Who in here has a concealed carry permit? Would you advise getting one or is it not a good idea to get one if you are entering the finance field. I think it would be a good idea in getting one, especially working late nights in NYC. Or anywhere for that matter. What's your opinions?
| +92 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 22 | 2d | |
| +57 | How to sound more eloquent? | 26 | 1d | |
| +40 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 10 | 2d | |
| +35 | Interviews Are So Fake | 21 | 3s | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 7h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 5d | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 1d | |
| +18 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 3d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Good luck with that. Guns are basically illegal in NYC.
If you think an employer is going to let you bring a loaded gun to work you are a moron.
So I'm guessing no one conceal carries because what employer would allow them to do that? I am not working or living in NYC currently so do not know the gun laws around there. Growing up where gun laws are in place but concealed carry is allowed, I just feel safer having one just in case I needed it. But that is good NYC is safe, makes me less anxious about possibly trying to make a career there.
Put it this way, if some guy held you at gun point in NYC you would be a hell of a lot more likely to be shot if you pulled a gun on him in return. Its also damn near impossible to get a permit and you will be looked at like a loony if you carry a gun on you in NYC.
Dude NYC (Manhattan) is uber safe and on top of that has uber strict gun laws from what I understand. Don't you think it's a bit of overkill???
Also, your employer probably won't let you possess a weapon on their premises (could be wrong on that, but is that even a question you want to ask them?)
Btw, I have nothing against guns and enjoy shooting every once in a while...I'm all for concealed or open carry, within reason
If the point is for safety while in NYC, you are worrying way too much. Just don't be an idiot while walking around the city and you will be fine. As far as bringing the weapon to public places, take a page out of the Plaxico Burress Play Book, and just don't do it.
Unless you have a good amount of self defense and live fire training (not just shooting at a range) carrying a gun can easily be more harmful than beneficial. An untrained individual carrying a gun is a lot more likely to get shot than an unarmed person, I have seen studies where the numbers are 4 times as likely or higher. If you can find a good school that does force on force drills and extensive self defense training it might be a good idea but if you are just a dude with a gun you might reconsider.
Dude don't worry about your safety when working late. The black car service drivers will probably bust out a TEC-9 if shit goes down.
Unless you are Bloomberg's relative there is no possibly way you will get a permit in NYC. Also, sitting down for 12+ hours a day would be extremely uncomfortable even with a subcompact, unless maybe you pocket carry something small like a Ruger LCP.
Could you image sitting down for a meeting and having your pistol fall on the ground? "oops, sorry about that."
Buy some pepper spray instead
I conceal carry. Not everyday, but do. Also, I'm not in NYC.
I could definitely get away with it, but I don't. I keep it in my truck when I'm in the office.
http://www.gunaccessories.com/galco/CCP.jpg
[quote=oldmansacks]http://www.gunaccessories.com/galco/CCP.jpg[/quote] ?
^ Source on those stats you're referencing?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
there are loads of other sources.
How funny, the fucking guy who doesn't know the difference between semi and full auto is commenting on guns...AWM, pick another subject you are more knowledgable on.
You live in Texas, you have no idea how people view guns outside your insular utopia. If someone saw that you were carrying a gun in NYC you would either be tackled to the ground by a scared member of the public, questioned by the police, or view as some sort of crazy person. Basically you are not doing yourself any favors.
NYC has very strict gun control laws and its also the safest major city in the US.
There are several states with very loose gun laws. In all truthfulness, Texas' gun laws aren't even close to being the most liberal.
The only point you just made is that you live in an area that doesn't care about the Constitution, congrats. I highly doubt anyone is going to be tackling someone with a gun. That'd be on par with some dumb shit pulling a gun after he already has one pointed at him, as you stated.
AWM, that article didn't support your claim, "Theoretically concealed carry is supposed to be a crime deterrent because muggers don't know who has a gun on them, in reality of course this isn't true when the crime stats are looked at."
