Gun Control & RKBA

spin

(17,493 posts)

60. If a person has a concealed weapons permit ...

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 01:25 AM

Apr 2012

you should not be able to determine that he is carrying. In Florida, a recent law was passed that allows a person with a carry permit to inadvertently flash his weapon without being charged with a crime. For example the individual is walking through a parking lot and a gust of wind catches the jacket that is covering his holstered firearm and another person catches a glimpse of it. That does not mean that he is dangerous in the least.

I have carried on a regular basis for fifteen years and I don't believe a single person that I encountered in a store or while walking through a parking lot had any knowledge that I had a snub nosed revolver in my pants pocket. I have absolutely no desire to intimidate others or scare them. I rarely carry a firearm in an inside a belt holster with a garment covering it. When I do, I am extremely careful not to flash it.

If I was in a store with you, you would have no reason to worry. My handgun is in a pocket holster and I never touch it unless I have a damn good reason. A modern holstered handgun is safe. Even in the extremely unlikely event that the firearm dropped out of my pocket, it wouldn't discharge. I have never had this happen and I doubt if I ever will. I would have to have someone grab me, hold me upside down and shake me for my weapon to fall out of its quality holster. It probably would stay put even if this happened.

You have no realistic reason to fear a responsible person who is licensed to carry unless you decide to attack him with the intention of inflicting serious injury or to kill him. You have good reason to fear a criminal who is illegally carrying a firearm.

Obviously there are a very few individuals who carry firearms and view themselves as vigilantes or cop wannabes. Your chances of getting shot by one of these fools is far less than your chances of getting hit by lighting in a thunderstorm in Florida or winning the Florida lotto.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

286 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Which Neighbors Have Concealed Weapons Permits? (Redwood City, Ca. publishes list) [View all] shadowrider Apr 2012 OP

Also a list of where to steal a gun. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #1

+1000 baldguy Apr 2012 #3

Good to see that you at least pipoman Apr 2012 #8

One way or another, all illegal guns come from "responsible gun owners". baldguy Apr 2012 #11

One way or another discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #18

There was also a story burf Apr 2012 #20

Yes, I remember. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #25

some come from straw buyers...not to be confused with responsible gun owners. ileus Apr 2012 #26

K&R n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #61

You do know that your reasoning implies that it is impossible to responsibly own anything. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #70

Who is the "she" you are referring to? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #109

also which houses you wont get shot at if you want to break in and rob. vr94rx7 Apr 2012 #141

Publishing a list like this is just a bad idea all around. geckosfeet Apr 2012 #2

I ain't seen a gun enthusiast yet Pholus Apr 2012 #5

Except they don't give you a name and address on the internet. krispos42 Apr 2012 #7

Given the entirety of the information, adding one more bit does nothing... nt Pholus Apr 2012 #14

It does a lot rrneck Apr 2012 #16

+ 1,000,000 discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #19

So the rest is okay then? Pholus Apr 2012 #38

Pointless snark. rrneck Apr 2012 #45

tl;dr Pholus Apr 2012 #46

Whatever. rrneck Apr 2012 #47

tl;dr: too long didn't read. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #49

For a 34 word post. LOL! nt rrneck Apr 2012 #51

Not my fault you can be tedious in so few words. Pholus Apr 2012 #53

Rrady to deal with the issue yet? rrneck Apr 2012 #54

The moment you built your strawman I figured this conversation was not serious. Pholus Apr 2012 #56

I guess not. rrneck Apr 2012 #65

Which civil right is being eroded? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #111

Two come to mind. rrneck Apr 2012 #124

Doesn't divulge what they have on their person Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #129

Distinction without a difference. rrneck Apr 2012 #132

No right, and as I said, no interest. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #135

Until you can prove rrneck Apr 2012 #145

The drama is strong in this one. Pholus Apr 2012 #142

Are you familiar with the phrase rrneck Apr 2012 #143

Yet basically both of your other examples are already information our government takes. Pholus Apr 2012 #144

By what right do you clsim access to that information? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #146

Who said I even care? Pholus Apr 2012 #149

So rrneck Apr 2012 #150

Pretty much the same as you. Pholus Apr 2012 #151

It must be. rrneck Apr 2012 #152

Meh. I think I'll wait to see what else is on.... Pholus Apr 2012 #155

it would be difficult rrneck Apr 2012 #156

Yet you continued to reply...repeatedly. Pholus Apr 2012 #169

No less difficult now. rrneck Apr 2012 #172

I think if you put the question to the people you'd be surprised Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #193

And I'm sure they'd also like to know.. X_Digger Apr 2012 #198

I know what at least eighty million of them would say. rrneck Apr 2012 #201

I know one thing most gun owners would agree with. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #204

