[P95Carry]

First off, we all I think feel that 2A in and of itself should be enough. That said - views vary as to firearms access by convicted felons, mentally unstable etc (all even themselves contentious subjects).

Leaving those issues aside but taking into account the almost huge variance, state by state on carry regulations, what would you choose as your ideal (or just acceptable) situation?

I am all but OK with my PA set-up, leaving aside the ''permissions'' aspect, though I would like to see folks encouraged more to take some training, for their own safety as well as others. I also would wish for restrictions on places of carry banishment to be reduced or lifted, even tho here they are quite minor.

I see some states where training and waiting periods seem absurd in their requirements. I see too of course states not yet taking up shall issue (I shed tears almost for the absurdity of the WI situation). I am still more than sympathetic too re MD, KS, IL etc - better also include DC, NYC, Chicago - so many ''exceptions".

If we accept that ''permissions'' are required - a ''bite the bullet'' modern requirement - then what would you accept as your ideal.?

 

[Euclidean]

I present to you every single gun law that will be on the books when I am king.

You may not own and by default carry a gun if:

(1) You are serving a prison sentence or parole,
(2) You are a fugitive from justice;
(3) You are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) You are crazy;
(5) You are not a United States Citizen;
(6) You have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) You are subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
(8) You are a minor and you don't have your parent or guardian's permission

Maybe a couple more. Basically other than that we'll worry about the best way to punish and catch criminals.

 

[Bud White]

I present to you every single gun law that will be on the books when I am king.

You may not own and by default carry a gun if:

(1) You are serving a prison sentence or parole,
(2) You are a fugitive from justice;
(3) You are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) You are crazy;
(5) You are not a United States Citizen;
(6) You have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) You are subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
(8) You are a minor and you don't have your parent or guardian's permission

Maybe a couple more. Basically other than that we'll worry about the best way to punish and catch criminals.

Thats about what i think to should not need to have a CCW permit as far as im concered

 

[Brian45]

I think His Highness King Euclidean has it covered.:king:

 

[P95Carry]

Well yeah, Euc has much covered well - but I am including thoughts re your delays, costs etc - what would you choose, instead of what you have?

What would be comfortably acceptable.?

 

[Miggy]

I present to you every single gun law that will be on the books when I am king.

You may not own and by default carry a gun if:

(5) You are not a United States Citizen;

Wait one minute here. I must protest this particular item. There are plenty legal inmigrants who are not only law abiding but believe in the Second Amendment and fight to defend it. To deny them ownership is criminal, injust and unfair.

 

[HotGuns]

Wait one minute here. I must protest this particular item. There are plenty legal inmigrants who are not only law abiding but believe in the Second Amendment and fight to defend it. To deny them ownership is criminal, injust and unfair.

Wrong.
If they like it here so much, they can become a US citizen and put the nationalist crap away.

If they want to abide by our rules...thats fine. Do it right and become a citizen. Then..and only then ,they can enjoy the freedom that sets this country apart form all others...

 

[rocky]

While CCW should be avalible for every law abiding citizen,I feel some training should be required. After all, if I am to trust others around myself and especially around my kids, I want the CCW holders to be competent and safe.

 

[ibex]

It takes at least five years to become a nationalized U.S. citizen and if I recall correctly the Bill of Rights expressly includes (or at least, applies to) all permanent residents of the United States, not just citizens.

Surely you wouldn't want people who aspire to become valuable members of America's society to live without their right to self-defence. If so, what other rights can they be denied?

To give those you would deny this basic human right a face, please keep in mind that our Chris is a legal immigrant, unless he completed his naturalization since I joined this forum. Did you, Chris?

The other thing I disagree with is the prohibition of carrying when under a restraining order. Those are used way too often as a legal maneuver in a divorce to get custody of the children and so on.

What I like is that, if I interpret your list correctly, your right to keep and bear arms is restored after you have served your jail and/or parole time.

