Don't bring your gun.. Too much to ask?

[Connie]

You can borrow my whip, Pam. Or maybe slamjet can get you one of your own, too.

[pam]

Awww thanks Connie. That's really sweet of you. :)

[Connie]

No prob.

[ClickyClack]

After my scare last night, I am purchasing a gun very soon.

It sounds like there are enough shooters (or those that would like to) that we should have a get together at a range before the weather turns too nippy!

[pam]

Hey we could have mirkwood give a class on shooting. :) And he could follow up by a lesson on preparedness.

[bcguy]

of course, its concealed and did not tell anyone. Would not surprise me he has one until half way though the family function. I just think there are times, when its not appropriate and that was one of them. Brother is not into family functions as others. Loves hunting to much he was ticked that he would have to cancel when get together Christmas was on Christmas day. He does security work at the hospital and I think he carries a weapon.

[ClickyClack]

I am all for it! Anybody else up for it

[Sunnysprite]

This isn't a gun debate. My question is this: Is there EVER a time or place when carrying a firearm is inappropriate and or inconsiderate? I understand that if you have a permit you can pack heat pretty much anywhere. But just because you can, should you? We just got back from a big family function and someone showed up armed. It was off-putting to a lot of people. The mothers especially felt uncomfortable with it because of the kids he was horseplaying around with.

A concealed weapons permit means just that. If you allow people to know you are armed, you are breaking the law. But, carrying at a family function? I think that is egocentric and paranoid. Just sayin'.

I went to a Movie last night, alone, and did not get home until 1:00 AM. The weapon took the night off and stayed home. Awareness and location is much better defense.

[Vort]

A concealed weapons permit means just that. If you allow people to know you are armed, you are breaking the law.

I am pretty sure this is untrue. A concealed weapons permit means that you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, not necessarily required to conceal it when you carry. I believe it is legal in every state of the Union to carry an unconcealed weapon. Handguns are regulated in various states, but, for example, I think every state allows you to carry a rifle without a permit. Some allow you to carry a sidearm without a permit, I think, but require you to have a permit for concealed carry.

I do not now and never have carried a concealed weapon, so this is all academic to me.

[ClickyClack]

There are some places where open carry of a loaded firearm is still illegal, and where the concealed weapons permit ONLY allows you to carry concealed. Thus, a "wardrobe malfunction" can show your pistol and get you in hot water.

Thankfully, that is not the case in Utah.

[Vort]

There are some places where open carry is still illegal, and where the concealed weapons permit ONLY allows you to carry concealed. Thus, a "wardrobe malfunction" can show your pistol and get you in hot water.

Thankfully, that is not the case in Utah.

Thank you for the clarification. It occurs to me that I never got around to my central point, which is that under concealed carry, it is not a crime to let people know you're carrying.

[NeuroTypical]

under concealed carry, it is not a crime to let people know you're carrying.

Well, maybe. It is a mishmashy hodgepodge of state, county, and local laws, as well as the training of the cop, and possibly how upset or influential the person is who is reporting.

In CC circles, when your concealed firearm makes a visible outline or bulge that people can see, you hear terms like "imprinting" or "tentpoling".. I don't think there are any rules or laws using those terms.

There are, however, often laws against "brandishing", where you display your firearm in a threatening manner. It is possible to "brandish" both concealed and unconcealed firearms. And, depending on local wording of the law, training and past experience of the responding law-enforcement, how a report came in, and how much of a dangerous jerk you're acting like, 'imprinting' or 'tentpoling' could be considered 'brandishing', depending on how it's done, or how it's percieved to be done.

On top of that, you have immature people who believe the main purpose of carrying firearms is to provoke encounters with citizens and law enforcement and 'educate' them about your 'freedoms'.

I don't envy cops. I try to empathize with people who would just rather not see guns in the first place. And when I legally carry, I do my best to just look like some guy and pass unnoticed.

[Vort]

I agree with everything you wrote, LM. I did a poor job of responding to a specific point, namely:

"If you allow people to know you are armed, you are breaking the law."

[ClickyClack]

I see that posts in this thread have disappeared.

I humbly apologize for my thread hijacking and derailment.

[Sunnysprite]

I agree with everything you wrote, LM. I did a poor job of responding to a specific point, namely:

"If you allow people to know you are armed, you are breaking the law."

Texas, and Oregon are two states where I know it is illegal to allow even the outline of a gun to show. Aurora, Colorado had a law making it illegal to carry, but the law was thrown out. There is so much misinformation on the subject. One of my workmates insisted that hand guns had to be registered the other day, and that is not true.

[ADoyle90815]

Sometimes, even if one has a permit, carrying a gun to a family function could be a bad idea if the family doesn't always get along.

[Dravin]

Sometimes, even if one has a permit, carrying a gun to a family function could be a bad idea if the family doesn't always get along.

A family function where the disharmony is to the point where violence is being threatened or actually carried out is a family function I'd avoid, gun or no gun.

[NightSG]

A family function where the disharmony is to the point where violence is being threatened or actually carried out is a family function I'd avoid, gun or no gun.

This. Also, if I don't trust someone with a gun, I won't trust them with anything less than a straitjacket and proof that they haven't missed their latest dose of thorazine.

[Sunnysprite]

This. Also, if I don't trust someone with a gun, I won't trust them with anything less than a straitjacket and proof that they haven't missed their latest dose of thorazine.

We used to Elk Hunt in remote country, and while I never had the need to use it, everyone in the camp carried a pistol or had a rifle near. I once heard of a bull elk walking right through camp. The wife shot the elk and when the husband came home, having been skunked, she had it ready to hang. :) There was always talk of bears and big cats, though I do not know if it was the liquor talking or not.

