Author Topic: Gun Fails  (Read 21129 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6401
  • Darwins +827/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #87 on: June 14, 2013, 11:50:35 AM »
Well, conservatives sure aren't making it easy for families to have more children. How can they expect middle class people to take care of several kids if they have to work two jobs, pay off mortgage, car and student loans, take care of aging parents and constantly worry about someone getting sick or laid off? (My husband and I are in that situation and we can't imagine having more than the one kid.)

Universal health care, guaranteed unemployment insurance, day care and paid time off for parents are part of the basic social safety net for families in Europe, but Republicans think that stuff is a pie-in-the-sky commie nightmare.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2316
  • Darwins +125/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #88 on: June 14, 2013, 10:52:25 PM »
Abortions.  See...that is why the right is so anti abortion.

I don't know why they want to limit abortion. Seems the black and hispanic girls might want to have a few and that might thin out the herd. But, when has logic ever entered into these situations?

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11895
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2013, 12:23:55 AM »
So, a guy brings a gun into Disneyworld...
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/05/its-armed-world-after-all-how-much-of.html



Employees are allowed to keep guns in their vehicles while at work; so that doesn't surprise me.



You want to talk about dangrous and awful cities, try Baltimore.

Baltimore is not awful, nor quite as dangerous as it is made out to be. It certainly has its problems. Most people are not likely to venture into the areas that are bad anyway, like the west side. I go all over the city for various things. The biggest problems Baltimore has are the large tracts of dilapidated or abandoned housing. Baltimore does have some rather nice sections. The city has gone through a major renaissance that prevented it from becoming what Detroit is today and people are moving into the city every day. Baltimore just needs a lot more of the renaissance.

I've heard the same things stated about Orlando but if I feel if you don't perhaps live in a particular place, compared to your own, then you may listen to all the stories that is said about the place; or based on the minimal experience you may have had in one particular area.

Some areas are bad but that's even true for small towns.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #90 on: June 15, 2013, 09:42:49 PM »
The info the gov is collecting on us and around the world is so intensive that if it were put on paper and stacked one on top of the other it would go to the moon and back 66 million times.  That is a lot of info.  Think of the massive operation NSA has put together...buildings, computer  storage, money, personnel....all to keep us safe.  How many of us die each year to terror (not counting those of us in wars we should not be in) compared to the 30,000+ who die each year in this country alone from guns...and yet we can't even hardly talk about responsible gun control.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #91 on: June 17, 2013, 12:58:37 PM »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6401
  • Darwins +827/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #92 on: June 17, 2013, 04:37:12 PM »
The info the gov is collecting on us and around the world is so intensive that if it were put on paper and stacked one on top of the other it would go to the moon and back 66 million times.  That is a lot of info.  Think of the massive operation NSA has put together...buildings, computer  storage, money, personnel....all to keep us safe.  How many of us die each year to terror (not counting those of us in wars we should not be in) compared to the 30,000+ who die each year in this country alone from guns...and yet we can't even hardly talk about responsible gun control.

Yes indeedy. And then they say we can't afford health care, mental health counseling and unemployment benefits.....
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #93 on: June 18, 2013, 02:57:50 PM »
Should Mr Redington get his guns back?
http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130618/NEWS02/306180014/IU-student-wants-guns-back-seized-during-Bloomington-police-s-search-Lauren-Spierer
Quote
Redington wasn’t arrested last August when police found him watching the bar through a range finder and discovered two loaded semi-automatic handguns in his pockets and a loaded shotgun in the trunk of his car. Officers found another 48 weapons when they searched his Indianapolis home.

Screwtape says, hell no.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #94 on: June 19, 2013, 06:53:08 AM »
Should Mr Redington get his guns back?
http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130618/NEWS02/306180014/IU-student-wants-guns-back-seized-during-Bloomington-police-s-search-Lauren-Spierer
Quote
Redington wasn’t arrested last August when police found him watching the bar through a range finder and discovered two loaded semi-automatic handguns in his pockets and a loaded shotgun in the trunk of his car. Officers found another 48 weapons when they searched his Indianapolis home.

Screwtape says, hell no.

Why didn't they arrest him!

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #95 on: June 19, 2013, 07:26:52 AM »
Why didn't they arrest him!

On what charge?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #96 on: June 19, 2013, 07:48:42 AM »
Why didn't they arrest him!

On what charge?

Some sort of inchoate offence, an attempt maybe?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #97 on: June 19, 2013, 07:58:06 AM »
Some sort of inchoate offence, an attempt maybe?