 

[Roadrunner]

The other thing I disagree with is the prohibition of carrying when under a restraining order. Those are used way too often as a legal maneuver in a divorce to get custody of the children and so on.

I agree. This restriction is good IF the requirements to obtain one of these restraining orders are made more stringent.

 

[grnzbra]

I must object to number 7; those things are too easy to get without a requirement to prove anything beyond "I'm afraid of him". That law already exists and we've seen the abuses.

I would opt for no restrictions except a serious training requirement. Hunting licenses, DD214s, old NRA bullseye classification cards don't qualify as proof of training. Every activity of man has a body of knowledge associated with it. Unfortunately, because we've had quite a number of generations brought up under various levels of gun control, this body of knowledge is no longer "common knowledge". It is held by the police and groups like us. A course would ensure that people had at least received the basics.

 

[Euclidean]

My thinking on not being a US citizen is I don't want illegal immigrants or anyone who has renounced their citizenship to be considered. Legal immigrants could certainly be added into the fold.

Restraining orders - sorry I got personal experience with this one. That's actually a good idea. What is necessary is a bit of legal reform to make them actually work like they're supposed to. We can't write laws that work under the supposition of incompetence, prejudice, or perhaps in this case misandry because we know all judges pass out restraining orders against men freely. It would be like writing a law that says the police can't pull over a black male because we all know the police discriminate against them.

Re: the training angle.

While we're at it, let's require an Associate's or better degree in English and History for a person to excercise the part of the first amendment that allows freedom of speech. If they want freedom of religion they're going to have to go to seminary for two years. If you don't want to have to quarter soldiers you're going to have to pass a special state mandated multiple choice test. If you would like your fourth amendment rights, we're going to pose you some hypothetical legal cases and see if you can interpret your rights in that situation correctly... I hope someone sees the problem by now.

Learning how to do something well is always a good idea, but who sets the standard?

My buddy the Marine when I saw him last didn't know how to clear a semiautomatic pistol, and the military is widely considered to be the paragon of firearms proficiency by the general public.

Does anyone remember that post some time ago about the jewelry store owner who fended off five armed robbery attempts? I don't remember him ever going to Gunsite and I wouldn't call him incompetent.

I will always try to improve myself, but it is arrogant and wrong to demand it of others. I'm not you, I don't understand your situation, I haven't seen what you've seen, and vice versa. I'm not going to sit around drafting piles of restrictions that presuppose everyone else but me is going to do something stupid. Society can't work that way unless we build in tyranny of government.

 

[Miggy]

I can live with the changes. Didn't mean to cause a raucus !:twak:

 

[nitrogen]

Down here in Texas, it can take up to 60 days or longer to get your CHL.
The State actually likes to sit on them longer if they can find an excuse.

I'd like to see the State issue a CHL if you can pass a NCIS check, and pass your training requirement. Go down to DPS, show them your TR100 (form stating you passed your range qualification and written test) and get photographed and whatnot, and walk out with your CHL.

If it's good enough to buy a gun, it's good enough to carry one.

I doubt I'll see that within my lifetime, though.

 

[grnzbra]

We can't write laws that work under the supposition of incompetence, prejudice, or perhaps in this case misandry because we know all judges pass out restraining orders against men freely.
...

...Learning how to do something well is always a good idea, but who sets the standard?

It seems that in one case you would like to limit someone's 2A rights based on a judge setting the standards for issuing a restraining order, while, at the same time not wanting to limit the 2A rights because someone might set a standard.

 

[Tubby45]

I don't think there should be required training. I can open carry on foot with no permit and no training. All of a sudden I want to conceal it and now there are more rules and BS I have to go by? Now I have to waste money to learn a right? I make $5.15 an hour and I had to come up with $105 for my permit and $100 for the state-mandated training, even though I learned all this crap in cop school. I make $550 a month with bills running $475-500 not including gas. I go through little less than 1/4 tank ('bout 3.5-3.8 gal) per day. At about $2.43 right now, that adds up. Remember Murphy v. PA? "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." SCOTUS 1943. Were did we go wrong?

