Took my CHP class today... Not all good

[Ben Segrest]

. . . shall not be infringed.

 

[HiCapMag]

Its a good thing that Bossier officer Russell Cox does not get to enforce the law because...... Oh snap!

My friend, go read the statute. Its obvioust that Russel Cox has not.

Good luck.

 

[JLouv]

Personally, I don't care how many rounds they shot, since I am a firm believer that carry permits are unconstitutional.

"Permits" are a tax on a supposedly guaranteed "right"


And we let it slide.....

Permits are baby steps to a total ban.

Not tinfoil. Fact.

& Ben.....it's time to change your profile pic. Sorry to tell you that.

 

[returningliberty]

"Permits" are a tax on a supposedly guaranteed "right"


And we let it slide.....

Permits are baby steps to a total ban.

Not tinfoil. Fact.

& Ben.....it's time to change your profile pic. Sorry to tell you that.

It wouldn't need a permit if carrying a concealed handgun in public was a right.

 

[Scott.Thornton]

It wouldn't need a permit if carrying a concealed handgun in public was a right.

It is a right. The modern public is so brainwashed that it is not seen as a tax anymore. We have the right to protection guaranteed by the 2nd, yet people here will bitch about people open carrying but will happily pay to carry concealed. They are paying for a right, flat out. Either one is legal with no payment necessary. Also known as see my sig at the bottom.

 

[kellierenae7110]

It is unlawful to carry in any Government building, any bar room, any courthouse, any school that is a weapon free zone and any airport (unless the pistol is secured and checked in as baggage). Open Carry is legal, however, you can't just go on private property and have a gun on your side.. For instance, lets say you carry your gun in Walmart, and they tell you to leave or to as you to put your weapon in your vehicle, they hold that right because it is private property. So yes, if the police respond, they CAN arrest you for disturbing the peace. Doesn't mean they will, but they can. That's the loophole with open carry.

As far as CHP giving the police probable cause to search you... it's not really probable cause to search you, but state website says that you submit to a pat down. That is simply for officer safety. There are too many things that can happen.

 

[Scott.Thornton]

It is unlawful to carry in any Government building, any bar room, any courthouse, any school that is a weapon free zone and any airport (unless the pistol is secured and checked in as baggage). Open Carry is legal, however, you can't just go on private property and have a gun on your side.. For instance, lets say you carry your gun in Walmart, and they tell you to leave or to as you to put your weapon in your vehicle, they hold that right because it is private property. So yes, if the police respond, they CAN arrest you for disturbing the peace. Doesn't mean they will, but they can. That's the loophole with open carry.

As far as CHP giving the police probable cause to search you... it's not really probable cause to search you, but state website says that you submit to a pat down. That is simply for officer safety. There are too many things that can happen.

I call ********, too many commercial pilots with a cockpit carry permit. They go around all security in the airports when they show the permit and they walk onto their aircraft.

 

[charlie12]

It is unlawful to carry in any Government building, any bar room, any courthouse, any school that is a weapon free zone and any airport (unless the pistol is secured and checked in as baggage). Open Carry is legal, however, you can't just go on private property and have a gun on your side.. For instance, lets say you carry your gun in Walmart, and they tell you to leave or to as you to put your weapon in your vehicle, they hold that right because it is private property. So yes, if the police respond, they CAN arrest you for disturbing the peace. Doesn't mean they will, but they can. That's the loophole with open carry.

As far as CHP giving the police probable cause to search you... it's not really probable cause to search you, but state website says that you submit to a pat down. That is simply for officer safety. There are too many things that can happen.

Welcome to BS and good first post. Stick around and you'll find out some of that is ********.

 

[JLouv]

It wouldn't need a permit if carrying a concealed handgun in public was a right.

I can (should be able to) "bear" arms in the manner I see fit.

You've swallowed the lie......hook. Line. & sinker.

If you believe what you typed, I just have to assume that you also believe that it's OK for the fed to ban magazines that hold more than 10rnds.

Having a 30rnd mag isn't a "right."

Do you Understand? If you (we) cave in on ANYTHING.....we open the door to the next baby step.

It's GOT to stop. And all you so called "permit holders" have not helped. You have all given up that "baby step" already.

 

[charlie12]

herohog too bad somebody from LSP can't come sit in for his CHP class undercover. "Instructors" like that need to be pulled from the instructor list.

 

[JLouv]

herohog too bad somebody from LSP can't come sit in for his CHP class undercover. "Instructors" like that need to be pulled from the instructor list.

+1

 

[Scott.Thornton]

herohog too bad somebody from LSP can't come sit in for his CHP class undercover. "Instructors" like that need to be pulled from the instructor list.

+1 Charlie

 

[returningliberty]

I can (should be able to) "bear" arms in the manner I see fit.

You've swallowed the lie......hook. Line. & sinker.

If you believe what you typed, I just have to assume that you also believe that it's OK for the fed to ban magazines that hold more than 10rnds.

Having a 30rnd mag isn't a "right."

Do you Understand? If you (we) cave in on ANYTHING.....we open the door to the next baby step.