Your claim questions the success of concealed carry as a deterrent to violent crimes (because of the uncertainty), but that article only addresses the effect of gun possession once a violent crime has already been initiated. Those are separate issues.
What I meant was once a violent crime is initiated (ie held at gunpoint), the fact that you have a gun on you and attempt to use it in self defense just escalates the situation and makes you far more likely to get shot. That is what the article is saying.
Only a dumb fuck is gonna pull a gun while a gun is pointed at them. If you've ever taken a concealed handgun class, or any gun class for that matter, you'd know this isn't the wild west. Therefore, your claim is unsubstantiated.
"NYC has very strict gun control laws and its also the safest major city in the US." Chicago is a counterexample to that.
This was honestly one of the dumbest articles I've ever read and has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Try again please. I'm not even going to point out all the holes, you have to be an idiot to not see them.
Look, we all get it, you are liberal, you don't give a shit about The Constitution and you like the government telling you what to do. That's ok, America is still free, for the moment.
You are like a robot when it comes to these issues.
Gun control = insane liberal who hates America.
This is why the left (which I am not on most issues) has so much ammo to use against you guys. You don't make cogent real world arguments, you use reactionary talking points that a 10 year old could understand and repeat them over and over again.
Mark my words, the left are getting ready to take another fall.
Again, gun control is just the tip of the problem. Gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's in that little document that I've recommended you read the other day.
Since liberals love their facts, I'm going to weigh in: http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/11/safest-cities-america-crime-accidents-… (short version: New York is not the safest major city in the US)
Next, I've heard some strong (relatively) arguments for stricter gun control, but yours don't match up. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, that is not something that can be contested because of historical context. Who the fuck are you to take that right away? Who the fuck is anyone to take that right away?
"What do you mean unsubstantiated, did you read the article? UPenn's hospital did a study and it clearly said someone who carries a gun on them is 4.5x more likely to get shot than someone who does not."
No, it didn't. It said that you're 4.5x more likely to get shot IN an assault. Again, big difference.
Txjustin, btw if your job prohibits you to carry a weapon on property, and you park at the company garage, technically you are violating company rules.
Upenn's article may mean that a gun carrier is more likely to antagonize an assailant and lead to an escalation, or it may mean that people who lead the kind of lifestyle that exposes them to assaults (drug dealers for example) are also more likely to be armed.
Why does it matter If awm doesn't know the difference between semi and auto, both are banned in NY, NJ, mass, and partially CT
Actually I am allowed a gun in my vehicle.
It matters because he's arguing something when he doesn't even know about the subject.
But not if your vehicle is parked on company property. I.e. a specifically designated company garage, vs. parking lot of a large office building holding several companies
I didn't realized this was a discussion about semi vs. full auto. i thought it was about carrying a concealed weapon in NYC. Even if awm doesn't know much about weapon differences, that doesn't mean he doesn't know about what the are the regulations like in NYC
Try this on bro:
http://americansheepdog.com/Forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=687&d=130…
And hope to God you don't blow your balls off lol
There is no way in hell you're getting a license to carry in nyc without serious political horsepower. And even if you did manage to get one, you'd be terminated on the spot and escorted out of your employer's building if you were discovered with it.
Take some karate lessons.
That's true. In less tolerant states (i.e. NY, NJ) carry permits would never be issued to any member of general public. These permits are usually issued to certain FBI/CIA agents and in rare cases, police officers. Carry permits let these guys carry a firearm off-duty.
DM, you can't seriously be comparing Plano (pop 260k) and Honolulu (pop: 380K) to NYC (pop 8,390 K), especially since NYC is on that list.
Second amendment verbatim:
Clearly, the right to bear arms is in the context of preserving a democratic government and protecting the will of the People by being able to form a state militia and overthrow government that does not represent the people (say Obama decided to become president for life). I mean there are couple of other purposes of the state militia, say if Oklahoma decides to invade Texas (haha), but it is pretty clearly spelled out WHY people's right to bear arms is not to be infringed upon. Carrying a gun to work (unless u r a cop or something) or a grocery store does not seem to be a right protected by the second amendment, sorry
PS: 2nd amendment also only limits the federal government, but not the state government. So if the State of TX wanted to disarm its citizens tomorrow, there's nothing in the constitution that says it can't.
