85 replies to this topic

[Catamount]

Hey, .22LRs are where it's at for range shooting You can't argue with being able to pop off a brick of ammo for $15. I'll be getting a 10/22 here shortly for that purpose.

[Fall_Damage]

Actually, you CAN open carry in certain states, you are NOT required to be a peace keeper/member of law enforcement in order to do so.

That being said, if a police officer/sheriff stops you after seeing your firearm/gets called in about it. The ONLY thing you really need is plead the 5th. You are NOT required to answer any questions the officer throws at you! If a cop tries to confinscate your firearm right then and there then it falls under jurisdiction of illegally stopping/detaining you and illegal confinscation of your firearm.

And, if said police officer DOES try to arrest you, then take them to court for denying you your rights/unconsitutional arrest/detainment.

Some states I can name off the top of my head whereas you can do so, so long as you have your license/permit on you:

Florida, Oregon, Maine, Wyoming, California, Arizona, Washington, and among a few other states.

Not sure how far Open Carry goes as to how many states actually support this law but HEY! it's there.

Edited by Church117, 17 September 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[DragonsFire24SS]

Speaking of .22's here is my baby(GSG5) unfortunately I had to sell it due to financial problems. Then when I got back on my feet, I was going to buy it back. My friend had passed away due to a motorcycle accident and his wife either pawned or sold it. No one can find out where its at or what. I had some pretty upgrades for it.

the pretty green dot scope lol, and top rail
pretty case which I kept
upgraded bump stop cushion
upgraded all nuts and bolts to metal for a firm body.
and an extra 22 round clip.

[Catamount]

DragonsFire24SS, on 17 September 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Speaking of .22's here is my baby(GSG5) unfortunately I had to sell it due to financial problems. Then when I got back on my feet, I was going to buy it back. My friend had passed away due to a motorcycle accident and his wife either pawned or sold it. No one can find out where its at or what. I had some pretty upgrades for it.

the pretty green dot scope lol, and top rail
pretty case which I kept
upgraded bump stop cushion
upgraded all nuts and bolts to metal for a firm body.
and an extra 22 round clip.

Well I'm more sorry for you losing your friend than the gun, but nevertheless, that's a beautiful piece of hardware.

That's not far from what I'm looking to do with the 10/22 once I pick it up (I'm looking at getting a Tapco stock and a couple of the new(ish) 25 rd magazines), though obviously it won't have the pretty case

[SakuranoSenshi]

Catamount, on 17 September 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Hey, .22LRs are where it's at for range shooting You can't argue with being able to pop off a brick of ammo for $15. I'll be getting a 10/22 here shortly for that purpose.

Oh, absolutely. I am not a fan of that (Mark III) gun, I'd rather have a Mosquito or any of several other more target styled pistols but she likes everything about it and she's the boss. I want a 10/22 or something very similar, as well. Also, not just the cheap ammo but the fact that you can really work on shooting technique without the complication of significant recoil; despite certainly macho types not wanting to shoot such a small calibre, all the shooting professionals agree that when you need to refine basic technique .22 LR and a quality platform to shoot it are where you should go.

Church117, on 17 September 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Actually, you CAN open carry in certain states, you are NOT required to be a peace keeper/member of law enforcement in order to do so.

No-one said otherwise, however, you may not do so in Texas (basically), with a pistol. The reality is slightly complicated; anyone who is travelling (and you really would be well advised to have cast-iron evidence) can be openly armed with a pistol during their journey, when outside the vehicle (inside the vehicle the law that allows anyone to carry while in a vehicle they own and control applies, and it specifies that the pistol be concealed), when hunting you may do so and in a few other edge cases. Obviously you can openly wear a pistol on private property with the permission of the owner.

DragonsFire24SS, on 17 September 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Speaking of .22's here is my baby(GSG5) unfortunately I had to sell it due to financial problems. Then when I got back on my feet, I was going to buy it back. My friend had passed away due to a motorcycle accident and his wife either pawned or sold it. No one can find out where its at or what. I had some pretty upgrades for it.

the pretty green dot scope lol, and top rail
pretty case which I kept
upgraded bump stop cushion
upgraded all nuts and bolts to metal for a firm body.
and an extra 22 round clip.