And how would you prove mens rea?  (I'm not being snarky, here, I'm actually asking.)

EDIT:  NB that what he did does not rise to the legal definition of an "attempt".  Preparation is not considered sufficient to charge someone with an attempt.  He does, in fact, actually have to attempt something.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 08:03:15 AM by pianodwarf »
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #98 on: June 19, 2013, 08:16:08 AM »
Some sort of inchoate offence, an attempt maybe?

And how would you prove mens rea?  (I'm not being snarky, here, I'm actually asking.)
Having 2 loaded hand guns in his pockets whilst watching a bar would be a start.
They seem to have had enough evidence not to return the weapons they seized (and search for them in the 1st place.)

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #99 on: June 19, 2013, 08:22:44 AM »
Having 2 loaded hand guns in his pockets whilst watching a bar would be a start.

Yes, it would be a start, but it would not be sufficient.  Merely preparing to commit a crime is not, in itself, a crime.  If John Doe does all the research on how to build a pipe bomb, prints out all the instructions, and buys all the materials, that is not enough to charge him with a crime.  He has to actually build the pipe bomb before he can be charged.  Similarly, even if you take it as read that this guy was planning to kill someone in that bar, that's not sufficient to charge him with an inchoate offense because all he was doing was preparing to commit a crime.

Quote
They seem to have had enough evidence not to return the weapons they seized (and search for them in the 1st place.)

Well, that's the whole thing that's at issue: he is arguing that they do not, in fact, have enough evidence to have seized and/or refused to return his firearms.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #100 on: June 19, 2013, 09:07:10 AM »
Having 2 loaded hand guns in his pockets whilst watching a bar would be a start.

Yes, it would be a start, but it would not be sufficient.  Merely preparing to commit a crime is not, in itself, a crime.  If John Doe does all the research on how to build a pipe bomb, prints out all the instructions, and buys all the materials, that is not enough to charge him with a crime.  He has to actually build the pipe bomb before he can be charged.  Similarly, even if you take it as read that this guy was planning to kill someone in that bar, that's not sufficient to charge him with an inchoate offense because all he was doing was preparing to commit a crime.
Going beyond "mere"preparation is the issue in question. With bomb making, in the UK possesing instructions on how to do it can be a criminal offence. especially if you have been on fundamentalist websites as well.

Quote
They seem to have had enough evidence not to return the weapons they seized (and search for them in the 1st place.)

Well, that's the whole thing that's at issue: he is arguing that they do not, in fact, have enough evidence to have seized and/or refused to return his firearms.
True. Then the fact that they didn't arrest him would surely work in his favour?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #101 on: June 19, 2013, 09:23:30 AM »
Going beyond "mere"preparation is the issue in question.

I don't see how.  Even if you take it as read that he was preparing to kill someone in that bar, nothing that he did could be considered anything other than preparation.  Even highly extensive and detailed preparation is still just that -- preparation.  It cannot be considered an attempt.  This is probably why he never got arrested.

Quote
With bomb making, in the UK possesing instructions on how to do it can be a criminal offence. especially if you have been on fundamentalist websites as well.

Things are a little different in the United States -- we take freedom of speech and of the press very seriously, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for having instructions on how to build a bomb.  Although, admittedly, there would also be a good chance that the authorities would investigate you if it came to their attention.

Quote
Then the fact that they didn't arrest him would surely work in his favour?

Most likely, yes, although I am not a lawyer.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #102 on: June 19, 2013, 09:40:26 AM »
Going beyond "mere"preparation is the issue in question.

I don't see how.  Even if you take it as read that he was preparing to kill someone in that bar, nothing that he did could be considered anything other than preparation.  Even highly extensive and detailed preparation is still just that -- preparation.  It cannot be considered an attempt.  This is probably why he never got arrested.

This is from wiki about "preparation" in the states
"The person has dangerous proximity, or is "dangerously near and close to the accomplishment of the crime." People v. Acosta (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1993).
I think you also have a "going equipped" type statute as well.

Quote
With bomb making, in the UK possesing instructions on how to do it can be a criminal offence. especially if you have been on fundamentalist websites as well.

Things are a little different in the United States -- we take freedom of speech and of the press very seriously, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for having instructions on how to build a bomb.  Although, admittedly, there would also be a good chance that the authorities would investigate you if it came to their attention.
I don't really know. US anti-terror laws are pretty terrifying.

Then the fact that they didn't arrest him would surely work in his favour?

