<p>
Actually, I think that would be concealing the gun so it wouldn’t be permitted. People shouldn’t carry guns, including in their vehicles, if they can’t secure them safely and legally.</p>
<p>Laws vary, and IANAL. In Washington, if the firearm is locked in the trunk of a car, or in a locked case in any other vehicle (like a van, SUV, or pickup cab), you can transport it without violating concealed carry laws. Having a loaded handgun within reach of the driver or other inhabitant REQUIRES a CCW even if the gun is in plain sight. In other words, in plain sight in a car is considered concealed carry, while walking around with a holster is not.</p>
<p>If you think that’s confusing, look up the rules for imported semiautomatic rifles some time (18 USC Sec. 922). Congress is expert at straining at gnats and passing camels through the eyes of needles. Talmudic scholars and Jesuits could learn things from these people. (For example, you can have a Czech-model XYZ rifle with a magazine containing an American-made “floor plate” that is perfectly legal. If the owner accidentally slides in a magazine with a Croatian floor plate, it is now illegal and the owner committed a felony. All federal firearms laws that try to differentiate between legal rifles and EBRs* are just loony. First of all, according to federal crime statistics, only two or three percent of crimes committed with firearms involve rifles. Of these, most are legal, even following the bizarre and arcane federal definitions of “assault rifles” – aka EBRs. The Clinton “assault weapons ban” had no [none, zip, nada] affect on the crime rate in the US – except to the extent that it made otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons.)</p>
<ul>
<li>EBR = Evil Black Rifles. The naive, but popular belief, that if you take a .308 rifle barrel and attach it to a black plastic stock and a hand grip it becomes evil and dangerous, unlike a model without a hand grip that has a walnut stock that fires .308 ammunition. Anyone who understands anything about firearms thinks the “assault weapons” ban in 1994 was disingenuous pandering of the worst sort. I think they are right.</li>
</ul>
<p>For what it’s worth, I’ve mushed together the stupid 1986 “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act” with the stupid 1994 “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.” Restricting sales to minors and requiring a criminal background check to buy handguns –> reasonable ideas. Virtually everything else the feds have done in the area of restricting firearms –> stupid. Interestingly, the 1994 Brady bill was pretty non-stupid, even it has had no (none, zip nada) effect on crime rates.</p>
<p>Yeah, it is rather ironic that the government requires background checks for anyone buying from a gun dealer, but will not allow private citizens to use the same system to ensure they are not selling to a criminal. IMO, that is one reason the NICS system does not have an impact on crime. (Granted, people who sell firearms to criminals probably wouldn’t use the system if they could…but the current set-up is just stupid.)</p>
<p>
Interesting, considering that the risk of needing a gun is likely to be many times greater in almost every major city.</p>
<p>Betraying my urban bias here, but I think of people carrying guns (with the exception of police officers / security guards and people who are actually <em>on</em> a hunting trip) as being rednecks or yahoos. Yee-haw.</p>
<p>"Why does that scare you?</p>
<p>Is wanting to protect yourself and your children poor judgement? Do you feel that simply having a gun is poor judgement, or that actually carrying it is?"</p>
<p>Like I said, raimius, it just screams unsophisticated redneck to me.</p>
<p>So, do you not trust “rednecks?”</p>
<p>
But my reasoning is just that I almost ‘never’ encounter the situation here in suburbia. I have encountered it in smaller towns - especially in hunting areas and I think in that case most of the people packing were probably hunters who didn’t want to leave the weapon in the car. When I encounter something outside of the norm I’m naturally a bit on guard.</p>
<p>One other unusual place I noticed a strapped-on gun was on an airplane. A load of young Marine recruit types got on a plane escorted by an experienced Marine who seemed to be herding them and keeping them in line. He was the one with the weapon. If anything, I felt safer.</p>
<p>"So, do you not trust “rednecks?” "</p>
<p>Eh, not particularly, because the stereotype of a gun-totin’ redneck is someone who isn’t very bright, who shoots first and asks questions later. Certainly no one I’d ever want to be or associate with.</p>
<p>^ but gun owner =/= “redneck”</p>
<p>That’s very true. There are many very well educated, sophisticated, erudite and debonaire persons, even with liberal political leanings, who carry concealed handguns with a permit. However, when it comes to wearing a handgun strapped to your hip in plain view when going to the supermarket, mall or Little League game, that’s not being rednecked, thats manifesting some level of emotional disturbance. :D</p>
<p>“Manifesting emotional disturbance”–how so? </p>
<p>Some people like to be prepared for virtually anything. To them, the supermarket or little leage game has the same potential to experience a violent crime as several churches and schools have in the past year. Are people who like to prepare for those eventualities emotionally disturbed?..or are we all projecting our own estimations, beliefs, and experiences onto other people? (I say “we all” because I have a tendency to do that…just my projections are more toward people objecting to lawful citizens carrying…I’m working on not doing that…)</p>