Wrong. More like more than half disagree woth you rrneck Apr 2012 #207

We all know how that worked. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #209

How? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #213

Not by any referendum, that's for sure. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #214

That post was pathetic. Even for you. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #215

I know. I think we're suffering from the same syndrome. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #216

Yep rrneck Apr 2012 #217

You really shouldn't eat that crap, it'll kill you. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #218

Whatever. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #219

no need to announce gejohnston Apr 2012 #208

Of course. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #210

"the details of their personal security arrangements" Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #113

Pointless question. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #120

Pointless question to a pointless statement. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #122

You're out of touch. rrneck Apr 2012 #125

I don't and don't care what they carry in their pockets. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #128

Are you a member of "the public"? rrneck Apr 2012 #130

Yes, and your point is? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #137

LOL! rrneck Apr 2012 #147

You are hiding out from your abusive ex spouse one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #165

Well that truly sucks. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #167

So the papers' libertarianism gejohnston Apr 2012 #173

Hold on. Which paper's libertarianism and who got killed? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #175

tabloid faux journalism gejohnston Apr 2012 #177

OK Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #183

what treats are those? gejohnston Apr 2012 #184

I think that was Orange County Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #185

The story is not "anecdotal" to the person who 's house burned down. PavePusher Apr 2012 #278

LOL Did you ever see a phone book? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #282

Phone books do not post lists of personal valubles and weapons.... PavePusher Apr 2012 #284

"Personal valuables"? Like what? Your gun? LOL Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #286

Those cases are older. one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #182

"One has to wonder what would have happened had they not applied for permits." WinniSkipper Apr 2012 #191

It is in no essential different from ""If she didn't dress that way...". Situational ethics, IOW. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #196

Or as he asserted elsewhere, 'karma'. n/t X_Digger Apr 2012 #199

Not even close. Try some logic. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #223

beware of dog signs gejohnston Apr 2012 #224

Exactly! Thanks for explaining. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #228

The Ohio case is a bit twisted. one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #220

This list wasn't of gun owners, but licensed carriers. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #225

Distiction without a difference one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #229

I was referring to Redwood City Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #230

Are you sure? What method did you use to detect the 'enthusiasts' who never petronius Apr 2012 #22

I'm sure there are a few, but they're HARDLY some silent majority. Pholus Apr 2012 #39

Sure, I'd find a pressing need to be somewhere else too, if I'd met that guy petronius Apr 2012 #41

I appreciate the gun owners and CCWers who keep it to themselves when it is appropriate. Pholus Apr 2012 #43

I do veer away from people who seem to like stroking their guns a bit to much. gejohnston Apr 2012 #200

But that's a voluntary action. NewMoonTherian Apr 2012 #94

you haven't met me then shedevil69taz Apr 2012 #244

Dunno much about it. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #6

Hey, they have nothing to hide, right? TheCowsCameHome Apr 2012 #4

So you believe that the ex of a known violent spouse, pipoman Apr 2012 #12

Only if they want to carry a gun around. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #114

Brilliant pipoman Apr 2012 #154

What is with the histrionics? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #166

And what "greater good" would that be? pipoman Apr 2012 #202

No, it's not first amendment privilege Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #203

what does that have to do with us? gejohnston Apr 2012 #205

Not the drug culture or the gun culture Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #211

Wrong again pipoman Apr 2012 #206

The publishing of public information is not an invasion of privacy Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #212

I listed several examples of your theory being wrong pipoman Apr 2012 #221

The irony is thick DonP Apr 2012 #13

The reporter is finding out just how much of one it can be ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #15

I wonder how she likes it now. shadowrider Apr 2012 #23

Editor, publisher and the board will be next DonP Apr 2012 #28

We don't live in a world easy to hide in Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #115

How interesting. When the shoe is on the other foot. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #227

Does that analogy apply to the burf Apr 2012 #21

No matter the context, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is a nonsensical petronius Apr 2012 #24

You sound like a cop hassling someone into a search. Union Scribe Apr 2012 #57

You can't be serious. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #71

I have a lot of stuff to hide. NewMoonTherian Apr 2012 #96

the very name of the permit shedevil69taz Apr 2012 #245

Nice pipoman Apr 2012 #9

In non f'up states, no justification or perceived need is required for CCWs. ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #17

Publishing that information may be legal but it's fucked up like a football bat slackmaster Apr 2012 #10

"may be legal but it's fucked up" Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #116

Let me explain something about people who have CCW permits in Redwood City and most of California slackmaster Apr 2012 #131

It isn't a question of right or wrong Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #136