This is not the same world I grew up in. I can't understand people being anti gun.

[Vort]

This is not the same world I grew up in. I can't understand people being anti gun.

I can. Guns are scary. They are instruments specifically designed to deal death. Not only that, but they do it so efficiently that there is basically no defense against it. A six-year-old with a gun is far more dangerous than your typical unarmed mugger. That kind of power concentrated into the hands of anyone who manages to get ahold of a gun -- child, criminal, murderer, whoever -- makes many people doubt the safety of society.

Not saying these are (necessarily) my own views, just that I understand them and think they are reasonable.

[Sunnysprite]

I can. Guns are scary. They are instruments specifically designed to deal death. Not only that, but they do it so efficiently that there is basically no defense against it. A six-year-old with a gun is far more dangerous than your typical unarmed mugger. That kind of power concentrated into the hands of anyone who manages to get ahold of a gun -- child, criminal, murderer, whoever -- makes many people doubt the safety of society.

Not saying these are (necessarily) my own views, just that I understand them and think they are reasonable.

You should only do what you are comfortable with.

[UserName]

At the risk of drawing the ire of some I'd like to comment:

I have been a lawful gun owner for 36 years and pretty much grew up with a .22 henry in my hands.

I carry a loaded concealed handgun every day. Why ? Because evil walks this earth and Evil can manifest itself in the most unlikely places and the most inopportune times. I'm neither a cop or a vigilantie, if I think "Will I need a gun to go_____< fill in the blank. Then I dont go there.

I don't wave it around or point it at people who zoom into a parking space after I've circled the block four times trying to find. That's not what it's for.

It dosen't "go off" all by itself. When you read about a gun "going off" it is because some idiot had his finger on the dang trigger !

If you don't "Like" guns, then don't buy one.

I "like" mine and take it with me everywhere I go.

Think the police are there to protect you ? Guess again. There have been two Federal Supreme Court decisions finding that the police have "no duty to protect". They are there to draw the chalk outline around your dead body.

If you're lucky they might get there while the assault or rape is still in progresss.

Now, going after one who asaults and kills someone after the crime has been committed is murder no matter how you look at it but when you are being assaulted or raped it is quite another matter.

I cannot fathom the mindset of those who refuse to defend thenselves, do you really have that much contempt for the gift of life God has granted you that you would throw your life away ?

Does not Ether14:2 state "Every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand in the defense of his property and his own life and of his wifves and children.". ?

The sword was the preferred weapon when those words were written but why should we not use the mordern equlivent, a handgun or other suitable firearm?

Please, continue to discuss.

[NeuroTypical]

I cannot fathom the mindset of those who refuse to defend thenselves, do you really have that much contempt for the gift of life God has granted you that you would throw your life away ?

I can't fathom it either, but there's no reason to jump to such a negative conclusion, UserName. The BoM record of the people of Ammon a.k.a. Anti-Nephi-Lehis for example, had made a covenant with God to do no more harm even at the cost of their lives. It's pretty dang clear that their choice was not only righteous and good, but great miracles were brought to pass. They refused to defend themselves, not out of contempt for the gift of life, but out of a need to repent for their past lives and submit totally to the will of God. I figure folks may have other reasons too that don't fall into the realm of 'contempt for the gift of life'.

Think the police are there to protect you ? Guess again. There have been two Federal Supreme Court decisions finding that the police have "no duty to protect". They are there to draw the chalk outline around your dead body.

I've known enough cops personally to disagree with you here. And getting paid to color with chalk? It might sound slightly appealing, but I can't see many people finding fulfillment with it for very long. I'm thinking you might benefit by getting to know a few cops on a personal level, or maybe going through a citizen's academy if one is offered in your area. It might give you a more charitable outlook as to why they do and don't do things.

I'm pretty much in agreement with most everything else you have to say though.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[UserName]

Loudmouth, I had a long discussion on the concept of bearing arms and the use of deadly force in self defense with the Elders who guided my path into Mormonism. I happen to teach classes on concealed carry and the laws within my state as well as defensive pistol techniques.

Apoliges if I don't get some of the terms right but I was baptised only a couple of weeks ago. I was under the impression Mormons in general were not pacifists and there are several like minded folks within the branch I attend. Perhaps this is a regional difference.

As for the "No duty to protect" issue, I cite the following cases:

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department

Several articles have been written about each case. Rather than influence you with my own sources I suggest you look into them yourself. Personal opinions of individual LEO's do not trump a court's findings.

There may be a handfull of old school cops out there but I believe these findings have contribuited to the mission creep of "Protect and serve" becoming "Go home safe".

Don't misunderstand me, I'm NOT cop bashing here just stating reported precidents. I happen to know a few LEO's as I compete in IDPA with a bunch of them.

[NeuroTypical]

I was under the impression Mormons in general were not pacifists and there are several like minded folks within the branch I attend. Perhaps this is a regional difference.

Oh, I'd figure that maybe 75-90% of American mormons are right of center to one extreme or another. In Utah, President Clinton came in third in his re-election race - behind Bush and Perot.

But there's a difference between holding the (correct) impression that mormons in general are not pacifists, and assuming those who refuse to defend thenselves have contempt for the gift of life God has granted them.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm NOT cop bashing here just stating reported precidents.

I don't see how you can make that claim. "Think the police are there to protect you? Guess again. [...] They are there to draw the chalk outline around your dead body." That's not cop bashing? What would you consider cop bashing?