Most likely, yes, although I am not a lawyer.
[/quote]
I would be interested to hear whether he gets his guns back. It seems to me that it should have been an all or nothing i.e. arrest him for something or let him go without penalty.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #103 on: June 19, 2013, 10:04:14 AM »
This is from wiki about "preparation" in the states
"The person has dangerous proximity, or is "dangerously near and close to the accomplishment of the crime." People v. Acosta (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1993).

The problem is, as a matter of law, you cannot take it as read that he was even contemplating a crime, let alone preparing for one.  As a matter of common sense, of course, being armed and looking at a building thru a scope is a pretty clear indication that he was contemplating a crime, but as a matter of law, it isn't sufficient to demonstrate he intended to do so.  If an innocuous explanation is feasible and cannot be disproven, presumption of innocence applies.

For example, if he had a license to carry -- which he almost certainly did, since he wasn't arrested -- then his carrying two handguns cannot be construed as an implication of criminal intent.  And as far as looking at the bar thru the scope goes, there could be all kinds of other reasons for that.  For example, did he suspect his wife of cheating on him with a man she was meeting in the bar?  Was he trying to find evidence of the infidelity?  Etc etc.

Quote
I think you also have a "going equipped" type statute as well.

That varies from state to state, but it doesn't apply to someone carrying a handgun if he has a license to do so.

Quote
I don't really know. US anti-terror laws are pretty terrifying.

Yes, that's true.

Quote
I would be interested to hear whether he gets his guns back. It seems to me that it should have been an all or nothing i.e. arrest him for something or let him go without penalty.

This, too, varies from state to state, but for the most part, that's correct.  There are some states that have statutes for confiscating someone's guns under some of the more extreme circumstances; for example, if someone openly says he is planning to commit suicide, some states allow the authorities to forcibly disarm that person.  Not sure if there's any relevant law in Indiana.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2179
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #104 on: June 19, 2013, 11:02:36 AM »
Dear screwtape,

First, thanks for being patient. Second, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Third, my apologies for some of the more flippant remarks. I don't really take this topic all that seriously, for a multitude of reasons. But I understand that you do take it quite seriously, so I'll attempt to respond in kind.

Instead of quoting the entire conversation, I will attempt to summarize my position with the hope that it satisfies your line of questioning. If it does not, I apologize. If there is anything you'd like further clarification on, I'll be happy to answer.

There is no guarantee for anyone to form an insurrection. That is not to say that there is no right for an insurrection. But, as you're aware, rights get trampled on regularly. So when you ask who gets to decide, I can only say it's those that have enough of an organization to actually get it done, because if they don't get it done, I guess their decisions didn't mean much in the end. To paraphrase an old saying; If insurgents win, they're freedom fighters. If they lose, they're criminals. That's just the way it is, and I've no issue with that.

Justification is another topic entirely, which is why I asked you when armed insurrection would be justified. My feeling is that it may be justified when the vast majority of the citizens have no legal recourse for liberty and justice. I know you like to list examples that you believe demonstrate that this has already happened, and perhaps it has, to a degree. Maybe the injustices need more scale, more citizens affected, or more general outrage to motivate people to start doing something about it. Or maybe there isn't as much injustice as needed to spark one. Of course, in a real republic, the "doing something about it" should and does lead people to organize themselves as a voting base, i.e: Tea Party. It's been a fairly effective tool, wouldn't you say? And that's kind of the scary part, isn't it? That someone can organize and motivate that many of a certain type of people.

Your answer to the question of justifiaction leads me to believe that since you don't think it would ever work, it should never be attempted. So why does it work elsewhere?

And, what would motivate you to take up arms against a gov't? Is there anything? If you don't think that a fair question, I've no desire to push for your answer.

To summarize, I do believe there are situations where armed revolt is a viable option, but it is going to be subjective, and there is no complete set of criteria that absolutely must be met.

To the victor go the spoils.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #105 on: June 19, 2013, 01:17:17 PM »
PD,

Do you not find it a bit of a contradiction in principle, that there are laws in some states that allow one to kill another person for trespassing, or for appearing threatening ("stand your ground" laws), whereas the criminal justice system can't even arrest someone who is pretty clearly preparing to shoot up a bar?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #106 on: June 19, 2013, 01:22:20 PM »
PD,

Do you not find it a bit of a contradiction in principle, that there are laws in some states that allow one to kill another person for trespassing, or for appearing threatening ("stand your ground" laws), whereas the criminal justice system can't even arrest someone who is pretty clearly preparing to shoot up a bar?

(Setting aside for the moment that you do not appear to have a proper understanding of how "stand your ground" laws work.)