The exercise of rights always carries responsibilities slackmaster Apr 2012 #153

Why would someone with a gun be attacked? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #164

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of carrying a _concealed_ weapon slackmaster Apr 2012 #170

I think that is the whole point. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #176

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? slackmaster Apr 2012 #178

Am I being obtuse? LOL Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #181

The fact that it has been published puts the CCW holders in much greater danger than a random thug slackmaster Apr 2012 #186

OK, let's say only their enemies know they are armed. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #189

Perhaps they already 'got out of dodge' and their location wasn't known to their stalker.. X_Digger Apr 2012 #190

In the local paper? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #192

You mean like the Memphis paper did, and published the whole state?? X_Digger Apr 2012 #195

It seems that your goal is to run people who have CCW permits out of town slackmaster Apr 2012 #194

Neither do I Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #197

Love it. Nobody needs to be carrying a gun around in secret. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #27

no they don't gejohnston Apr 2012 #29

Anyone carrying a gun should be known to the public. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #32

and if this disclosure causes any harm gejohnston Apr 2012 #58

That's a great idea ... spin Apr 2012 #59

I don't dislike cops Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #64

Everytime a cop conducts a traffic stop ... spin Apr 2012 #69

I was a cop, in a country where they don't routinely carry. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #83

You realize UK gejohnston Apr 2012 #93

Yes, unfortunately I do realize that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #97

Great point. NewMoonTherian Apr 2012 #100

I can relate to a degree gejohnston Apr 2012 #110

Anyone who works for law enforcement deserves respect ... spin Apr 2012 #101

Don't like cops carrying guns, move to England, they don't carry there rl6214 Apr 2012 #105

Classic right wing response Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #107

classic about what, proving you are wrong? rl6214 Apr 2012 #157

No, they mean classic like this: greyl Apr 2012 #158

Who's running away? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #161

"You don't like it here you can just fuck off to where you came from " rl6214 Apr 2012 #179

I like clarifying and interpreting and reading between the lines Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #180

You like making shit up rl6214 Apr 2012 #187

No. rrneck Apr 2012 #68

I may not have that right, legally Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #76

Bullshit. rrneck Apr 2012 #82

There should be a three day written notification period prior to a burglarly. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #73

Don't know what burglary has to do with concealed carry Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #77

Depending upon the state you may be required to obtain a CCW just to posses a handgun in your home. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #84

What state would that be? And a shotgun would serve better in the home IMO Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #85

You can't get a CCW for a scatter gun! Remmah2 Apr 2012 #95

Glad to hear that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #98

There you go, easy access to firearms. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #102

For someone who's *more* likely to misuse it than a CCW holder would... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #134

There's absolutely no reason to believe that any of the people listed in petronius Apr 2012 #30

Only information which is in the interests of public safety. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #33

But there is no public safety benefit from publishing this info - what reasonable petronius Apr 2012 #34

Public safety benefits from publishing, not deception. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #35

if you know of any of these gejohnston Apr 2012 #36

How would I know who they were? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #37

If a person has a concealed weapons permit ... spin Apr 2012 #60

I don't see this in terms of likelihood of being shot. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #63

And your fear of the lawful... PavePusher Apr 2012 #67

Show me where I ever said I was afraid of guns or anything else except hurricanes. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #78

It's the only possible explaination. PavePusher Apr 2012 #87

I don't have a desire to know. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #88

Then please explain what other excuse can be used for this vaporous "right to know". PavePusher Apr 2012 #92

If you don't know the difference, I can't help you. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #99

It is statistically reasonable to be apprehensive of criminals ... spin Apr 2012 #72

I don't live my life by statistics Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #79

True. However that doesn't mean that a person who is legally carrying a firearm ... spin Apr 2012 #103

I totally agree Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #108

True. However injuring or killing another person does not require a firearm. (n/t) spin Apr 2012 #112

Also true. See, we agree on lots of things. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #139

We do indeed agree on many things... spin Apr 2012 #140

If all who carry were endowed with that reasoning Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #162

Would you prefer that I carry a Kukri? Concealed of course. oneshooter Apr 2012 #148

Do you really want to know? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #163

Your statement exposes your bias: PavePusher Apr 2012 #168

Thats ok PP, his bias and inability to understand a different POV oneshooter Apr 2012 #171

In Florida you can carry a concealed Kukri ... spin Apr 2012 #188

LOL...Actually, that's a very poor analogy... ToolMaker Apr 2012 #252

Thank you for recognizing my total lack of aeronautical knowledge. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #253