I'd not seen those before, so I googled it; interesting firearm. I'm sorry that it has been lost to who knows where.

[Makaveli]

I know SOOOO many people who have gotten a CCL in the last year. Atleast 50% of them women over 40 and another 25% men over 50 - they all said it was a breeze.

If you think gun ownership is common in Texas, we throw you out of Alaska if you dont own atleast two

[SakuranoSenshi]

Makaveli, on 17 September 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I know SOOOO many people who have gotten a CCL in the last year. Atleast 50% of them women over 40 and another 25% men over 50 - they all said it was a breeze.

If you think gun ownership is common in Texas, we throw you out of Alaska if you dont own atleast two

Alaska has a much smaller population. The 'impressive' thing about gun ownership in Texas is how high the level is overall across the state, even when you consider places like the major cities where it's actually a lot lower (legally anyway). In rural Texas you can literally assume everyone is armed, probably with several weapons, whereas in the city here, it's safest to assume so but most won't be, in fact.

Anyway, just a little aside not actually meant to be a 'my state is better than yours' thing ;-)

As for the CCW issue, the figures rise every year and the average age is now quite high with women approaching as much as 40% across the country. I think the social stigma that it suffered even in some very traditionally gun-friendly states is all but gone, now. It's no longer common to assume that a CHL holder is some sort of 'gun nut' but rather that they're simply someone who takes self-defence seriously and in 'open carry' states doesn't want the attention of carrying a weapon visibly in public.

[Drazn]

I am a deputy sheriff in Texas and legally you can carry a firearm in a vehicle while you are traveling without a CHL. Texas is not an open carry state and the weapon has to be concealed once you obtain your CHL. If anyone tells you that you don't need to answer questions that a peace officer asks you then they are setting you up for failure. If I ask you a question it would be in your best interest to answer and if you do plead fifth then I will detain you for a 24 hour investigation to ascertain your identity. Also if I stop a person I can remove a weapon from an individual while I am interviewing them for Officer safety purposes. Once the Interview in concluded and i am satisfied with their answers I then return it to the CHL holder.

[Drazn]

Church117, on 17 September 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Actually, you CAN open carry in certain states, you are NOT required to be a peace keeper/member of law enforcement in order to do so.

That being said, if a police officer/sheriff stops you after seeing your firearm/gets called in about it. The ONLY thing you really need is plead the 5th. You are NOT required to answer any questions the officer throws at you! If a cop tries to confinscate your firearm right then and there then it falls under jurisdiction of illegally stopping/detaining you and illegal confinscation of your firearm.

And, if said police officer DOES try to arrest you, then take them to court for denying you your rights/unconsitutional arrest/detainment.

Some states I can name off the top of my head whereas you can do so, so long as you have your license/permit on you:

Florida, Oregon, Maine, Wyoming, California, Arizona, Washington, and among a few other states.

Not sure how far Open Carry goes as to how many states actually support this law but HEY! it's there.

You are incorrect, sir. Please come down here to Texas and not answer my interview questions or better yet tell me I cant take your weapon from you legally during said interview. lol

[SakuranoSenshi]

Drazn, on 17 September 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

<snipped>

Thankyou for your input, it's very welcome and matches what I already took to be the law, in fact the CHL instructor on saturday was a serving peace officer in a local department. Thankyou for your service of your county, also.

[Mister Blastman]

Church117, on 17 September 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Actually, you CAN open carry in certain states, you are NOT required to be a peace keeper/member of law enforcement in order to do so.

Not sure how far Open Carry goes as to how many states actually support this law but HEY! it's there.

You can open carry in Georgia too. If you really want to, you can sling a rifle over your back also.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 17 September 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Mister Blastman, on 17 September 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

You can open carry in Georgia too. If you really want to, you can sling a rifle over your back also.