P.S.
Supreme Court case McDonald Vs. Chicago
^^Haha. I assure you, I work at a reputable firm. Nice try though...
Like I said before, you worry about you and the .gov telling you what to do and I'll worry about me and my freedoms. My philosophy is easy, I won't infringe upon your freedoms and I expect you to not infringe upon mine. Simple enough?
And I am sure you are breaking the rule by bringing a loaded firearm onto their premises. Nice try...
lol working in finance and carrying a gun. Man Americans are fucked.
It doesn't have to do with what industry you work in. It has to do with wanting to be in control of your own life. It's great that you trust the police to protect you. I don't.
Argo: I wasn't comparing anything, just posting facts :)
I think McDonald vs. Chicago is in the spirit of 2nd amendment. You got to keep weapons at home in case you are invaded tomorrow (or in the middle of the night), whether in your home or your state. I don't see what that has to do with carrying a gun in public, in peace time
I can only reiterate my arguments, and they are very simple:
1) The Second Amendment states that we have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no prerequisite that we be in a time of war. There is nothing that says this is solely for in the privacy of your own home. It does not distinguish between concealed carry and open carry. I have the right to bear arms.
2) I don't trust the police to protect me. www.theagitator.com
1) that's not what the constitution says.
My "entirely subjective interpretation" is based on the direct verbiage of the amendment as well as quotes of the founding fathers themselves, but nice try.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It says, essentially, that because of the need for a militia for the safety of the state, the people should be allowed to freely bear arms, and that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If you read up on the historical side of it, you can see that one of the greatest fears of the founding fathers is that at some point in time, Congress may try and make laws to prevent people from their right to bear arms. As I said, the Constitution GUARANTEES me the right to bear arms.
Also, check out this pretty awesome history of the Second Amendment (a bit of a rough read): http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
So you don't think it's just Republican propaganda, check out DeConcini's preface, as well. I don't fully agree with it, but it at least establishes the validity of Senator Hatch's history of the 2nd.
Well, the constitution does not guarantee you a right to bear arms, it prevents the (federal) government from issuing any kind of ban or disarmament by doing something like issuing a prohibitively expensive tax that only limits gun ownership to the rich. Supreme court precedents established that gun ownership should be extended to purposes like defending oneself in one's home and that the amendment extends to local and state govts, which are reasonable adjustments and from historical context, are in line with the general spirit of the individual rights to be protected.
I am well aware of the history of the 2nd amendment and the historic context that brought about the need for this issue to be addressed in the constitution, namely king's attempts to disarm Protestants.
Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but we agree on the right to own a gun. What we disagree on is what types of guns we can own and where we can have those guns.
Before I start, I would like to point out the middle section of the Amendment: "...being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...". What they're saying in this Amendment is that well-regulated militia is necessary not only for the security of a free state, but ALSO to ensure that the people's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon. Thus, this is, if nothing else, implying that the people's right to bear arms should not be infringed upon by the state. If we can't agree on that, then this is probably futile, but it's been a pretty good discussion, so I'm going to keep rolling with it...
First, "banning" certain types of weapons is by no means a full ban from their use. It just means you need to go through the process of obtaining a special license. Whenever a ban on something gets put into place, that means two types of people can and will get around it: 1) those in the business of weapons and 2) rich people who are collectors/hire personal security. That right there is the exact reason you yourself are saying that this Amendment was put into place (to allow everyone the same access to the same self-defense weaponry, which under these circumstances they do not get).
