"Do you carry a gun?"

[twoguns]

Here is what I sent to Mr. Finley.

Hello Mr. Finley,

I was recently informed of your interest in the subject of individuals who carry firearms. Allow me to share my perspective.

Three years ago I moved to PA. Previously, I lived in the State of Washington for 21 years where I raised my family. In Washington I possessed a Concealed Carry Pistol permit. That state's permit authorizes the holder to carry only a pistol. It specifically does not allow concealed carry of a knife.

The Constitution for the State of Washington states at Article I, SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

It was always puzzling to me that the state's constitution specifically recognized the right of the individual to bear arms yet the legislature mandated a permit to do so. Isn't it odd that a right can be regulated for a fee? Would you consider that an impairment?

Another curious aspect of that state's constitution was the specific mandate that
"but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." Isn't a city, indeed, a state a corporate entity? How is it that such a corporate body may maintain an armed body of men in the form of municipal and state police?

I complied with the statutes and paid the required fee to acquire a CCP (concealed carry pistol) permit to avoid any complications with the armed body of men.

Now, I live in PA and the Constitution for the Commonwealth states that; Inherent Rights of Mankind Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Furthermore;

Right to Bear Arms Section 21
The right of the citizen to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

This seems rather straight forward and easy to understand. Why is it that the legislature has enacted a law requiring citizens to pay a fee and answer questions before being legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm on their person or in the vehicle? In fact, when I moved here I attempted to comply with the licensing process but was asked a series of even more intrusive questions than the legislature had established under the statute. The sheriff of Monroe County wanted much more information than I was comfortable divulging. His deputy in charge of gun licenses refused to accept my application 4 times because I would not answer certain questions. I eventually contacted the sheriff directly, and the state representative for this district for a discussion about my background, credentials and experience. I have no criminal record. I have over 120 hours of training certification in the use of firearms for self defense. I have carried a handgun concealed for over 20 years and have been involved in shooting activities for much longer than that. The sheriff eventually accepted my application without me answering all the additional questions. The county issued my license to carry firearms after 40 days.

I can tell you that there is a growing movement across America to assert individual liberty and the right to carry a gun is an integral part of that movement. It is an odd fact that in a nation that was born out of the assertion of inalienable rights and among them the right to keep and bear arms, we who carry firearms for self defense have become a despised minority in our own homeland. Why is that I wonder?

As a member of the press I wonder how you might feel if government mandated you to acquire a license to publish your thoughts and ideas. This is not meant to be an attack on you personally but we in the gun community have watched as our rights have been restricted and infringed and the press has cheered the government on with glee.

I look forward to reading what conclusions you draw from this exercise. I encourage you to be open minded. Gun owners are not the enemy of the American people. I do wonder about the motivations of a government who would seek to infringe a long held basic human right.

Respectfully submitted,

XXXXX XXXXX (name redacted for privacy)

P.S. I will be posting this on the state's premier gun forum PAFOA.ORG

[jpg5080]

I'm interested to see where this goes.

The blurb sounds like it could a reporter trying to find a good story, or maybe a troll looking for names and emails of gun-owners.

Keep us posted on what responses you guys get.

[andrewjs18]

Here is what I sent to Mr. Finley.

Hello Mr. Finley,

I was recently informed of your interest in the subject of individuals who carry firearms. Allow me to share my perspective.

**cut to save on space**

good email there, twoguns. maybe I'll send him 1 with a few of my gun articles.

[GunLawyer001]

Would you want molested boys to cooperate with NAMBLA if the pederasts asked them for "stories about how being involved with a loving older man has affected your life"?

Would you help Al Qaida with their research project into how America treats its Muslim population?

Would you expect a fair and balanced story about typical black families in the KKK newsletter?

Then why the HELL would you expect that the leftist propaganda rag The Inquirer would portray gun carriers as anything other than a paranoid group of quirky misanthropes with malicious tendencies, all hoping for the chance to gun down some home boys or swarthy foreigners?

[andrewjs18]

Would you want molested boys to cooperate with NAMBLA if the pederasts asked them for "stories about how being involved with a loving older man has affected your life"?

Would you help Al Qaida with their research project into how America treats its Muslim population?

Would you expect a fair and balanced story about typical black families in the KKK newsletter?

Then why the HELL would you expect that the leftist propaganda rag The Inquirer would portray gun carriers as anything other than a paranoid group of quirky misanthropes with malicious tendencies, all hoping for the chance to gun down some home boys or swarthy foreigners?

would it better to try to convince someone our argument is better and more sound than theirs or to keep pushing them away so they continue to stereotype us? I'd rather attempt to educate than to blow someone off.