Long guns are fine in Texas, so long as you don't otherwise break the law or make a nuisance of yourself. I gather it's still common in some more remote areas to see them in the back of the truck or car window but here, someone would probably break into the vehicle to steal the probably valuable gun.

[Haroldwolf]

You only need a concealed carry permit in Montana if you wan to carry concealed in a incorporated city. There is no restricts on concealed carry in any county. There are no restrictions on open carry.

Edited by Haroldwolf, 17 September 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[MegaMasher]

SakuranoSenshi, on 17 September 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

No, not entirely. I wasn't just shooting my mouth off here and if you re-read your own link you'll see what I mean, too. You can also go and read the actual law as adopted into title. Your link discusses different states, moving and so on but the underlying assumption is always that you'll have been resident in a state (note, a state, any state) for the previous 90 days. If that is not the case, you really cannot purchase. I know this because I know individuals who have run into it, aliens such as myself, obviously but also citizens, often military, without a US residence within that time frame. It really does and did make that a requirement and the intent was to prevent people casually buying firearms even if the constitution says nothing about someone needing to have been in the country before they can exercize their rights. It's my personal opinion that this probably makes it unconstitutional in a literal, legal sense but at present it is certainly (Federal) law and it's unlikely to be challenged in my lifetime. The link talks about aliens because they will commonly come up against it and it's a frequent question (and your link is their FAQ).

You really still think that, after I showed you the ATF's own FAQ regarding residency, AND a 4473? Fine, here is the actual brady bill, you show me where the law makes the mandates you claim in post #41. http://usgovinfo.abo.../blbradyact.htm

Fact is, a U.S. Citizen needs only to have an intention of making a home in a state to legally satisfy the residency requirement. Military personel have two residences, the state their base is located, and the state they actually reside in. Non residents DO have the 90 day hurdle. If you have any stories of people who had problems, it was likely from a different factor, a cautious FFL perhaps, but not the law. If I am wrong show me otherwise, but don't snidely comment about how interesting it is that I am unaware of it, actually show me.

BellatorMonk, on 17 September 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

All in all it's sad that Americans have to resort to such debate and concern about owning much less carrying a gun for defense. The law is pretty clear.

Gun owners need to start making the system work for them not jumping through hoops for the system.

You know, I find myself in total agreement with this. Every gun owner should join, at the very least, whatever state organization is fighting for our freedoms.

Church117, on 17 September 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Actually, you CAN open carry in certain states, you are NOT required to be a peace keeper/member of law enforcement in order to do so.

That being said, if a police officer/sheriff stops you after seeing your firearm/gets called in about it. The ONLY thing you really need is plead the 5th. You are NOT required to answer any questions the officer throws at you! If a cop tries to confinscate your firearm right then and there then it falls under jurisdiction of illegally stopping/detaining you and illegal confinscation of your firearm.

And, if said police officer DOES try to arrest you, then take them to court for denying you your rights/unconsitutional arrest/detainment.

Some states I can name off the top of my head whereas you can do so, so long as you have your license/permit on you:

Florida, Oregon, Maine, Wyoming, California, Arizona, Washington, and among a few other states.

Not sure how far Open Carry goes as to how many states actually support this law but HEY! it's there.

Know your state laws before actually doing any of this. In Tennnessee, if a LEO uses inappropriate force I can legally resist him, up to and including deadly force (but it better be justified). In Ohio, if you so much as touch your pistol during an encounter, regardless of reason, you are committing a felony. In some states you have no legal recourse to police misconduct, I think it was Indiana that actually had a state supreme court ruling (overturned by the legislature?) which stated that even if police were performing an illegal search of your home, regardless of circumstances, you had no legal right to resist, and resistance was illegal. For anyone out there that loves liberty as I do, you may join me in a collective shudder.

