bit as intelligent. ;)

Question: Was that taken in your living room or in your basement with your stash of Cheezy-Poofs and Mountain Dew? From the decor, I'm guessing living room. Am I right? Nice!

(All in good fun.) :)

LedHed
01-23-2011, 07:40 AM
and you have yet to reply to my question: why do you want to use state coercion to dictate what firearm owners can carry on publicaly accessed private property when property owners can regulate consumer behavior themselves?

Toureg, little buddy. I will be happy to consider answering your question if you would please be courteous enough to first provide the following information:

1. Please quote me where I said I wanted to to do this by referencing the thread post number and topic.

2. Please provide a link or reference to any specific code or law which specifies this restriction. (Include whether it's a Arkansas statute, a statute from another state, or a federal statute). It would also be helpful if you would reference the section where this restriction is described.

3. Please provide an example of a situation where this would happen, and how it would encumber you.

Once you have provided me this information, I will consider answering your question as best I am able. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the above information in 1 and 2, then I will have to presume you pulled it out of your backside as a hypothetical.

Thanks much in advance.

Big hugs,
LedHed

Toureg89
01-23-2011, 12:05 PM
you said yourself several times. you want OC to be regulated. that infringes on the right of commercial property owners to determine whether or not they want their customers to carry.

LedHed
01-23-2011, 12:19 PM
Again, in the spirit of "no child left behind" and for the apparently slow kid in the class:

1. Please quote me where I said I wanted to to do this by referencing the thread post number and topic.

2. Please provide a link or reference to any specific code or law which specifies this restriction. (Include whether it's a Arkansas statute, a statute from another state, or a federal statute). It would also be helpful if you would reference the section where this restriction is described.

3. Please provide an example of a situation where this would happen, and how it would encumber you.

Once you have provided me this information, I will consider answering your question as best I am able. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the above information in 1 and 2, then I will have to presume you pulled it out of your backside as a hypothetical.

Yer killin' me, Schmalls!!!

Toureg89
01-24-2011, 10:54 AM
Again, in the spirit of "no child left behind" and for the apparently slow kid in the class:

1. Please quote me where I said I wanted to to do this by referencing the thread post number and topic.

2. Please provide a link or reference to any specific code or law which specifies this restriction. (Include whether it's a Arkansas statute, a statute from another state, or a federal statute). It would also be helpful if you would reference the section where this restriction is described.

3. Please provide an example of a situation where this would happen, and how it would encumber you.

Once you have provided me this information, I will consider answering your question as best I am able. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the above information in 1 and 2, then I will have to presume you pulled it out of your backside as a hypothetical.

Yer killin' me, Schmalls!!!
lol. no point in debating with you, since you have dodged, for the 5th time, the question i posed to you, and continue to refute details i have ALREADY QUOTED you on.

Toureg89
01-24-2011, 10:58 AM
Instead, I would completely support a bill which would add the same requirements for open carry as now exist for those of us who possess Arkansas concealed carry permits.
and lol at you not remembering your own words when they were your FIRST COMMENT IN THIS THREAD.

once again, you are in support of the state regulating OC on privately owned public areas, when it should be left up to respective businesses whether or not they want their customers to OC

pcosmar
01-24-2011, 11:06 AM
you said yourself several times. you want OC to be regulated. that infringes on the right of commercial property owners to determine whether or not they want their customers to carry.

An interesting point.
In years past, I open carried. I had a bar owner comment that "at least I carried mine in the open". Many of his customers carried Concealed (illegally). He later took me aside and showed me where the house guns were kept. (1 behind the bar, 1 in the parking lot) in case I should ever need to know..
Other establishments I handed it to the bartender, and picked it up when I was leaving.

It should be up to the property owner.

Toureg89
01-24-2011, 11:10 AM
its legal to OC on private property in most states.

/facepalm

the only reason one should not be legally allowed to carry a firearm openly in public, is when the property owner of the the publically access property protests your right while on their property. the state or its laws are not required to accomplish this.


why do we need the government to regulate OC when its in the interests of private property owners with publically accessed property to make their own determination with how their property is used?

statist much.

you are technically infringing on the property rights of business owners, by straight out outlawing OC on their property. what if the property owners would like all their customers to OC?


except you have yet to reply to my responses concerning your advocation of infringement on property rights, and statism.

why the need to regulate firearm possession on publically accessed private property when property owners can regulate it themselves.


you started debating in this thread for licensed restriction of OC, whereas everyone else is in favor of unrestricted OC. who is the libertarian poser again?


limp diversion. lol. where did i try to divert the conversation to something off topic?

your opinion on OC is not a diversion from a thread concerning the legalization of OC.

now your poser comment was kind of a diversion, more of an attempt at character smear. especially since you're the closest one here to being a poser.

and you have yet to reply to my question: why do you want to use state coercion to dictate what firearm owners can carry on publicaly accessed private property when property owners can regulate consumer behavior themselves?


you said yourself several times. you want OC to be regulated. that infringes on the right of commercial property owners to determine whether or not they want their customers to carry.

....

LedHed
01-24-2011, 11:31 AM
Geez.

Toureg, li'l buddy,

In this very thread, I posted a link to the AR Code which describes where and when a handgun may or may not be carried under existing law. This code clearly describes the rights of the property owner to determine whether or not he/she will permit a handgun on his/her property. You seem adept at quoting me, but it's apparent that you never actually read the code, so go back, find the code* and read it before you again represent something which isn't true at all or come up with some concept of theoretical restriction or infringement on property rights which simply doesn't exist. Requiring the same prerequisites to "OC" as now are required to legally "CC" would not be changed under the code.