Next, we have concealed and open carry. You're right, the Constitution does not protect, specifically, the right to open and concealed carry. I would like to point out the phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." From 1776 to now, walking down the street has been a hazardous endeavor. No matter where you are, your life is at risk from criminals. There are police that are supposed to protect you, but they can't be everywhere. While the Declaration isn't by any means a legal document for the structure of this country, it does provide a glimpse into what the Founding Fathers were thinking. Here, they were talking about creating a state where all people are free from the oppression of the state.
Now, couple that idea with my previous interpretation of the Second and you get a general idea of what I believe should be our gun control laws today. Namely, that people should have the right and ability to defend themselves outside of their own home. Now, to get to the point where I do think gun control laws should come into play. WMDs are obviously one. Ex-convicts should not be allowed to procure firearms. That's it (at the most basic level, there are probably a few other circumstances where firearms should be controlled, but I can't think of any).
I'll conclude by saying I do think you should have to have a license for certain firearms. Hope that makes some sense, look forward to what you got.
Why would I be just a "little" badass?
Happy, I can sense some frustration. If you need to talk, my e-door is always open.
My home state of Florida is working hard to keep up with Texas and Arizona...
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=37…
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110427/ARTICLE/110429489
We also have the Castle Doctrine/Stand-your-ground Law, so stay the fuck out of my house, unless your favorite flavor of ice cream is death.
Regards
I had to quote this...pure awesomeness.
"so stay the fuck out of my house, unless your favorite flavor of ice cream is death"
In NYC you can get a gun permit but it has to be kept at home and very stringent requirements
The only way you can get a concealed carry is that you may believe your life may be at risk at certain times due to being a public figure or a security member etcetc.. dont know the rules exactly
The spirit of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the people can rise up against the government if it becomes tyrannical. This means that you can't place a general ban on owning guns, but obviously doesn't say that there can't be laws regarding HOW and WHERE people bear arms. Like this is common sense. The Constitution was not meant to be read so verbatim (but at the same time was not meant to be read loosely either).
For example, should we read the 2nd Amendment so strictly that it should be legal for individuals to possess nuclear weaponry? What about tanks, F-18s, tomahawk missiles? What about bazookas, AK's, or uzis? Should people be allowed weapons everywhere? Even courthouses? Where we draw the line as far as what someone can bear (and where) is a subjective question and nothing in the 2nd Amendment is going to tell you where to draw it, so to read the Amendment as "oh well it says 'right to bear arms' so I can do whatever I want wherever I want" is wrong. I'm sure that when it was first written, it really was meant to be that literal, but times have changed. I would have no issue if everyone had one of those Revolutionary-era muskets, lol. Good luck trying to rob me with one of those hahaha. Rather than draft a new Amendment to the Constitution that expands upon it (which would be incredibly complicated, and federalist), the solution has been to allow the states and local jurisdictions to draft laws they think fit them.
What currently exists in the red states is my personal preference, but it's difficult to definitively say that places like NYC violate the constitution. For example, I believe I can own a gun in NYC in my house fairly easily (there's a Beretta store in Midtown...can't be THAT hard to get some sort of firearm in the city). If you want to walk around midtown with a magnum revolver in an exposed holster, then obviously you're going to have an issue. But you can't really say that NYC is being "unconstitutional", because the logical extension of that is that someone should be able to walk around Manhattan with an RPG if they so desire. Again, the Constitution does not offer up specifics. Certain states and cities have drawn the lines in different places. This is not as simple an issue as it seems on the surface...
In the end, if you are truly a conservative, you should be all for the right of local jurisdictions to govern themselves as they see fit, so long as there is no clear violation of the Constitution (2nd Amendment). It is difficult to argue that NYC's gun laws clearly violate the 2nd Amendment, and moreso, the overwhelming majority of NYC residents approve of their gun laws. Who are you to tell them how to govern themselves?
Case closed. (Alex pounds gavel)
I think people are forgetting that the Constitution is a prohibitive document more than anything. It is there to limit the powers of the government, not the rights of it's citizens...so all this, it doesn't say semi automatic handguns...and the founding fathers couldn't have pictured an uzi when they wrote it is nonsense. The founding fathers could have never envisioned life as we know it yet no body is arguing that we outlaw airplanes because the Constitution doesn't say we have the right to take flight, etc., etc., etc.