Drazn, on 17 September 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

I am a deputy sheriff in Texas and legally you can carry a firearm in a vehicle while you are traveling without a CHL. Texas is not an open carry state and the weapon has to be concealed once you obtain your CHL. If anyone tells you that you don't need to answer questions that a peace officer asks you then they are setting you up for failure. If I ask you a question it would be in your best interest to answer and if you do plead fifth then I will detain you for a 24 hour investigation to ascertain your identity. Also if I stop a person I can remove a weapon from an individual while I am interviewing them for Officer safety purposes. Once the Interview in concluded and i am satisfied with their answers I then return it to the CHL holder.

An excellent video about the 5th amendment. http://video.google....533318153586646

As an aside, most states require you to identify yourself to a cop, and if you are carrying, require you present your CCW/HCP/whatever your state calls it, when requested. Sadly, I know of no states where it is illegal for a cop to casually disarm you (though TN places restrictions on it, which are so easily used for disarm whenever the cop wants). Cop safety matters, your safety, less so. Question for you Drazn, if a person identified themselves to you, as required, but refused to answer any questions, and only stayed because you told them they could not leave, and you have no obvious evidence of crime, they simply refuse to answer questions you ask (make it mundane, they refuse to tell you what color the sky is), do you still do a 24-hour detainment? Also, do you disarm everyone, or just when you actually feel it may be needed for your safety?

Edited by MegaMasher, 18 September 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

MegaMasher, on 18 September 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

You really still think that ...

Know, not think.

Quote

Fact is, a U.S. Citizen needs only to have an intention of making a home in a state to legally satisfy the residency requirement. Military personel have two residences, the state their base is located, and the state they actually reside in. Non residents DO have the 90 day hurdle. If you have any stories of people who had problems, it was likely from a different factor, a cautious FFL perhaps, but not the law. If I am wrong show me otherwise, but don't snidely comment about how interesting it is that I am unaware of it, actually show me.

You can be non-resident and a US citizen and military who have no residence in the USA and are posted abroad are such. It's not about citizenship, which is why I'm able to own a firearm and why I was able to buy one after being resident in the USA for 90 days.

However, I may be mistaken about the law that makes this requirement, as there is no discussion of residency for anyone, in the Brady Act text. I am aware that it was something that came in much later however and I believed it was an amendment to that act. BATFE started making FFLs aware of the residency issues, primarily with regard to 'legal aliens' about 2002, in my understanding.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 19 September 2012 - 08:00 AM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

As an aside, on the talking to police issue, in Texas if I am driving, they can ask me for my driving licence. However, if I am simply walking down the street, they may not stop me and demand identification.

A peace officer can approach anyone at any time, for the most part and speak to them but that person is under no obligation to say anything to the peace officer and that officer can only detain based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is going to commit a crime. This is usually stated as 'an articulable justification based on facts, that would lead a reasonable person to think so' and specifically is not merely a hunch or suspicion. If the officer does have grounds to detain and chooses to do so, he can conduct a brief check (AKA 'frisk') for weapons but only if he has a reasonable suspicion that they may be armed (in Texas, let's face it, anyone can reasonably be suspected of being armed) but not conduct an actual search, without a warrant or consent.

In order to go further and now arrest that person, he needs probable cause not merely reasonable suspicion which means that unless his questioning or a legal search has turned up further facts that make it very likely a crime was committed he cannot just go ahead and arrest them. Under the constitution and in the absence of state law requiring identification, that person can say nothing and give no name and the peace officer better have reasonable suspicion for the stop in the first place if he chooses to detain that person and continue to try and get a statement.

All that said, lying to peace officer is a misdemeanour in Texas and lying to any federal agent or official is a federal crime. You don't have to give a name but if you do, it better be real.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 19 September 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[MegaMasher]

SakuranoSenshi, on 19 September 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Know, not think.

You disprove this both in the same post you declare it, and in your inability to find any legal backing of your claims.

SakuranoSenshi, on 19 September 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

You can be non-resident and a US citizen and military who have no residence in the USA and are posted abroad are such. It's not about citizenship, which is why I'm able to own a firearm and why I was able to buy one after being resident in the USA for 90 days.