No, I do not.  Briefly, it has to do with presumption of innocence.  I'd explain in more detail, but to be honest, it doesn't sound to me like you're really interested in hearing my views.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #107 on: June 19, 2013, 01:30:54 PM »
I guess I don't understand.  My impression is that it is up to the individual, under "stand your ground" laws, to determine whether he or she is in danger and respond accordingly.  If one sees someone aiming at them through a gun's scope while one is sitting in a bar, surely that's more of an imminent threat than a black guy approaching one on the street, no?

In terms of legality, I can see how the criminal justice system wouldn't be able to act on either case, as no crime has yet been committed.  It's just odd to me that is situations where police may not be cleared to act, individuals can be.

What am I missing?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #108 on: June 19, 2013, 01:56:43 PM »
I guess I don't understand.  My impression is that it is up to the individual, under "stand your ground" laws, to determine whether he or she is in danger and respond accordingly.

That's not how it works.  "Stand your ground" laws remove the duty to retreat, but that's all they do -- all other elements of self-defense law still apply.  Broadly speaking, three elements that must be present to exonerate an individual in a self-defense killing are: 1) the individual must believe that he is in danger of death or serious injury; 2) that belief must be held for reasons that a "reasonable person" would consider to be valid; and 3) the individual must use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.  You can't just say you felt threatened and start blazing away.

Quote
If one sees someone aiming at them through a gun's scope while one is sitting in a bar

In this case, the scope was not attached to a gun.  If he had actually been pointing a gun at the bar instead of just looking at the bar thru a scope, he would have been committing a crime and would most likely have been arrested for it.

Quote
surely that's more of an imminent threat than a black guy approaching one on the street, no?

It would be, if that was what had happened, but it isn't.

Quote
It's just odd to me that is situations where police may not be cleared to act, individuals can be.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Quote
What am I missing?

It's just that, as in so many other areas regarding legal matters, the law is a lot more complicated than most people think it is.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #109 on: June 19, 2013, 02:35:16 PM »
Quote
If one sees someone aiming at them through a gun's scope while one is sitting in a bar

In this case, the scope was not attached to a gun.  If he had actually been pointing a gun at the bar instead of just looking at the bar thru a scope, he would have been committing a crime and would most likely have been arrested for it.

I misunderstood a number of things that you've cleared up, but this was the biggest one.  I was responding under the impression that there was a gun attached to the scope.  That is a big difference, as you say.[1]
 1. Not that the guy's actions aren't incredibly suspicious as it stands, mind you...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #110 on: June 20, 2013, 09:07:10 AM »
Orlando airport is the airport where they find the most guns.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gun-orlando-international-airport-20130618,0,3214542.story

hurray for responsible gun ownership.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #111 on: June 25, 2013, 07:24:38 AM »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #112 on: June 25, 2013, 07:41:31 AM »
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mississippi-open-carry-law-062413

This is going to be interesting to watch.

I doubt it.  Quite a few states already have open carry, and nobody talks about it much.

Edit to add map:



So as you can see, open carry in one form or another is actually already lawful in most of the country -- only a handful of states (the ones in red) prohibit it.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 07:57:44 AM by pianodwarf »
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #113 on: June 25, 2013, 08:15:48 AM »
The map is misleading.  It shows NJ as an open carry state.  It may be technically but in reality, it is almost impossible.  You have to be law enforcement to be able to carry in NJ, with few exceptions.  It may be similar for other states, particularly New England states.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #114 on: June 25, 2013, 08:26:24 AM »
The map is misleading.  It shows NJ as an open carry state.  It may be technically but in reality, it is almost impossible.  You have to be law enforcement to be able to carry in NJ, with few exceptions.

That's not correct -- if you have a license to carry in New Jersey, you can carry openly.  (Getting the license, of course, is another matter.)

Quote
It may be similar for other states, particularly New England states.

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all allow open carry without a license.  The other three New England states allow it with a license.  When I was living in Vermont, I open carried there quite a bit.  A friend of mine who lived in Vermont but worked in Massachusetts had a Massachusetts carry license.  He routinely open carried and never had a problem.  In fact, on a few occasions, cops who saw him complimented him on his choice of sidearm (he had a Sig Sauer, which is a very high-quality handgun).
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Gun Fails
« Reply #115 on: June 25, 2013, 09:31:38 AM »
That's not correct -- if you have a license to carry in New Jersey, you can carry openly.  (Getting the license, of course, is another matter.)

yes, that's what I meant.  I was not thorough in explaining.  Thus, almost no one actually carries.  In almost 20 years here I've never seen anyone out of uniform with a gun in public.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.