This is such a circular debate it is simply a waste of time. The most meaningful and accurate statement that can be made about this whole topic is often found on a bumper sticker..."If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That's the truth. The bad people who do bad things with weapons are the ones that most often shouldn't have them in the first place and chances are, they've circumvented the law to get them in the first place.
My issue is that most people that hate guns are always the ones that have never been exposed to them. In my mind, they are more afraid because they don't know anything about them and because they can't grasp the concept that guns don't run around and murder people...that someone has to load, point, aim and pull the trigger.
My roommate is a perfect example. He is a liberal through and through and hates violence, thinks boxing is barbaric (though loves WWE wrestling...WTF?!?) and feels he is somehow above all that. He has never been in a fight, and actually admitted to me that he watched someone get the shit beat out of them by a couple people because he was too scared to help. Anyways, that is neither here nor there, the point is, if I went to him tomorrow and told him that I was going to be buying a gun and storing it in the condo I have no doubt he would flip out. He says he doesn't understand why anyone in the whole world even needs again (yes, he is an idiot), so I would imagine he would tell me that they are unsafe and that he wouldn't feel comfortable with them in the house. Little does he know there are two guns in my closet that have been there for just over a year now...and magically they have never attacked anyone. I've owned a gun for the last 6 years or so and I've had my concealed carry permit for the same amount of time. I've never killed anyone or have shot up a school or my office or any of the things that the left would leave you to believe. Gun restrictions only impact those citizens that are law abiding in the first place...and that's common sense...so my only conclusion is that it's a power struggle in which one side wants to restrict the rights of the other.
Regards
While I'm sure you are much more familiar with guns than me, I have shot both handguns and shotguns, my brother owns a shotgun and two handguns, and one of my housemates in college had a gun in the residence. I have no fear of guns (I actually like them, go shooting every once in a while too), and as I said, tend to like the gun laws in states like Texas, TN, KY, etc. more. That being said, the fact that the Constitution is a prohibitive document on the powers of government is not the right argument here because it has not been amended properly to reflect changing times. If you take that argument and couple it with a strict interpretation, then I should be able to have my own thermonuclear weapon, because nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution says otherwise. (This is precisely what It says, that the government cannot restrict my right to bear arms. If you take that strict a reading, you come to some ridiculous conclusions. The whole point of a Constitution is that it doesn't have to give all the specifics on the issues, just provide a general guideline and a "spirit" or "intention" about what right the Constitution is trying to defend (in this case the ability to use arms to overthrow government). That's why interpretation is so important. The argument here is one of interpretation (as is often the case with Constitutional issues). While you may have one interpretation, different people might have another. The Federal government has (quite wisely might I add), left that interpretation largely to state and local governments so as to not have to impose an overarching Federal rule. Your argument, from a legal perspective, is totally flawed.
Again, I prefer the gun laws in the more conservative states, so I'm a very unbiased opinion. While I may disagree with the gun laws in NYC, they are by no means unconstitutional.
I take it you have zero legal background?
Lmao. You cant be serious man. No need for a concealed carry. Your on some fuckin clint eastwood shit and need to sack up. Plus if your traveling on public transportation, just hop off the bus, transit, or pass train and sprint to your next destination of ur that worried. I can't imagine telling my co-workers that I had a concealed carry and was brandishing a glock under my suitcoat
How do you get off public transit if it's moving and between stops?
And you shouldn't imagine telling your co-workers about your concealed weapon, it's not water cooler gossip...and brandishing it makes it...uhh...not concealed.