However, I may be mistaken about the law that makes this requirement, as there is no discussion of residency for anyone, in the Brady Act text. I am aware that it was something that came in much later however and I believed it was an amendment to that act. BATFE started making FFLs aware of the residency issues, primarily with regard to 'legal aliens' about 2002, in my understanding.

Underlining mine, because you are mistaken. You are a non-citizen, the laws are different for you, hence the 90-day need. As for military personel, they have the option of having two residences, an actual home in America, and whatever state their base is. If the base abroad, then so be it. If they had no other home location, whatever state they intend to make a home state works for them, just as it works for me. I have posted this before, but it serves to completely hammer home what the actual requirement is:

http://www.atf.gov/f...state-residency

Go ahead and read the question right underneath it. I can have two homes in different states, and when I switch from one to the other I automatically become eligible to purchase in the other state, no 90-day wait. My physical presence, and my intent are all that matters.

Regardless, Sak, if you want to continue in your deluded belief that citizens suffer under the same onerous requirements non-citizens do, go right ahead. I think anyone reading this can tell which one of us is correct. (For what its worth, I think a legal alien should be able to buy guns from Day 1 of presence here, it is shameful that you guys don't get to enjoy the full fruits of freedom.)

Edited by MegaMasher, 19 September 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

*sigh*

MegaMasher, on 19 September 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

You disprove this both in the same post you declare it, and in your inability to find any legal backing of your claims.

No, that's not how it works. This is off-topic, albeit in an 'off topic' section of the forum but this thread was to talk about CHL not this issue, however, I already told you I was not guessing, I know of two individuals who ran into it.

Quote

Underlining mine, because you are mistaken. You are a non-citizen, the laws are different for you, hence the 90-day need.

Incorrect, the laws are different based on residency and not citizenship, you do not need to be a citizen to purchase, own or carry firearms and although there are a few state who try to restrict concealed carry based on it, should those laws actually be tested they'll almost certainly be struck down on the principle of 'Equal Protection' under the Fourteenth Amendment as previous laws that attempted to discriminate on that basis have been, including some to do with firearms. You might notice that in the case of the issue we're discussing, if it were really about citizenship the Federal law itself would be in peril because of that same priniciple, however, it's not.

Quote

As for military personel, they have the option of having two residences, an actual home in America, and whatever state their base is. If the base abroad, then so be it. If they had no other home location, whatever state they intend to make a home state works for them, just as it works for me. I have posted this before, but it serves to completely hammer home what the actual requirement is:

No, it doesn't, if they have no US residency, they have to wait the 90 days in the state they intend to be their home just as anyone else does and your link is the same as it was before; it doesn't say what you think it says and it's merely part of the agency's FAQ.

Quote

Regardless, Sak, if you want to continue in your deluded belief that citizens suffer under the same onerous requirements non-citizens do, go right ahead. I think anyone reading this can tell which one of us is correct. (For what its worth, I think a legal alien should be able to buy guns from Day 1 of presence here, it is shameful that you guys don't get to enjoy the full fruits of freedom.)

It's not deluded, even if I were wrong it wouldn't be a delusion but I am not, as I said, I wasn't basing this on a reading of a forum or online FAQ, I know of two US citizens, one of whom was military serving abroad with no residence in the USA, who fell afoul of it. So, I agree with you, I think readers can indeed tell and I think it's wrong to require a minimum residency period for anyone, since there are no grounds for it in 'natural law' or the constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to self-defence through arms.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 20 September 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[MegaMasher]

SakuranoSenshi, on 20 September 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

1. No, that's not how it works. This is off-topic, albeit in an 'off topic' section of the forum but this thread was to talk about CHL not this issue, however, I already told you I was not guessing, I know of two individuals who ran into it.

