# WVa may weigh measure to allow concealed guns without permit



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

WVa may weigh measure to allow concealed guns without permit


----------



## Cuthahotha (Dec 14, 2015)

I'll probably get creamed for this, but I have to ask. Considering what's going on now, is that a great idea? I know everyone on these forums are highly trained and are Boy Scouts at heart, but what about the rest of the world. I don't want to take guns out of peoples hands who have proven they are upstanding citizens, have the training and skill to use them properly. However, if having some whack job open fire in a crowd is bad, isn't having 30 odd scared, untrained, un-prepared citizens all pull their guns and start spraying lead worse? I don't know what the right answer is, but I do think a "shall permit", permitting process that requires people to prove their ability makes some sense.


----------



## maddog (Dec 10, 2015)

agreed,,,a cc should have some sort of permit and training.....something.......


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Well, some states don't even require training...like the state I live in...Indiana. I did have to take a class for my Utah Non-resident permit though.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

This is what the Virginia Constitution says about this in Section 13;

*"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. "*

If this was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Cuthahotha said:


> I'll probably get creamed for this, but I have to ask. Considering what's going on now, is that a great idea? I know everyone on these forums are highly trained and are Boy Scouts at heart, but what about the rest of the world. I don't want to take guns out of peoples hands who have proven they are upstanding citizens, have the training and skill to use them properly. However, if having some whack job open fire in a crowd is bad, isn't having 30 odd scared, untrained, un-prepared citizens all pull their guns and start spraying lead worse? I don't know what the right answer is, but I do think a "shall permit", permitting process that requires people to prove their ability makes some sense.


I don't know, we have "Constitutional Carry" here in Arizona where no permits are required by law to carry either openly or concealed. People aren't just randomly blowing each other away over stupid little incidents or shooting anyone whom they think looks like a perceived threat. At least no more and probably less than in states where permits are required. At least out here as in other states where permits were never required, people have grown up around guns for generations and children at an early age were taught how to handle firearms in a safe and responsible manner. Maybe not so in states that have more oppressive gun laws as gun ownership is discouraged and people are propagandized to have an inordinate fear of firearms. It is more than likely that more people in those places wouldn't even know the business end of a firearm and are more apt to have accidents and handle them in a reckless manner.

While training is a good idea, requiring it by law brings about a whole new set of problems as the government will set the standards and conditions before the issuance of a permit. In that case there is no "Shall Issue". Who's to say how much training is adequate and at what expense? Then the 2nd Amendment is no longer a right, but a privilege determined by government bureaucrats setting their own standards. If you live in a "Blue" state you can be sure that they will make it all but impossible to own and carry firearms. People will just say the hell with it and either forego gun ownership altogether which will weaken our ranks or obtain their guns illegally. Supposedly with the NICS system people who are not upstanding citizens should be weeded out and lying on Form 4473 is already a federal crime.

I have an Arizona *C*oncealed *W*eapons *P*ermit (CWP) which is optional. I have taken both firearms safety and tactical handgun courses. Only because firearms have been a large part of my life and of my desire to learn every aspect of them. But for my stated reasons above I believe it should be voluntary. Although it is a good idea.

I don't think you'd have 30 odd scared, untrained, un-prepared citizens pulling their guns and spraying lead all over in the event of a mass shooting. It didn't happen in the Gifford's shooting (see below) and I can assure you that Arizona is a weapons rich environment. There's hardly a place where you go where at least someone is carrying a firearm. I'm betting that the aggressor would easily be identified and you might have thirty odd citizens training their guns on him/her. Obviously no one is prepared to have someone burst into a public place and opening fire. That includes military bases (FT. Hood). Someone could easily walk into a police station and do the same. There have been many instances where police officers have been ambushed. Especially if the aggressor(s) are hell bent on getting themselves killed in the process. But once the first shot(s) are fired and there were others that were armed I'm sure that the body count would be much lower. Probably one of the reasons why most if not all of these shootings have taken place in "Gun Free Zones". But we'll never know, as no one was armed at the time of these shootings except for the perpetrator(s).



> Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd. He reportedly used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots". Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury. Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. *Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.*---wikiepedia


When all is said and done it is highly unlikely that anyone of us will ever be involved in a mass shooting. Most people just want to be able to have a weapon for personal self defense whether it be at home or while going about their daily business. In which case they do not need the training to be a member of "Seal Team Six".


----------



## maddog (Dec 10, 2015)

in this case are u gonna let felons carry....murderers who just got out of jail.....illegal aliens?????,,,,,no line,,,,a nics check????


----------



## maddog (Dec 10, 2015)

do we want our cc to have any limits,,any requirements?,,or none..just throwing it out there...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

maddog said:


> in this case are u gonna let felons carry....murderers who just got out of jail.....illegal aliens?????,,,,,no line,,,,a nics check????


Perhaps reading comprehension is not your forte. Where in my post did I state that? Please point it out. I'll bet you can't because it's not there, anywhere. The above mentioned are already prohibited by law to possess firearms. We already have a NICS check which is performed anytime anyone purchases a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. It is also against the law to sell or give a firearm to a known prohibited possessor regarding a private transaction. That person can be held criminally liable for any crimes committed with that firearm.

