OC license?

[dmpl]

Guys,

I have been lurking on this forum for a very long time. I have tried to keep up with DC incident and was lurking long before the Franklin Co. sheriff took Greg's LTCF (later restored).

While I haven't OC'd yet, I have thought about it and defend the rights of others to do so.

This past week I overheard at work a conversation between two women discussing OC. I couldn't clearly hear all the details so I approached them. The conversation stopped when I got there so I asked about it. Only one gave a response to the effect that she didn't think OC was legal and she was against "people carrying guns in plain sight". It makes her "uncomfortable".

I explained that OC is legal in PA and a long discussion ensued. I defended OC and explained that many people she meets or sees MAY still be carrying concealed but she just doesn't know it. We discussed at length concealed carry and contrasted it with open carry. I was finally able to convince her that there was no more danger associated with OC vs. CC. However, she stated, "But I am still uncomfortable with the fact that anyone can open carry. I don't have a problem with people like you carrying; who have gone through a background check and obtained a license (LTCF). But I don't think just anyone should be allowed to do it. What's wrong with making everyone who wants to carry (concealed or open) get a license so the background check with the sheriff is required before they can do it?" NOTE: Quotes are a paraphrase & based upon my recollection.

I explained that "jumping through hoops" to obtain an LTCF in my mind violates the spirit of the PA Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. But those of us who have done so, did it only so that we could protect our loved ones and ourselves. She stated she understood but was afraid that if more people knew they COULD open carry without a license, they WOULD. In her mind, the increased number of "guns on the street", was bound to lead to more shootings. "Why, take road rage for instance!" Honestly, I am not sure that I can disagree. For example, if the people who are permitted carry are the same people who ram another car with their own vehicle over a road rage incident, who's to say they wouldn't shoot? Stupid people do stupid things. Those type of incidents are surely what will get get guns banned!!

Consider this: How many of us complain that roadways aren't safe because of irresponsible drivers; be they elderly, young, reckless, etc.? If testing (used as an analogy, however poor, to a background check) prohibits those who fail from getting a driver's license, isn't that a good thing? Are we not all safer? Don't we all agree that folks with mental impairments, felonies, etc. should be prohibited from carrying a gun? If the sheriff finds something to prohibit some dangerous person from carrying, wouldn't that be good thing as well?

Given the fact that we acquiesced in order to obtain our LTCF, do you think in the future that only those with a LCTF will be permitted to OC?

As for me, I believe it is a very real possibility. Not because I totally support it, but because I believe that it will be used as a political ploy so the politicians can find a compromise to help satisfy the anti's, help LEO's (by simplifying a check during a stop, I know, I know), and satisfy 2nd Amend. supporters by still allowing OC without completely stomping on their rights. While licensing will never filter out all the irresponsible applicants, do you think it is the best we can hope for, short of the status quo?

As I see it, there are at least two dangers on this. One, the licensing criteria could change making it unnecessarily restrictive. The second danger lies in the fact that LTCF's are revoked far too easily with little or no consequence in doing so improperly.

Now I'll sit back and read your thoughts as I have some really mixed feelings about this licensing issue. But remember, for all the fear mongering, there is still Vermont.

[Evolution]

Well you need to go through the background check to purchase a firearm as well... I mean there are probably ways around it. Criminals always seem to find their way around the laws though.

[jahwarrior72]

i think it's possible in the near future.....it's reality in philly, already. i'm sure other towns would like to be more "metropolitan", and follow their lead. how much would you bet dickson city has something in the works?

[Evolution]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

i think it's possible in the near future.....it's reality in philly, already. i'm sure other towns would like to be more "metropolitan", and follow their lead. how much would you bet dickson city has something in the works?

Preemption would invalidate any laws not made by the state legislature. Philly is the exception as a city of the first class. That was written into the laws by the state.

[Statkowski]

Concerning the road rage crap, the Brady Bunch cried up a storm about "road rage incidents" occuring all over the place when Florida first lightened up on its licensing requirements. Never happened. Any state that chose to lighted up its requirements heard the same crap over and over again. Never happened. If a person is going to go through life constantly worrying about "But, what if.....", then they might as well stay in bed and never leave the house.

Point out to the lady that approximately 1 in 23 Pennsylvanians is licensed to carry concealed, and very well may be doing so as she passes them on the street.

Open carry is a right, as guaranteed by the State Constitution. To impose any licensing requirement on it would convert it from a right to a privilege.

[jahwarrior72]

Originally Posted by jcheinaman

Preemption would invalidate any laws not made by the state legislature. Philly is the exception as a city of the first class. That was written into the laws by the state.

i understand the law; that won't stop others from trying, though.

[Pa. Patriot]

Criminals do not follow the law. Why do we continually entertain "laws" that do not effect what we are trying to combat?

[XD40coyote]

I figure that the bad road rage types being as explosive as they act, likely have some history of at least misdemeanors that might get them turned down if they applied for an LTCF. Or they have some bad mental issues that have likley gotten them in trouble before. Also keep in mind that some people act that way ONLY when driving, but for some reason not when on foot. I used to know someone like that. He would get into this macho thing while driving, but in a mall or somewhere if someone acted crappy towards him, he showed no signs of wanting to act violent, though he would say things sometimes, or at least just complain with me about it. In fact I was the more vocal one on foot if someone ticked me off when I was with this guy. Like the one time some bratty kids wouldn't shut up and the parents were totally oblivious, so I shouted out loud something about stupid people and their bratty kids, and I got the stinkeyes, but they rounded the kids up.

Nowadays I don't really give a dingaling about most people's rude behavior, except when they do stupid things while driving that get my adrenaline going, esp tailgating me on winding country roads, or hogging the road up on narrow roads and just about try to run me off the road. But I don't shake fists or give the finger. What is the point? Some people are like cats, you can't really punish a cat for acting bad, they don't listen and they don't care. I try to make up for the rude people it seems. I open and hold doors for elderly people, let people in front of me in my lane, etc.

[JoeWilliams]

Oh goodie!!! A license to exercise a Constitutional right!!!

Can I also have one to speak freely?

How bout one to go to church?

May I, pretty please, have a license that will allow me to gather with my friends?

Mother, may I? I'm a pussy, not a free American, so I am afraid to act without the government's permission, and I fear those who exercise freedom, so they should be controlled as well.

[Damage control]

Sleep easy!

Rep. Ed Sta-back, D-Olyphant
“They have every right to carry a weapon, a handgun, and I will defend that right to do that,” Mr. Staback said. “And I think the support wouldn’t be in General Assembly, where that change would need to be made. ... I think it would be extremely, extremely difficult.”

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...d=590572&rfi=8

DC