[GunLawyer001]

would it better to try to convince someone our argument is better and more sound than theirs or to keep pushing them away so they continue to stereotype us? I'd rather attempt to educate than to blow someone off.

Charlie Brown would have been better off if he just assumed that Lucy wasn't going to let him kick the football.

You can't be conned without your cooperation.

[andrewjs18]

Charlie Brown would have been better off if he just assumed that Lucy wasn't going to let him kick the football.

You can't be conned without your cooperation.

and you can't break down the walls without first swinging a hammer....

do what you want; sit there and let the liberals continue to stereotype the average gun owners and complain about it on a gun forum, or try to convince them as to why their argument is flawed.

[GunLawyer001]

and you can't break down the walls without first swinging a hammer....

do what you want; sit there and let the liberals continue to stereotype the average gun owners and complain about it on a gun forum, or try to convince them as to why their argument is flawed.

I believe that I've done more than "sit here".

You're a young guy, you missed the Nixon years, and the Reagan years, so you may be excused for not understanding some truths. One of those truths is that you can't correct the media by going through the media. The Inquirer staff and management appreciate guns and gun rights to about the same extent that the 1960's media were grateful to Tricky Dick for exposing Alger Hiss. There were no press conferences or interviews or "Laugh-In" appearances that would win them over to Nixon's side, and Nixon became more laughable every time he fell into their traps.

Reagan had the same problems, but without the lingering anger over the loss of a beloved communist (although he sure tried, by toppling the Soviet Union. Leftist historians are working hard on both proving that he was wrong for doing that, and proving that he didn't do it. This makes sense to Lefty academics.) Reagan succeeded by winning the people over with success, not by sucking up to the media and cooperating with their smears.

Gun shops and gun ranges have always cooperated with the MSM, on the theory that 3 hours of video couldn't possibly be condensed into 5 minutes of anti-gun propaganda. They are always wrong.

Your progressive theory that 'it's better to try something that will probably hurt us than to not try' is a piss-poor way to accomplish anything. It's why the USA continues to pump trillions down the rathole of the "war on poverty", the war on drugs, and into failing schools, because some people think it's better to fail miserably and dig the hole deeper than to refuse to play the losing game at all.

[andrewjs18]

I believe that I've done more than "sit here".

You're a young guy, you missed the Nixon years, and the Reagan years, so you may be excused for not understanding some truths. One of those truths is that you can't correct the media by going through the media. The Inquirer staff and management appreciate guns and gun rights to about the same extent that the 1960's media were grateful to Tricky Dick for exposing Alger Hiss. There were no press conferences or interviews or "Laugh-In" appearances that would win them over to Nixon's side, and Nixon became more laughable every time he fell into their traps.

Reagan had the same problems, but without the lingering anger over the loss of a beloved communist (although he sure tried, by toppling the Soviet Union. Leftist historians are working hard on both proving that he was wrong for doing that, and proving that he didn't do it. This makes sense to Lefty academics.) Reagan succeeded by winning the people over with success, not by sucking up to the media and cooperating with their smears.

Gun shops and gun ranges have always cooperated with the MSM, on the theory that 3 hours of video couldn't possibly be condensed into 5 minutes of anti-gun propaganda. They are always wrong.

Your progressive theory that 'it's better to try something that will probably hurt us than to not try' is a piss-poor way to accomplish anything. It's why the USA continues to pump trillions down the rathole of the "war on poverty", the war on drugs, and into failing schools, because some people think it's better to fail miserably and dig the hole deeper than to refuse to play the losing game at all.

please note that when I said "sitting here" I meant in this particular matter, not in the grand scheme of things.

I suppose if gun owners stay completely silent when an anti-gunner or a newspaper wants to run a story, we'll truly convince others and bring them to our side.... what exactly would win over an anti if you don't try to engage them and just shun them?

and please, I'm far from a "progressive". I'm not a guy that wants to do something to try to fix a problem you can't fix by government intervention. Everything you mentioned was the government intervening, not private individuals trying to convince other private individuals, or private entities. I want to open minds and educate them, not sit around while they continue to pigeonhole us.

[GunLawyer001]

please note that when I said "sitting here" I meant in this particular matter, not in the grand scheme of things.

I suppose if gun owners stay completely silent when an anti-gunner or a newspaper wants to run a story, we'll truly convince others and bring them to our side.... what exactly would win over an anti if you don't try to engage them and just shun them?

and please, I'm far from a "progressive". I'm not a guy that wants to do something to try to fix a problem you can't fix by government intervention. Everything you mentioned was the government intervening, not private individuals trying to convince other private individuals, or private entities. I want to open minds and educate them, not sit around while they continue to pigeonhole us.

The proof is in the pudding. Let's check back on this and see what the article says. My money is on "these gun nuts are fruitcakes, here's proof."