You also have to fill out Form 4473 which states all of the legal requirements for the lawful possession of a firearm. Lying on that form is a federal crime. If anyone who is a prohibited possessor is caught with a firearm they will be sent to jail. As it should be. My post is in regards to the lawful possession of firearms and "Constitutional Carry" status. Which I firmly believe in. In most states you do not need a permit to purchase any kind of rifle or shotgun including so-called assault rifles. Should you need a permit/training requirements and permission from the government for those also? Or maybe we should extend that to any object that could be used to kill, maim or injure anyone? That list would be quite long. You sound like a Liberal who likes to put word's in people's mouths or blow things all out of proportion to advance some sort of agenda. Which is just as ridiculous as when Liberals often ask if the 2nd Amendment allows for the possession of nukes, tanks, fighter planes, aircraft carriers and crap like that.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

maddog said:


> do we want our cc to have any limits,,any requirements?,,or none..just throwing it out there...


As long as the carrier is abiding by the law and harms no one except in cases of justifiable self defense. Absolutely not. It's no different than carrying a knife, a hatchet, a chain or a sock full of quarters. Even a shoelace can be used to strangle and kill someone. What should the limits or requirements be for those objects? How 'bout gasoline? Propane tanks? Matches, lighters? Fertilizer? Box cutters? Pipes? Alcohol? Oh wait, we already tried prohibition. All have been used one time or the other to cause great harm. Just as with those objects guns are inanimate and have no supernatural powers that commands someone to go out and murder innocent people. It's what's in a person's mind that compels them to go out and kill or commit crimes. They will use what ever object or means that they have at their disposal.


----------



## maddog (Dec 10, 2015)

ure forte is obviously talking to people like an ass.....constitutional carryest believe in all people can carry do to the exact interpretation of the constitution.....thats what i was throwing out there,,,not ure opinion...im sure u are use to over talking to people do to the lengthy responses that are mind numbing..


----------



## maddog (Dec 10, 2015)

good day to u sir.....


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

maddog said:


> ure forte is obviously talking to people like an ass.....constitutional carryest believe in all people can carry do to the exact interpretation of the constitution.....thats what i was throwing out there,,,not ure opinion...im sure u are use to over talking to people do to the lengthy responses that are mind numbing..


Maybe it was mind numbing. I guess that was my fault. Maybe that's why you neglected to either read or understand it. And instead just threw out assumptions. You know what they say about people who make assumptions. Who's the real ass now? And no, people who believe in "Constitutional Carry" do not believe that all people can or should carry a firearm, only the law abiding. There you go with your false assumptions again. Too bad you can't get that through your thick skull. Good day to you too sir.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Well, although I do not so much like having to get a permit to carry a sidearm, concealed or openly, I do understand this day and age...work with me here. I think most people, years ago that is, were a little more "gun savvy" than they are now. Most people, men and women alike, used firearms on a regular basis just to survive. This is not so much the case anymore. Personally, I would love to do a police shooting course as a requirement for my Indiana permit...would kinda be like being in the military again. If I can't pass a basic shooting test, and these are not that difficult, I really should not be walking around the general public, armed. You have to pass a basic vision test to get a driver's licence right? If you can't hit a human sized target, at seven yards, I damn sure don't want you shooting your gun around me.

I think since more CC permit holders are being signed up each day, the chances of getting the not-so-gun-savvy are greater. You get where I am going with this. Unfortunately, this is one of the down-sides of being in a society where there are way more people than ever before, and most of those multitudes are not of the same "cut of cloth" as their ancestors were, many years ago. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

I've had ccw in both IN and AZ. No class in IN. Class in AZ. 
The class in AZ was worth the price because you were told what to and not to say to LEO's if you are in a shooting.
But it is like another tax. On the other hand it is like a perminent background check when the government computors can't keep up.
Don't worry, be happy!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

AZdave said:


> I've had ccw in both IN and AZ. No class in IN. Class in AZ.
> The class in AZ was worth the price because you were told what to and not to say to LEO's if you are in a shooting.
> But it is like another tax. *On the other hand it is like a perminent background check when the government computors can't keep up.*
> Don't worry, be happy!


Like on Saturday when the NICS system was backed up for hours. I was at the gun store and they told people who had just purchased a gun to come back later to pick it up. They had a few phones going all were put on hold. How can we not be happy? We live in Arizona!


----------



## Freethought (Jan 10, 2016)

maddog said:


> ure forte is obviously talking to people like an ass.....constitutional carryest believe in all people can carry do to the exact interpretation of the constitution.....thats what i was throwing out there,,,not ure opinion...im sure u are use to over talking to people do to the lengthy responses that are mind numbing..


 In actuality he was quite civil to you , far more civil than you deserved. Now prior to your toddling off back to your liberal friends perhaps you'd like to show us all a SINGLE example of a municipality or state wherein constitutional carry is as you postulated.

See an *actual* thinking individual , or indeed even one that possessed two brain cells to rub together would have actually READ the statutes governing carry laws within the states that have " constitutional carry" and figured out that claims such as yours are nothing more than an overly large heap of odoriferous male bovine excremental leavings.

But then it's customary for the recto-cranially impacted such as yourself to consistently open their mouth and show us all the partially masticated feces therein prior to spewing said substance out into any given conversation or discussion.

In closing , I split my time between TWO states that each have constitutional carry , neither is as you stated. Furthermore it's *ILLEGAL* for a felon to possess a firearm in *EVERY* state in the Union , much less carry one.


----------