It's GOT to stop. And all you so called "permit holders" have not helped. You have all given up that "baby step" already.

Ok... Lets take this logically for a minute instead of making wild accusations about a magazine ban. Not even Leonidas makes leaps like that.

You have an individual right to have and carry a firearm. Weather it's for protection against a tyrannical government, gangsters, or just because you want to have it is none of my business. Further, you have a right to carry that firearm on your person openly.

You also have a right to travel. You do not, however, have a right to use a motorized vehicle on public roads. I assume you have no problem getting a driver's license? That's why the state requires you to have a DL. It's a privilege, not a right. With me so far?

The state is not infringing on your right to bear arms. You can OC all day long, just like you can ride your bicycle to wherever you want to go, no DL required. However, if you want to hide that gun from your fellow citizens and Law Enforcement, the state requires you have a license first. Just like driving a car.

Now, to answer your asinine claims of my support of a magazine ban, I'll have you know, that I support the legal possession of all types of firearms and their accessories and am one of the most Pro 2nd amendment police officers you'll ever meet. I was an Oath Keeper before They, too, went totally insane.

Your ignorance of rights vs privileges and your willing to toss claims around proves to me that you, sir, are the west end of an east bound horse. Turn south and keep walking 'till your hat floats.

 

[JLouv]

I appreciate the well articulated rebuttal.

Thanks!!

I somewhat apologize for the magazine thing.


But "bear" and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are beyond being translated in a truthful & honest manner because the "laws" haven't been challenged properly. Yet.

You've no ground to stand upon. The motor vehicle thing is not in the constitution or bill of rights so your counterpoint is invalid. Your comparison isn't even remotely similar. I never mentioned open carry, but you did and I accept your slight concession to my point. I have the RIGHT to BEAR arms. However, if I choose to EXPOSE (foolhardy I might add) that right is up to me and guaranteed. As is my right to not. That's where we differ. You are wrong in your opinion, but law supports you. For now.

I'm not condoning "criminal" behavior.......I'm just pointing out the fact that people are paying for something that shouldn't be for sale.

 

[Scott.Thornton]

Ok... Lets take this logically for a minute instead of making wild accusations about a magazine ban. Not even Leonidas makes leaps like that.

You have an individual right to have and carry a firearm. Weather it's for protection against a tyrannical government, gangsters, or just because you want to have it is none of my business. Further, you have a right to carry that firearm on your person openly.

You also have a right to travel. You do not, however, have a right to use a motorized vehicle on public roads. I assume you have no problem getting a driver's license? That's why the state requires you to have a DL. It's a privilege, not a right. With me so far?

The state is not infringing on your right to bear arms. You can OC all day long, just like you can ride your bicycle to wherever you want to go, no DL required. However, if you want to hide that gun from your fellow citizens and Law Enforcement, the state requires you have a license first. Just like driving a car.

Now, to answer your asinine claims of my support of a magazine ban, I'll have you know, that I support the legal possession of all types of firearms and their accessories and am one of the most Pro 2nd amendment police officers you'll ever meet. I was an Oath Keeper before They, too, went totally insane.

Your ignorance of rights vs privileges and your willing to toss claims around proves to me that you, sir, are the west end of an east bound horse. Turn south and keep walking 'till your hat floats.

You actually compared driving to the ability to carry a firearm however I feel necesary. I appreciate you being part of the problem. The fact of the matter is still the fact that driving is not a protected right, Our ability to protect ourselves how we see fit is.

 

[Jack]

But "bear" and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are beyond being translated in a truthful & honest manner because the "laws" haven't been challenged properly.

I'm a younger guy, in high school when the AWB expired, and I always see people saying it and concealed carry permitting are unconstitutional. Why hasn't there been, or was there, a challenge?

 

[JNieman]

It wouldn't need a permit if carrying a concealed handgun in public was a right.

That's the worst logic I've ever seen.

Rights do not come from the Government. Permits do. Rights are natural-born/given-by-Creator, and limitations or hurdles are infringements. The existence of a permit does not justify it's purpose, nor does it reclassify a right as a privilege.

 

[oleheat]

It wouldn't need a permit if carrying a concealed handgun in public was a right.

True, currently (from a legal standpoint) it is not a right here in LA. But it should be for the people like ourselves who aren't a threat to society. The people who are a threat to society are doing it anyway- and couldn't care less about the privilege vs right arguement. Or, from what I see, going to jail over it.

 

[JLouv]

I'm a younger guy, in high school when the AWB expired, and I always see people saying it and concealed carry permitting are unconstitutional. Why hasn't there been, or was there, a challenge?

I can only take a guess. I'd say it's a combination of the political climate and money with some extra emphasis on the money.

It costs a lot to challenge the state.

What I find really curious is the ppl here that are enthusiastically fundamentally opposed to even the mention of gun registration eagerly lining up to be documented and permit-ted.

 

[TomTerrific]

What I find really curious is the ppl here that are enthusiastically fundamentally opposed to even the mention of gun registration eagerly lining up to be documented and permit-ted.

You noticed that, too.

A bit of a disconnect, I think.