It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sherrif Begins Taking Away Concealed Weapons Permits

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Sherrif Begins Taking Away Concealed Weapons Permits


www.ocregister.com

The Sheriff's Department has begun the process of revoking hundreds of concealed weapon permits across Orange County.

This week, department officials confirmed that 146 letters have been sent out advising current license holders that their permits to carry firearms in public – called CCWs – are being revoked. There are currently 1,024 permit holders.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
This is an insane way to start disarming law abiding citizens in California.We must be vigilant in stopping this lawless behavior.These gun grabbers need to be flooded with calls and e-mails.You do not fight crime by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.They are requesting more information from people who have already jumped through hoops in order to carry.The argument is that being an avid shooter does not qualify to carry.Well,I suggest that these people state their right to exercise the rights afforded by the constitution is more than enough of a reason to carry.When will this end?When we are all disarmed and prostrate ourselves before our armed masters?Are we all expected to bow down and bootlick?Not I.

www.ocregister.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Thats why I live in a "shall-issue" state. In Colorado, If you meet the basic requirements to get a CCW, they have to approve it.

The requirements are;

1. no felonies or restraining orders as well as no history of mentall illness.

2. Taken a class (usually about 8 hours) and have an instructor sign off. This requirement can be waived if you can demonstrate military\law enforcement training.

3. Present proper form to local chief law enforcement officer for him to sign off on (required to do so in a timely manner by law).

Everyone in my family has a CCW


California is simply the worst of the worst for gun laws, right up there with D.C. and New York. If you don't like it, move away from Commiefornia.

So, to recap, Colorado has "shall-issue"rules and one of the lowest gun- violence stats in the country, Washington DC, New York and California have the most strict gun laws in the country but also have the highest gun crime rates in the WORLD (got that, not just country, but WORLD)



[edit on 12-10-2008 by Tiloke]


+4 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Funny isn't it? The second amendment protects our right to own and carry.
"right to keep and bear arms"Our Supreme court has upheld this right.
I contend that all laws concerning "control" of guns is unlawful.If ownership and transport of weapons is a guranteed right,why do you have to have a license? A license is a special permit to do what would otherwise be illegal.Can't practice medicine without a license,or do dental work.I understand this,but requiring a permit to excert an already guranteed right.
These people must be daft!



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Seems like everything she is doing is legal. Seems the law has no uniformity if sheriffs are the ones making the decision. Since the licenses were already issued it seems wrong to take them away based on new policies. They might have a case here. One thing for sure they will find a way to take the guns away. Will get a lot worse in the next 4 years if Democrats win all the way around.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 


The laws here in Arkansas are much the same.
I just wish more people would take advantage of them. Maybe the crime rate in my little corner would go down.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Thats why I live in a "shall-issue" state. In Colorado, If you meet the basic requirements to get a CCW, they have to approve it.


I'm struggling with the logic of this. Surely you could say the same thing about people with the concealed weapons permits in California? If you met the requirements, you could have a permit, but now they're taking that away. Why is it any different in Colorado? Why won't the rules suddenly be changed there?

Just for clarification, I'm not asking this in an accusatory way or anything. I honestly don't understand and am asking genuine rather than rhetorical questions.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Well, at least many of you have the ability to get conceal carry permits. Wisconsin may be one of the worst states in that regard. You even get in trouble for using your gun during your house being broken into unless you can prove that the burglar was armed and intended to kill your family. Messed up.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
How #ing hard is it to read and interprit the 2nd ammendment?

For christ's sake people, the founders #ING SAID WHAT THEY MEANT WHEN THEY MADE THAT AMMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many documents must be read to understand the meaning of our Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution? It isn't rocket science!

I seriously, and I am being honest here, want to #ing revolt against this country right now. Nothing would make me happier than to declare my [our] independence and remove these types of douchebags from office and police forces.

I will carry my gun regardless of the laws. It is my Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," and I will exercise that right to the fullest. If they have a problem with that, come get my guns. I dare you.

I have had it with this government.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Tiloke
Thats why I live in a "shall-issue" state. In Colorado, If you meet the basic requirements to get a CCW, they have to approve it.


I'm struggling with the logic of this. Surely you could say the same thing about people with the concealed weapons permits in California? If you met the requirements, you could have a permit, but now they're taking that away. Why is it any different in Colorado? Why won't the rules suddenly be changed there?

Just for clarification, I'm not asking this in an accusatory way or anything. I honestly don't understand and am asking genuine rather than rhetorical questions.





California is a "may-issue" as opposed to a "shall-issue" state. The tards that make the laws there have decided that you need to show a valid reason to exorcise your second amendment rights. You would think that simply living in California would be reason enough to approve a permit.

Shall issue and may issue

I was wrong, DC has no concealed carry permits at all, none whatsoever. Now, I'm gonna go and see what area of the country has the most gun murders, BRB.