I'm a bit confused... ToolMaker Apr 2012 #256

Let me attempt to clarify Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #257

with any freedom comes responsibility gejohnston Apr 2012 #258

I think it should be more visible than those little triangles. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #259

no they don't gejohnston Apr 2012 #260

C'mon GE. I'm not talking about hunters. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #261

check some of the other threads gejohnston Apr 2012 #262

No, most anti's are just opposed to the behavior Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #263

paranoid gejohnston Apr 2012 #264

I don't see any paranoia there, except maybe from the governor. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #265

you are joking gejohnston Apr 2012 #266

Well, why would they need to if they already have real guns? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #274

most of the extremeists gejohnston Apr 2012 #275

Well, they had to come from somewhere. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #280

There are no public safety benefits to publishing this - certainly none that outweigh petronius Apr 2012 #40

Your analogies don't work. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #42

My analogies work perfectly: you claim there is a public benefit to knowing petronius Apr 2012 #44

What does journalism have to do with anything? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #48

What the paper did had no believable effect whatsoever on public safety, petronius Apr 2012 #52

I applaud it because it exposes those who wish to carry guns. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #62

How exactly do disclosures like this one benefit public safety, and how do petronius Apr 2012 #74

How do the disclosures benefit public safety? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #75

So are you saying that the public benefit derives from pestering, shaming, petronius Apr 2012 #91

Time to give up trying to deal with this one petronius, rl6214 Apr 2012 #106

Such contradictions. beevul Apr 2012 #267

You might have noticed that I don't support armed law enforcement. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #272

I think just about everyone noticed that. beevul Apr 2012 #276

You could make them wear a sign one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #237

Maybe that's what you want for those who have no choice Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #239

not all gejohnston Apr 2012 #240

Gun owners have nothing to do with it Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #241

who said anything about Jews? gejohnston Apr 2012 #242

Maybe you were talking about gay Jews Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #243

different triangles meant different things. gejohnston Apr 2012 #277

At least we wouldn't have to wear pointy hats for being silly. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #281

Only to an extremist... beevul Apr 2012 #247

Very profound beevul. Do you ever think before you post? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #248

Only when its necessary... beevul Apr 2012 #249

Still posting your wingnut propaganda I see. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #250

Wingnut propaganda? beevul Apr 2012 #251

"inherently hostile behavior" PavePusher Apr 2012 #279

"You should call the police if they seem hostile." Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #283

"freak"? Really? PavePusher Apr 2012 #285

So much fail. beevul Apr 2012 #246

I'm shocked! one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #254

Asking them to wear a silly hat is hardly branding them Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #255

how about smokers wear a conical hat gejohnston Apr 2012 #269

Not really necessary Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #270

there are still chewers gejohnston Apr 2012 #271

And they stink too. LOL Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #273

Then voting records should be public too, amIright? PavePusher Apr 2012 #66

Wrong! Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #81

The fuck it isn't. PavePusher Apr 2012 #86

I would love to have that conversation Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #89

If the state required a permit to purchase, like a FOID oneshooter Apr 2012 #231

I don't have any thoughts either way. I think you mean Illinois btw. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #232

Yea It was Illinois, damn night shift has me all screwed up. oneshooter Apr 2012 #233

Maybe. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #234

works both ways gejohnston Apr 2012 #235

I'm not denying that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #236

They're public alright. jeepnstein Apr 2012 #238

Two birds; one stone: Where to steal a gun and then who to use it on... OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #31

No shit, why not just publish their house floorplans too Union Scribe Apr 2012 #55

I don't mind if they publish my info. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #50

Good for you. I wouldn't mind either. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #117

But...but...you will be able to defend against the Criminals R US zombie horde with your Big Gun jpak Apr 2012 #80

Shit, my neighbors see me hauling half my 'arsenal' out to my truck to go to the range about once a AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #119

Those that like this, can we have access to *your* names and addresses? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #90

Sure you can, the moment we decide to carry loaded guns around. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #118

Ahh, but YOU own a gun, you've said so in this thread. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #127

Further, you are more likely to commit a violent crime than a CCW permit holder is. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2012 #133

I don't own one at present, but that is irrelevant. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #138

If they're walking around, why does knowing their address help you? Union Scribe Apr 2012 #159

None of us like breaking the law Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #160

Accountable to who? one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #222

Then you would be correct. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #226

So this is how the antis want to remove their enemies from society. ileus Apr 2012 #104

Yup, all those "antis" are creeping up your garden path. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #121

I encourage it's use until and unless, use of "gun nut extremists" and the like are dropped as well. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #126

SCARLET LETTER. Sounds like how frothy wants to constrain porn on the web. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #123

Public lists are a bad idea.... Xela Apr 2012 #174

Did you think it was unforseen? beevul Apr 2012 #268