Defensive Carry banner

Sheriff had denied gun permit to Greenville shooting suspect (North Carolina)

1K views 10 replies 10 participants last post by  lionround 
#1 ·
#2 ·
"...he allegedly shot four people..."

It's a shame that he was not taken out permanently...allegedly, of course!OMOYMV
 
#3 ·
But, but, but didn't he realize that he wasn't supposed to have a gun??? I mean, his gun permit was denied. What was he thinking?!

Oh yeah, that's right. He was thinking like a typical criminal. "Permit? We don't need no stinkin' permit!" I often wonder whether the anti gun politicians really honestly believe that their gun laws will stop criminals, or if they're counting on the fact that they won't stop them.
 
#4 ·
From the article said:
State lawmakers are working on legislation that would eliminate the permit system. Sheriffs and Attorney General Roy Cooper oppose the proposed change.
:pat:

These head-in-sand legislators should think very hard about the simple reality this incident represents. Violent felons don't give two shakes about silly paper laws prohibiting this or that tool. If they're already going to ignore prohibitions against murder, robbery, rape and all the rest, it's not as though waggling a finger at them on weapons is going to stop them. As this felon shows so clearly.

And that's how simple it is, how pointless and ineffective such pen scratching in the state capitols ends up being when it comes to actually stopping crime. You want to stop a felon who's intent on being a murderer anyway? You can't. About all you can do is catch him and hang him, which is about the only real assurance that exists that he won't again be a murderer of anyone. Short of that, all this legislative crap is just so much feel-good garbage meant to appease the unwitting mob.
 
#5 ·
It will just be used as another bloody shirt to push for UBGC's. It didn't say how he got the weapon. But certainly they will assert another useless law wouod have stopped him... Doubtful.

I was told I am a nut for CCing at a Walmart and would be basicly of no service to anyone because no-one has ever been harmed at a wal-mart. :rolleyes:

I wonder if this wall-e-world sold guns, especially the evil black ones, orhad ammo in-stock to feed it. If they did someon3 should yave loaded one up and took care of business.
 
#7 ·
Why is it that our representatives can't see that we don't have a gun problem we have a people problem. It is also quite evident as to who the majority of people are that are committing the gun crimes. Yep, I am sure if the much hailed national background check would have been in place it would have prevented the shooting. :aargh4:
 
#8 ·
It doesn't give the reason for the Sheriff's refusal to issue a permit to acquire a handgun. Which, according to the article, seems to be at the discretion of the Sheriff...

Under existing law, anyone wishing to buy a handgun must get a permit from the local sheriff, who has the discretion of approving or rejecting it. No permit is required to purchase a shotgun or rifle.
So, S.C. is a "shall issue" state for permits to carry, but for a permit to purchase a handgun, the sheriff has discretion. Is this correct?

Iowa requires a permit to acquire handguns as well.... or, in lieu of the permit to acquire, the Permit to Carry Weapons is good for the purpose.

But for the permit to acquire, in IA, you must only pass a NICS check conducted by the Sheriff, and not be arrested for or under indictment for disqualifying offenses. There is no "discretion" by the Sheriff except as stated above.

So I'm curious as to the S.C. law... does the Sheriff have (personal)discretion for permits to acquire... but no discretion for permits to carry? That seems odd...

And if so, the story rather speaks to the BENEFIT of "May Issue."
 
#9 ·
It doesn't give the reason for the Sheriff's refusal to issue a permit to acquire a handgun. Which, according to the article, seems to be at the discretion of the Sheriff...



So, S.C. is a "shall issue" state for permits to carry, but for a permit to purchase a handgun, the sheriff has discretion. Is this correct?

Iowa requires a permit to acquire handguns as well.... or, in lieu of the permit to acquire, the Permit to Carry Weapons is good for the purpose.

But for the permit to acquire, in IA, you must only pass a NICS check conducted by the Sheriff, and not be arrested for or under indictment for disqualifying offenses. There is no "discretion" by the Sheriff except as stated above.

So I'm curious as to the S.C. law... does the Sheriff have (personal)discretion for permits to acquire... but no discretion for permits to carry? That seems odd...

And if so, the story rather speaks to the BENEFIT of "May Issue."
First this was Grenville North Carolina.

The guy's history was likely the reason the PPP was denied, arrested by Pitt CC campus police several times, banned from campus permanently for starters.

Of course this is going to not help the current bill to eliminate the PPP in addition to allowing CC in many more places in the state, currently only one vote away from the governors desk. But the PPP needs to be eliminated, as many sheriff's have their own onerous requirements over what the law requires, such as requiring 3 notarized affidavits to the persons' character and allowing only 2 per year. Others just follow state law, no affidavits, and allow 10 per year, per state law.

I also think the "shall issue" refers to the CHP, not pistol purchase permit. Were it not a "shall" issue, the sheriff could simply say "nope, I won't issue CC permits" and not even accept applications. When a sheriff denies a CHP, they do so for a reason, but if there is no reason that would preclude a person getting a CHP, then they "shall" issue.
 
#11 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Stoveman
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top