2. Incorrect, the laws are different based on residency and not citizenship

3. No, it doesn't, if they have no US residency, they have to wait the 90 days in the state they intend to be their home just as anyone else does and your link is the same as it was before; it doesn't say what you think it says and it's merely part of the agency's FAQ.

Bold, italics and numbering added for ease of reading response.

1. I found the bold funny, in light of what you said in italics. Knowing someone ran into a problem doesn't mean that is how the system works. If you go to an ER and they fail to catch whatever problem sent you there, that doesn't mean the system is designed to miss problems. Buying a gun/carrying a gun is a process that has a lot of added steps, thanks to the Government. Big shock - someone had an issue dealing with bureaucratic garbage. To be clear, I do not doubt for a second you have friends who have had an issue, FFLs for example can lose their license (and business) for tiny mistakes and tend to be defensive. Next time you fill out at 4473 ask him if you can abbreviate Texas as TX on it. Also, while you may not like this topic of conversation, it is very on topic, if you don't own a gun, you cannot carry a gun.

2. Oh really? Go read that FAQ, it very specifically mentions ALIENS. Aliens are not citizens, and THAT is why they have a 90-day residency requirement.

3. Show me. Other than you saying that is how it is, you haven't shown me one law, regulation, or any support other than the story of a friend who had a problem. The ATF FAQ is in plain English. It states, very clearly, that an individual needs only to have be physically present and possess intent, nothing more. Serviceman coming back to America after 10 years over-seas? Legally, should not be a problem, he meets the residency requirement by physically being in whatever state he intends to be his home, and declaring said intent to have that be his home state.

Edited by MegaMasher, 20 September 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Well, with number one, you have a point, it wouldn't be the first time an agency has enforced an interpretation of law that is simply wrong and I don't think there's anything gained by going over the same stuff again, sadly it's not as if either of us can change this stupidity whichever way it's actually written in law.

The FAQ mentions aliens there because that's what the question was, this is how FAQs work, it's not because there is anything special about aliens as a rule and they didn't used to have anything about it until there was a 'crackdown' on the potential of aliens, who were present legally, but not permanent residents, buying firearms or ammunition (that's right, technically you cannot even buy ammunition unless you're a permanent resident alien or on an immigrant visa and have filed for permanent residency, with the exception of having a hunting licence); they were not supposed to be able to do so unless they had a hunting licence but often vendors were unaware and of course many didn't ask any questions at all for ammunition.

Number three, nope, apparently not but you're right I don't see it in the Brady Act (which is where I thought it was) and I don't really care quite enough to try and search it down (you know, I am sure, what a nightmare it is attempting that without the kind of electronic access and tools a lawyer has - I have friends and I might bug one but whatever) and casual searching hasn't turned up the actual text. As I said, without even thinking about it, my two US citizen friends, who'd been abroad with no residence owned here, returned and some weeks afterwards both tried to purchase firearms and were delayed and then refused with the explicit reason of their non-residency in the previous ninety days being given. Now, you may very well be right that it's a misapplication of the law (which neither of us can find for either position, unless you have found text in law outlining the 90 days explicitly for aliens) but I don't think so and in practice it doesn't matter because even if you would be successful against the ATF (or whatever name they want to use this week) it would likely be more than the rest of the 90 days you need to do so. This is what happened with my friends; they were annoyed and waited it out, in one case the FFL was generous enough to simply set the firearm aside (for legal purposes, he took no money and simply "chose to withdraw from sale" the firearm until it so happened that the time was up and my friend returned to fill out another 4473) for him, then ran the sale weeks later.

Anyway, I think we have we exhausted that one, unless you do find the text of the law which settles it either way, in which case I'll be just as pleased, actually, knowledge is its own reward and I am not so proud as to be unable to admit my error if I can be shown it. FAQ doesn't count, I am afraid, you must know as well as I do how many times the ATF has been wrong, changed its mind or simply given out incorrect information that is contrary to their own policies. The mass of federal law and administrative regulations that have force of law is currently so large that even the federal government itself doesn't know many there are and occasionally breaks its own laws through ignorance.