Regards
Cph, different people have different political views, and I think your liberal friend should have as much of a chance to influence his local laws as does some pro-gun redneck. It is at the very least unethical to claim that the constitution grants you more rights than it does. I mean in TX we have less restrictions on gun ownership, but that doesn't really make TX any more constitutional than NY. Different strokes for different folks - I don't really see a need for anyone in NYC to carry a gun, especially since due to high population density pulling a gun on your attacker has a much higher chance of harming innocent bystanders than apprehending ur attacker.
On the other hand if you have a ranch or oil patch in Texas, you are just begging for trouble if you don't carry a gun, and not one of those foo-foo little handhelds, I mean a serious shotgun.
When I have a huge house or children, I'm gonna keep a gun to protect it/them, right now I still live in small places and I feel that when I have only a couple of rooms less than 20 ft across and only myself to worry about, a katana gives me a better advantage for close combat (if it comes to that). If I pull a gun on an intruder, he'll most likely feel like he now has to shoot me first because he can't afford to turn his back on me and run, plus if I miss or misfire, it will be a couple of seconds before I can make another shot, which will be more than enough for the intruder to get to me. On the other hand a 4 ft blade gives an intruder a much stronger incentive to turn and run vs. come and fight. Psychologically, possibility of getting butchered is a lot more uncomfortable than possibility of getting shot. And last but not least, if I lose control of my weapon, or the intruder gets to it before I do, the intruder most likely won't have the developed body memory to use it effectively against me right away, which again buys me more time for a counter attack.
Wait, are you saying if an attacker sees you pull a gun he will shoot you, but if you pull a katana he will turn and run rather than shoot you? If you are saying that, that's one the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard.
Argo I wanted to point out , Rick Perry just signed into law making it illegal for a company/business to ban employees having a gun in their vehicle at work. Obviously there are certain restrictions. It goes into effect 9/1/11.
Justin, we are talking about small living space. If I have a gun and intruder has a gun, there's always the "this guy is gonna miss and I'm not. Worth the try" If I have a weapon with which I can disarm him by cutting off his fucking hand in about the same time it takes to pull the trigger, and the only way to escape that is to start running, knowing that if u run u will be out of reach, the thinking process shifts. Plus the situation I envision is not really waking up to hearing someone rummage through the refrigerator and then ambushing them, it is more of getting ambushed in a middle of the night by someone breaking through the window. That person being alert and awake, and me obviously just woken up and possibly disoriented. I think I am a fairly good shot, can lead a pretty fast moving target, etc etc, but a good slice just covers a bigger area than a bullet. If I miss because mofo is too far from me, he is not gonna want to get closer or linger around and let me get closer. Sheer terror and surprise is gonna make it hard for him to make a good shot even if he does decide to stay and shoot rather than run.
Good for you on R Perry law, but it hasn't gone in effect yet :)
Heyzeus Christ, you should have never brought up the katana thing. Your explanation was just as ridiculous.
^^haha, I'm not even gonna comment on the katana situation again.
If you're on this site you're pursuing a highly competitive career that requires an investment of years of your life, and tens of thousands of dollars. Do you want to risk throwing that away by showing up at your office with a weapon? Regardless of the legality, they'll assume you're just waiting to go postal and likely have you shit-canned on the spot - maybe with cops on-hand in the event that you choose to go postal as a result of said shit-canning.
I own a Glock 17, but I don't carry. It's purely for home defense and target practice. You're much more likely to get off on self defense if you shoot someone that has broken into your home, than if you unload on some random guy in the street.
You might seriously consider krav maga for a year or two when you get to NYC - it's a hand to hand combat style used by the Israeli's, and with the heavy Jewish concentration in NYC, I'm sure you can find some good schools near wherever you land. It's practical and brutal; you can easily kill / permanently maim an attacker, and you avoid the hassle of the hippies in NYC tossing you in jail for owning a weapon.
The only people who think you are going to go postal because you lawfully, if it's legal in your state, carry a gun are liberals and pussies. In my great state, we are men, not pussies.
I advise everyone check their local laws on carrying guns and all gun laws for that matter. If you don't like the laws where you live, move. I am all for state's rights in anything that is not mandated to the federal government.