You may also (after reading the code) look up the terms "informed consent" and "implied consent."

I'm going to be as gentle as I can in recommending the following, because I like you. Don't take the LSAT, because I'm afraid you won't do very well on it. Maybe barber school would be the right choice instead, since you seem to be great at cutting and pasting.

*Hint - It's referenced in the proposed HB 1051

Toureg89
01-24-2011, 11:51 AM
In this very thread, I posted a link to the AR Code which describes where and when a handgun may or may not be carried under existing law. This code clearly describes the rights of the property owner to determine whether or not he/she will permit a handgun on his/her property.
i'm not talking about AR code. i'm clearly stating, the licensing requirements to open carry will conflict with a property owner's wish to have his customers OC (if they so choose to).



You seem adept at quoting me, but it's apparent that you never actually read the code, so go back, find the code* and read it before you again represent something which isn't true at all or come up with some concept of theoretical restriction or infringement on property rights which simply doesn't exist.

lol. i don't need to read ANY codes. you are dodging the concept of a licensing system on OC as infringement.

obviously, if OC is as infringed upon as CC (requiring a license, which requires conformity to the state's standards whatever they may be) will conflict with the property owner who does not wish to infringe on his customers rights.



I'm going to be as gentle as I can in recommending the following, because I like you. Don't take the LSAT, because I'm afraid you won't do very well on it. Maybe barber school would be the right choice instead, since you seem to be great at cutting and pasting.

*Hint - It's referenced in the proposed HB 1051
lol, you are a great ninja.

you completely sidestep the issue of infringement.

Toureg89
01-24-2011, 11:55 AM
its like this:

my point, you don't need to regulate OC when the people who have to deal with it everyday (business owners) can create their own regulation policies. they can say "well, we would like no one to Carry period on our property" and put up signs to that effect.

they can say "well, we want only people with CCLs to be able to OC", and can put up signs to that effect.

or they can no put up any signs, and let any and all OC.

there is not need for regulating CC OR OC.

and by advocat4ing for the regulation of OC, you are conflicting with those property owners who want all their customers to be free to OC.

LedHed
01-24-2011, 12:21 PM
Okay, l'il buddy. You win. Think what you want. This old horse is dead, and I'm done.

LedHed
01-28-2011, 10:31 AM
Update on HB 1051.

I received a very nice phone call this morning from the governor's office in response to my E-mail in opposition to this bill. Among other things discussed in the conversation, I was informed that the bill is most likely to die in commitee where it has been deferred and will probably not make it back to the house to be voted on.

Huzzah for liberty and democratic government! Getting "involved" works!

Danke
01-28-2011, 10:36 AM
Update on HB 1051.

I received a very nice phone call this morning from the governor's office in response to my E-mail in opposition to this bill. Among other things discussed in the conversation, I was informed that the bill is most likely to die in commitee where it has been deferred and will probably not make it back to the house to be voted on.

Huzzah for liberty and democratic government! Getting "involved" works!

The defeat of this bill creates more liberty?

Toureg89
01-28-2011, 10:58 AM
The defeat of this bill creates more liberty?
:rolleyes: of course it does. stringent regulation of your rights almost makes more liberty

Anti Federalist
01-29-2011, 01:06 PM
Here's a link, Oyarde. Please let me know what you think after you read it. Thanks.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB1051.pdf

Here it is btw, as simple as it comes, three paragraphs.

I would fully support this, if for nothing more than "allowing" carrying in your vehicle without having to jump through all the CCW hoops.

Apologies for the lousy formatting:



Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed
prior to this session of the General Assembly.
*BPG052*
12-06-2010 08:51:17 BPG052
State of Arkansas 1
88th General Assembly A Bill 2
Regular Session, 2011 HOUSE BILL 1051 3
4
By: Representative D. Altes 5
6
For An Act To Be Entitled 7
AN ACT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DEFENSE CARRY RESTORATION 8 ACT; TO AMEND STATE LAW REGARDING THE CARRYING AND 9 POSSESSION OF FIREARMS TO ENSURE ALL ARKANSANS HAVE 10 THE RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS IN PUBLIC PLACES, UNLESS 11 OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, FOR SELF DEFENSE AND FOR 12 OTHER PURPOSES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 13
14
15
Subtitle 16
THE DEFENSE CARRY RESTORATION ACT 17 REGARDING THE OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS. 18
19
20
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 21
22
SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 5-73-120(a), regarding the offense of 23 carrying a weapon, is amended to read as follows: 24
(a) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she 25 possesses a concealed handgun without a permit under § 5-73-301 et seq., 26 knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or 27 her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to employ the 28 concealed handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person. 29
30
SECTION 2. Arkansas Code Title 5, Subtitle 6, Chapter 73, Subchapter 1 31 is amended to add a new section to read as follows: 32

5-73-134. Open carry of handguns generally.

(a) Except as otherwise prohibited, a person may openly carry a handgun as defined in § 5-73-120(b)(2) for any reason on his or her person or in a vehicle occupied by him or her.
HB1051

2 12-06-2010 08:51:17 BPG052

(b)(1) As used in this section, "openly carry" means that the handgun is not hidden or concealed from view.
(2) "Openly carry" includes without limitation the carrying of a holstered handgun that is not otherwise hidden or concealed from view.