Concealed Carry Hypothetical Question

[jmcrawf1]

I'm not trolling anymore than you're talking out of your ass. Right now the best any of us can do is speculate, because none of us know for sure.

Everyone keeps pointing to 14:95. That section tells us nothing. Citing some court case from 28 years ago, with NO facts about the case, and a poorly written article also proves nothing. That guy may have been railroaded, or he may have been a felon. Who knows, the article certainly tells us nothing.

This reminds me of the time that dude from NOLA tac had a melt down over the carrying in a restaurant thing. He was wrong and spewing bs about how right he thought he was. All because he found a section somewhere that convinced him he was right. Which is what is happening here.

I'm talking out my ass? Please sir, inform me where I was wrong and give me your explanation.

 

[Hattrick 22]

This went down hill quick . I did at least learn it isn't legal to cc while hanging my Christmas lights I'll just have to correct that by getting legal .

 

[jmcrawf1]

This went down hill quick . I did at least learn it isn't legal to cc while hanging my Christmas lights I'll just have to correct that by getting legal .

No, no, standby. Mayonnaise is about to explain why you can....

 

[Mayonnaise]

No, no, standby. Mayonnaise is about to explain why you can....

You just can't come to terms with the fact that you can't prove your case anymore than I can prove mine.

14 95 doesn't even make an exception or exemption for permit holders. That's the ONLY point I am making. Using 14 95 is not applicable in this discussion.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I'm failing to see the "at your home" exception in LRS 14:95.

Once again, lrs 14:95 says you can't do it. Where is there an exception to "in my home, business, car, etc?" There are plenty of exceptions under that statute. On your property is not one of them. Just because you wish it so, doesn't make it so.

Show me the permit exception in 14:95. You're not using the right statute.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Show me the permit exception in 14:95. You're not using the right statute.

First, the OP assumed he doesn't have a CHP.

Second, 40:1379.3 gives a person with a CHP the right to carry.



The OP assumed that a person could conceal carry on his own property sans a concealed carry permit. IN THAT INSTANCE, he would be charged with 14:95. I'm pointing to the correct statute. My quotes are still not wrong. They assume a person is A) on their own property and B) not qualified to conceal carry in some way. So what's your point?

 

[Mayonnaise]

First, the OP assumed he doesn't have a CHP.

Second, 40:1379.3 gives a person with a CHP the right to carry.



The OP assumed that a person could conceal carry on his own property sans a concealed carry permit. IN THAT INSTANCE, he would be charged with 14:95. I'm pointing to the correct statute. My quotes are still not wrong. They assume a person is A) on their own property and B) not qualified to conceal carry in some way. So what's your point?

My point is, just because 14 95 doesn't specifically exempt people inside their own home/business, and possibly even car, does not make it illegal. I'm not debating stepping outside your home, especially in the front of your home. However, sitting at your desk, at your kitchen table, or in the drivers seat of you car is debatable Key word there being debatable.

 

[jmcrawf1]

My point is, just because 14 95 doesn't specifically exempt people inside their own home/business, and possibly even car, does not make it illegal. I'm not debating stepping outside your home, especially in the front of your home. However, sitting at your desk, at your kitchen table, or in the drivers seat of you car is debatable Key word there being debatable.

And I'm telling you that it will be debated in court after you would have gotten arrested for it by meeting the elements of that crime.

 

[Jack]

I'm not trolling anymore than you're talking out of your ass. Right now the best any of us can do is speculate, because none of us know for sure.

Everyone keeps pointing to 14:95. That section tells us nothing. Citing some court case from 28 years ago, with NO facts about the case, and a poorly written article also proves nothing. That guy may have been railroaded, or he may have been a felon. Who knows, the article certainly tells us nothing.

This reminds me of the time that dude from NOLA tac had a melt down over the carrying in a restaurant thing. He was wrong and spewing bs about how right he thought he was. All because he found a section somewhere that convinced him he was right. Which is what is happening here.