It's not legal in any state to bring a gun to work, unless your job allows you to.
In an industry like finance where if you are fired you literally are thrown out of the building I don't think going back to a car with a loaded gun is a great idea.
speaking of which, one of the darwin awards this year went to a guy trying to rob a gun store protected by an armed police officer and, also, was full of customers. i think 7 or 8 of the people in the store drew guns and fired at him after he let off warning shots. FAIL.
Don't try to confuse the issue :) No state has a law that says you can bring your gun to work regardless of what work policies are. So if ur work fires u for bringing a gun against their rules, you can't argue that it's a wrongful termination because u have a permit.
Texas does now. Goes into effect 9/1/11. I honestly don't know about the other states, that's why I said one should research gun laws.
The law, as you said is for keeping a gun in ur car (I'm guessing to accommodate the law that said u can now have a gun in ur console, within reach), NOT for conceal carry to the office.
Again, the state (and federal government) doesn't regulate what you can do, so much as what you can't do. If it isn't expressly prohibited, than it can't possibly be breaking the law because there is no law to break.
And I'm not sure anyone is arguing any sort of wrongful termination. People are saying that they wouldn't do it because people would look at them funny and because co-workers wouldn't like it, etc. What the law in some states have done, like Florida...and apparently Texas too, is prohibit employers from not allowing you to bring the weapon to the place of business and leaving it locked in your personal vehicle. This is being done because most folk's primary travel is between work and home. If they feel the need, or want, to carry a weapon they should be free to do so.
Again, I've had a gun for several years, have carried it concealed all kinds of places and it's never caused any problems. It's not until some liberal finds out that someone has it that it begins to endanger co-worker's lives and becomes a nuisance.
Regards
Btw, all issues in the Constitution have specifics where the rights are not treated via a strict interpretation.
Let's say I buy a house next to an elementary school. Can I then erect a giant screen on my roof and show porn movies on it all day for all the kids to see? It's my private property...my right to free speech? If you took a strict interpretation of the Constitution, then there's no way the government can do anything about it, but (thankfully) obscenity laws state otherwise.
Obviously, we never want to take so loose an interpretation that we render the Constitution meaningless, but I would argue that, by and large, the judicial system is extremely reasonable. Let different locales come up with their own minutia regarding the grey areas. Regulations on how, where, and what arms a citizen has a right to bear make a lot of sense, so long as such regulations do not restrict a law-abiding citizen from possessing a firearm in any circumstances (i.e you can't ban law-abiding individuals from having a gun in their house).
To the guy who has the katana, a couple of years ago a student at Hopkins in Baltimore killed a burglar with a sword. (I tried to post a link but it triggered the spam filter?)
To the OP: NY has pretty strict laws so it all depends on what city you are in. If local laws allow concealed carry and your work doesn't ban it outright then it's your call. You obviously shouldn't tell anyone you are carrying so the only time anyone in your office would know you had a gun is if some wackjob burst in and started threatening people.
You wouldn't have time to pull a gun if someone jumped out of an alley and grabbed you or put a gun to your back so in that situation hand to hand training would be more useful unless you plan to hand over your wallet then shoot the guy as he runs away (not advisable). In reality, you should just hand over your shit then go home and drink scotch while bitching on facebook about getting robbed.
To everyone who thinks they don't need a gun because they have the police: My girlfriend came home from work one night and found a man laying in the backyard. She got back in her car and called me to come walk her in. The guy wouldn't leave and he was pretty creepy and saying crazy shit so we called the police then went inside. It took them 45 minutes to get there. Luckily he turned out to be crazy and not dangerous but imagine what could have happened if he had been malicious and armed.
Well if you need a gun to feel safe in your country then the people that occupy your country are fucked and therefore I stand by my initial statement.
UofCOandG, that could be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There are safer areas and less-safe areas in every country, and yes, that includes Canada.