Maryland is number 2 in states, but when you go by deaths per 100,000 people, DC is waaaaaaay on top. Looks like that "shan't issue" rule is working out great for them.

There is also a direct reduction in gun murders when you compare the states with permit carriers per 100,000 people and gun murders per 100,000 people.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Tiloke]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
When I got my CCW permit years(decades
) ago, I was a bit concerned about the fact that I had to explain my "reason" for wanting to carry a weapon to the sheriff. I really should start listening to my initial gut instincts more...

Simply put, whoever is in control of the sheriff's department here can probably do the same thing (although I would expect a full-blown riot if they tried it here). The good part of this policy is that (supposedly) a trained policeman can detect someone who is a major crime risk in a face-to-face interview. The down side is that personal feelings of that same policeman can lead to something like this in California happening.

I'm glad to hear Colorado has a 'must issue' policy. I need to check and see where Alabama comes down on this issue. I suggest everyone who carries find out the policy (and laws) in their state.

Flagged, definitely.

edit to add: OK, I checked the link above, and Alabama is a 'shall issue' state. I guess the law and the impression in that interview are two separate things. That in itself worries me.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12-10-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Ok so, they are hightening requirments to have a concealed weapon licences and now some people no longer qualify for it anymore.

They arent taking peoples guns from them. All that has happened is the minumum requirments to have a concealed weapon licence has gone up. So some people no longer qualify. I fail to see the conspiracy here. People can still have their guns. Just certain people are no longer able to have carry a concealed weapon.

Please some one explain to me why 146 people out of 1,024 not meeting the new requirments is a big deal. While im not sure what part of the new requirments disqualify them for their license I would venture to bet that they probably dont need to be carrying a gun around anyway.

Unless they are being taken away from them because of ther race, religion, gender, sexual orentation. Or unless the US government is sweeping down and taking every single gun away from everybody I see no real conspiracy.

All I see is a small portion of people in California not meeting the new requirments.

Am I missing something here?


[edit on 12-10-2008 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by daeoeste
 


Thanks for the 411...

This lags big time....I live in OC myself, and hvae been eyeing a few hand guns in the surrounding area...

Got to take my handgun safety test, then submit the application with the fee, so THEY can have me on record for the purchase...wasn't planning on trying to attain a CCW, but I guess it doesn't matter now...




posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Please some one explain to me why 146 people out of 1,024 not meeting the new requirments is a big deal



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


That's why it's a big deal. If you don't support our Constitution, either convince your representatives to ammend it, or get the # out of our country. Simple as that.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Double Eights]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
It is a big deal because for no reason, the authorities simply decided that 15% of permit holders are now not permit holders.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
There should be no permits in the first place.

Where in the Constitution does it state permits must be given to those who want to posses arms? Where?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Please some one explain to me why 146 people out of 1,024 not meeting the new requirments is a big deal



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


That's why it's a big deal. If you don't support our Constitution, either convince your representatives to ammend it, or get the fu#@ out of our country. Simple as that.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Double Eights]

Exactly.This will not stop here if these people get their way.This letter campaign needs a cease and desist order by a higher court.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
When the NAU becomes a finalized reality and a new constitution is in place to accommodate all three nations as one, I seriously doubt that there will be any such allowance for citizens to have or carry weapons. You will no longer be able to scream, "I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms!"

While it is still within our legal right to do so, we may need to shake off the current tyrany and provide for ourselves a government that will acknowledge the innate rights of all beings.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
People that apply and have CCWs are not criminals. Think about it. How many gang-bangers have CCWs? Everyone should have a CCW but it is up to the sheriff of your county here in California and in my county, I can't get a CCW no matter what as they are no longer issued.

People are forced to carry without the proper "papers" and risk fines or imprisonment.

If every criminal had to worry if every potential victim had a gun do you think that they would think twice before committing the crime? But no, lets revoke the rights of law abiding citizens to carry guns for protection.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke

California is a "may-issue" as opposed to a "shall-issue" state. The tards that make the laws there have decided that you need to show a valid reason to exorcise your second amendment rights. You would think that simply living in California would be reason enough to approve a permit.

Shall issue and may issue


Thanks for the link. I couldn't open the actual linked article for some reason so I was wondering how much of this story I was missing.

However, what I don't understand is, if they are changing the law/regulations for concealed weapons in California, why can't that happen in Colorado or elsewhere? It seems apparent, that the government/police can change things. What's to stop the government changing 'Shall issue' to 'May Issue' or some other regulatory measure? People simply saying 'it would never happen in my state'?

If this was a part of some NWO scheme, this would make great sense. Like everything else, remove rights incrementally: first tighten up the 'May Issue' scheme, then switch the 'Shall Issue' to 'May Issue' and so on. Superficially, it looks like you're not revoking the right to bear arms but you're whittling it down.

If I was one of the guys sat in the big leather chairs, that's the way I'd do it too.




top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join