<p>"Some people like to be prepared for virtually anything. To them, the supermarket or little leage game has the same potential to experience a violent crime as several churches and schools have in the past year. "</p>
<p>And that’s precisely why they are rednecks. Because rednecks see violence everywhere and don’t hesitate to start swinging. Yee-haw! Sorry, I’m a Northern urban / suburban girl and I think of it as hick to carry a gun (unless one is a police officer or something similar).</p>
<p>So, having a plan and the tools to defend yourself makes one prone to “start swinging?” If that is true, why is it not reflected in concealed carry statistics (such as assaults, murders, etc)? </p>
<p>The Florida State Police tracked CCW license holders for years, hoping to gain enough statistics to show CCW was a bad idea. They stopped tracking the statistics because they realized it was a waste of their resources…</p>
<p>CCW permit holders are 14 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average citizen…hardly rednecks who “don’t hesitate to start swinging.”</p>
<p>My ultimate point is your NEGATIVE STEREOTYPE is unsupported by the evidence.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl:</p>
<p>The fact is you (or I) have no idea how many of your Northern urban/suburban neaighbors are carrying concealed weapons. There may be plenty of people around you who you don’t consider ‘yee-haw rednecks’ who actually do carry weapons albeit concealed.</p>
<p>Regarding people carrying the weapon in the open - I’ve been all over the country including most cities in the south and have hardly ever seen anyone carrying a gun on their hip in the open. I think it’s really pretty much a non-issue.</p>
<p>I agree with Pizzagirl.</p>
<p>raimus, let me put my comments in context. I have had a concealed carry permit for more than 25 years and have the training and experience commensurate with that history. I do not support outlawing handguns but do support reasonable gun regulation including registration, limitations on the purchase of certain guns, prohibitions and penalties for straw buying and controls to assure that guns are purchased through registered dealers. I am not a “redneck” as Pizzagirl would describe gun owners; I have degrees in psychology and law, am well read and enjoy the arts. I also have a very realistic view of violence, crime and society based on my training and experience.</p>
<p>That having been said, I stick to my comments that any civilian who feels a compelling need to carry a hand gun openly in normal societal day to day activities is more interested in making a statement that is reflective of a defect in their psyche than really attending to legitimate self defense needs. Open carrying in normal social situations by civilians serves to create a spectacle that has a purpose; it is designed to send a message reflective of a very skewed view of the world and normal society. If you feel a need to carry a gun for self defense purposes, get a concealed carry permit. It’s just that simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m guessing guns that you don’t own or have any interest in? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have also not been the victim of violent crime, have you? WashMom, who is a college-educated Californian suburban girl, was physically assaulted and robbed within three feet of the door of a suburban Bank of America branch in broad daylight. She doesn’t carry a gun, but if she did I would be nothing but supportive.</p>
<p>Personally, I would carry concealed–mainly to save the hassle of being labled/stereotyped and so I didn’t have any “incidents” resulting from LEOs who don’t know the laws related to carry.</p>
<p>As a matter of principle, why should someone be legally forced to hide their firearm? Do we not have the right to keep and BEAR arms? Is there a massive difference between carrying a pistol exposed vs. under your shirt/suit/jacket? Open carry is more convenient and comfortable, but some people object to it because some others are offended. Is that a reasonable standard (ban something because a few are offended but no real harm is done)? I would say that is not reasonable. If there was evidence to show open carry contributed to crimes, I would consider banning it, but I know of no such evidence. As a nation based on individual freedoms, I do not believe we should ban something that has no demonstratable negative effects.</p>
<p>I support reasonable gun laws as well…my definition being laws that keep those who have proven themselves violent or have been adjudicated a danger to themselves or society from keeping firearms. This is an ACTION based restriction, not a blanket ban. If one has committed an act which proves that person is dangerous, THEN I can support restricting their rights. Just like yelling “fire” in a theater is banned, I support the criminalization of harmful actions. Carrying a firearm is not a harmful action. USING said firearm in an unlawful manner, such as threatening or attacking IS harmful (but we already have laws to deal with those actions).</p>
<p>I wish the NICS system was available for private sellers to use, as that could help screen out those people who have proven themselves dangerous…but as it stands, that is not offered…
Registration does not reduce crime. Limiting the purchase of certain types of firearms does not reduce crime…the '94 AWB was a joke, and only 2 legal NFA machine guns have been used in crimes (one by a LEO) since 1934. The .50 caliber terrorist scare is a red herring…but these things deserve their own threads. :)</p>
<p>PS. Allmusic, do you agree in principle, in law, in perception, or some combination?..and why?</p>