And I have to pay the State so I can protect myself because only I am responsible for my safety and their duty is to the general public? Seems like I am my own bodyguard. Maybe I should deduct my permit cost, , weapon, training, ammo, holster, gunbelt, extra mags, ear muffs, eye protection, cleaning kit, targets, & target stand from my taxes, seeing as how I am self-employed.

Thankfully this is the last permit I will have to buy. When I am a cop, I won't need any stinking permit. That is the way it should be. Only AK and VT have it right.

The persons already disallowed to own/possess firearms should stay the same. I would add pardons don't count. If you have a misd. DV conviction from 20 years back and your brother in law gets elected as governor and pardons you so you can go deer hunting again. Nope. Not buying it. No guns for you. You couldn't control yourself 20 years ago and all of a sudden you have seen the light and you are all better. BS.

You get convicted of rape and 20 years later it comes about that some other guy did it and you were totally 100% innocent and were imprisioned as a result of the mis-judgement, that is another thing. You still have gun rights because you didn't do the crime you were found guilty of doing. Infortunately, this "oops we messed up, sorry" stuff is becoming more common with DNA testing and sickens me to no end. I wouldn't turn my nose up at giving them $1 mil a year for every year they were incarcerated unjustly. Dude that got released recently after 16 years and found innocent because some other guy did it, Dude gets $16 mil NO TAXES. Wouldn't have a problem with it at all. I would be glad my tax money went for that cause rather than researching the mating patterns of the wombat.

 

[500Mag]

I think Vermont got it right.

"It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man."

Along with that I would have no "gun free zones". Oh they sound so peaceful but what about the BG waiting outside for you with a gun...he knows you ain't got one.

If you can legally possess a firearm then you can legally carry.

 

[Rumble]

Euclidean's rules seem doable to me (altered only to accommodate legal immigrants and permanent residents). Training...I like the idea, but I don't like the fact that it's a restriction. I could go either way.

Regardless, the application and any training required must be absolutely free to the applicant. Somebody (maybe this forum) pointed out that the costs of obtaining a CCW in some states can be prohibitive, and thereby back-handedly remove a right from people with lower incomes (granted, the cost of a gun can also be prohibitive, but work with me here...).

Actually...maybe we could mandate that everyone who may legally own a gun must own a gun. If they cannot purchase a gun, one will be provided for them. A good one.

 

[Euclidean]

It seems that in one case you would like to limit someone's 2A rights based on a judge setting the standards for issuing a restraining order, while, at the same time not wanting to limit the 2A rights because someone might set a standard.

This is illogical. The purpose of the 2A is to allow one to assert their natural rights. Can we all not agree that your rights end where someone else's begin?

What you're essenitally implying here is that it's hypocrisy to allow say a prison inmate to be deprived of the right to bear arms. A restraining order is not a "standard". It is a legal means of protection for someone who can prove they're being threatened.

My aunt for instance, the one who I talk about a lot on this board because of her CCW interest, her ex husband has hit her, damaged her property, harassed her at work, etc.

This man has the right to be armed in her presence? He has no respect for her right to live without being assaulted harassed or vandalized. It's the same as when someone pulls a knife on you in an alley and tries to kill you; by committing an act of aggression they have broken the social contract (not to mention acted immorally). Why should we worry about the rights of people who want to hurt others? (We do that too much already actually.)

A restraining order is a means of correcting an undesirable behavior, much like imprisonment or parole. Its utility is dubious perhaps, but it serves that purpose.

Perhaps a better solution is to allow for a stipulation that a person under the effects of such an order should be arrested if discovered armed within so many feet of them.

 

[ibex]

her ex husband has hit her, damaged her property, harassed her at work, etc.

This man has the right to be armed in her presence?

No. Instead, he has the right to be armed whereever he goes. He just is not allowed to go near your aunt, packing or not.