How do they remember things, from member's only sections, from a couple of years before they made their account?

 

[Jack]

This thread has been very civil and informative until you injected yourself into it. It is children like you that cause threads like this to deteriorate. It is why we can't have rational discussions on subjects like this. So, by all means, carry your ass. Take your childish **** to the tin foil forums. It isn't welcome here anymore. In fact let me help you.

 

[Mayonnaise]

And I'm telling you that it will be debated in court after you would have gotten arrested for it by meeting the elements of that crime.

Jesus dude. Never mind.

 

[herohog]

Why was I drug into this NOLA_Jack? I have had nothing to do with this thread!

 

[Jack]

Why was I drug into this NOLA_Jack? I have had nothing to do with this thread!

It is a fair well salute, what is the problem?

 

[Vermiform]

Jack: Please quit. It's over now. Let's get back on track. Let's not let a child derail us.

Mayo: Lighten up a little. I want to hear your points and argument. Please don't respond to this. Just take a deep breath and let it out.

Everyone else: Let's prove that we can discuss this rationally. We don't have to come to an agreement about anything. We can even argue here but lets do it right.

I now return you to our regularly scheduled program already in progress..............

 

[geoney]

You're kidding? The Trooper was going to arrest him for a warrant, sees him, and finds a gun on the suspect's person. Search incidental to suspect's lawful arrest for the warrant.

You do understand that bad guys are searched after they're arrested and before they are brought to a jail?

JR1572

Sorry guys, misread that post. When I read warrant, for some reason I thought subpoena. Mah Bad.

 

[Bayoupiper]

So screw you. I'm out of here. Again.

Jeez.

Not this drama again..........



.

 

[Tinytitan]

I...for the life of me can't figure out why would someone go through the trouble of concealing in their home anyway. Concealing in public is one thing ie. not wanting to draw attention....but why go through all the trouble on my own property, just carry it out in the open...it's a lot more comfortable to

 

[Vermiform]

I...for the life of me can't figure out why would someone go through the trouble of concealing in their home anyway. Concealing in public is one thing ie. not wanting to draw attention....but why go through all the trouble on my own property, just carry it out in the open...it's a lot more comfortable to

It could matter to someone that owns their own business and wants to conceal carry there without going through the trouble of a CCW. However, the question is really academic and one I would like to finally see a definitive answer to. I think we already have it though.

 

[Tinytitan]

Business I can understand but you are serving the public sooooo...yea...but your home?

Mind you I'm assuming this isn't a home business lol

 

[Mayonnaise]

It could matter to someone that owns their own business and wants to conceal carry there without going through the trouble of a CCW. However, the question is really academic and one I would like to finally see a definitive answer to. I think we already have it though.

You're exactly correct. People who hold an FFL, pawn brokers, things of that nature. Even people who own retail store fronts where hundreds, if not thousands, of people come in and out every day. I would go as far to even say night club owners/employees. There is no reason why we, as owners, should need a permit to carry at our place of business. The at home thing is kind of a different situation all together. It has nothing to with the "why would you want to" and has everything to do with the "why shouldn't I be able to." There are laws that say you cant drink yourself to death while banging your buddies wife in public. No where does it say you can not do these things inside your own home or on your desk at your office.

The point I've been making this entire time is, no where does it say that you can not carry concealed in areas protected by reasonable expectations of privacy laws. Carrying in your car for example, sure if the cop asks you to step out then you would be in violation the instant you stepped out of your vehicle. If you removed the gun BEFORE stepping out, no laws will be broken. Or would they? It's hard to say for sure because it is not specifically addressed.

Another example is taking your dog out at midnight in the privacy fenced back yard, would you be protected from 14:95 if you choose to drop your gun down your jacket pocket? I would think so. Flip side of the coin, if you're in the front yard do you loose that protection? I would venture to say that you could be charged in the latter.