I am a concealed carry instructor, spent 15 years in the Marines teaching people how to shoot other people. Concealed in NY is extremely difficult. The only guys I know of who actually have a license are ex-cops or well connected to the police. If you can get one, and you are willing to do the training, I say go for it.
Carrying is not paranoia, its just a personal preference that in some instances makes common sense. Police do not stop crime, they get there after and clean up the mess. If you want to carry, get the training, make the investment in time needed to know how to defend yourself safely, and then keep it on you all the time. I am now in Brazil where it is nearly impossible to carry concealed and boy do we need it here!
Tried carrying for awhile. Now I wear my utility belt and a cape and find it to be much more effective.
Deserunt illo vel ullam quia id laudantium id. Harum adipisci soluta impedit et. Et vero dolores occaecati ut suscipit quidem. Ea dolor eos esse dolorem sit minus amet numquam. Molestiae quibusdam atque ut aliquid. Aut et voluptatem iste explicabo ex voluptates voluptas esse. Veniam fugiat perferendis voluptatum unde repudiandae rerum eaque.
Commodi nihil in minima autem fugit hic doloremque id. Quaerat cupiditate ea pariatur quaerat iure. Corporis perspiciatis iure nemo est eius tempore. Et vel ut sit minima sed deleniti. Et voluptate quaerat ipsam quo qui.
Reiciendis voluptatem nisi voluptatum deleniti. Repudiandae suscipit amet aut dolorem soluta ab. Qui quibusdam dicta vitae quod expedita. Nihil alias voluptatem velit consectetur enim. Suscipit error voluptate voluptatibus aut vero optio.
Temporibus voluptatem soluta aut repellat praesentium. Non ratione omnis architecto odio et. Non totam omnis omnis voluptas est nemo. Et eum aspernatur nemo aut dolores distinctio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Rerum quasi hic ullam voluptatem itaque. Quis est distinctio voluptas corporis dignissimos. Itaque est nam impedit libero omnis et. Explicabo vitae provident nihil facilis commodi quod unde. Consequatur quia aut enim expedita vero ipsam adipisci.
Quis in in atque incidunt. Expedita unde vero qui sed explicabo quibusdam. Eaque iste eligendi vel quos eos modi rerum. Rerum velit alias voluptatibus quaerat voluptatibus.
Saepe occaecati fugit quia itaque nemo. Ut quis cum iure possimus. Reprehenderit molestiae voluptatem necessitatibus quaerat ipsum. Commodi quidem ipsa ea corrupti repellat.
Iste ut est harum qui cum atque. Distinctio sunt consequuntur odio ab ut. Consequatur officia aut consequatur.
Laborum similique aut quibusdam. Et a nihil voluptate doloribus qui. Consequatur autem minus debitis quis ea et.
Iusto earum occaecati mollitia provident qui unde quis. Et delectus placeat maiores error optio. Veniam iusto perferendis aliquid ut ipsum eum.
Repellendus quibusdam sequi a minus ratione. Debitis aut fugiat commodi ratione quia. Sit ipsam ipsum nam optio animi asperiores aperiam optio.
Aut officiis dicta et asperiores expedita fuga porro. Sed voluptate corrupti deserunt nisi laboriosam iste consequatur. Ea consequuntur provident porro et consequatur laudantium fugiat laudantium. Dolore commodi error id in.
Ea asperiores soluta maiores architecto. Quia error cumque natus eos et ipsum neque. Eum eum ut qui commodi eligendi esse temporibus.
Debitis hic vero hic corrupti dolorem. Omnis qui in quos et. Nisi sit quaerat recusandae quo eligendi enim. Maxime sit aut ut ipsam omnis. Iure sunt in aliquam repudiandae nihil ipsum. Nemo voluptatem aut doloremque eveniet sint dolorum quia.
Dolor eum nihil cum nostrum qui perspiciatis. Vitae sint voluptate dolor aut aliquam exercitationem. Aliquid similique officiis reprehenderit temporibus at doloribus dolorem quidem. Sunt nesciunt non hic omnis.