It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 03:02 PM
I let mine expire because when I moved and went to apply in another State, They said I had to take a "safety class" then they would review and determine if they would allow it. I thought that was fine, even though here, I just was printed and had my liscense.

The reason I decided not to pursue it there, is because when they gave me a small "Instructor list" and the phone numbers, I went home and called, and some woman answered the phone, so I asked to speak to "whatever his name was", thinking it was a secretary or office person, and she replied, "He's not home from work yet".

I thought that was pretty cheesy and just went on without it there. But it was hunting country, and that's what is really important. So I still had my rifle and the first year there, Deer season lasted about 30 minutes.

This is the results of the 30 minutes. (plus 35 minutes drive round trip)

I bet you couldn't do that in Orange County.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 03:43 PM
Heres a link to a list of what the state laws are in your area. Hope this helps with any questions: click on your state in the map and it gives you other links to the actual statutes!


posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:02 PM
Whoa. Maybe it is time to carry them openly. Everybody.

I know that if they tried this in Arizona, land of Tomestone, people would strap up openly in masses. I see people all the time packing side arms. Honestly, I think that most of them that do, do it because they can, and they want to send a message, damn right I can.

I have a good friend who is a deputy, and we talked about fire arms in AZ, and most people here feel it's a GOD given right, not a constitutional one.

This country is currently in a coup by the NWO. The only thing left is martial law.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:21 PM
Seems to fall in line with the NWO's plan, to enslave North America, when the economy has collapsed, they impose martial law and begin to detain anyone they suspect will be a trouble maker/rebel against their cause, what better way to make it easier to scare people into submission and acceptance, than to take away their ability to defend themself and their family.

Such vulnerable people will fall in line quickly, where as those who wish to fight for their rights and constitution, who did have their weapons, would stick it to the man. Anti gun laws do not stop gun crime, do not make anyone safer, but it does pave the way for an easy takeover by the NWO when they deam it ready time.

Anyone living in the USA and reading this, you should cross over to Canada or Mexico, get yourself some assault and hunting rifles, get some ammo refilling equipment and supplies from your local gunshop, and start stockloading ammo for said guns. When the martial law is imposed and your family are being carted away to a detention centre, you will thank God for your pre-emptive action against the NWO, since you can take that assault rifle and fuk them the hell up. Then join the resistance and take your country back or die trying!

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:50 PM
It's death by 1,000 cuts for gun owners. Always has been. Every time some politician says "sure, I respect the 2nd Amendment" there's always the caveat. No carrying guns, no scary guns, no short range guns, no long range guns, no guns I've seen in movies, no guns that shoot a certain mythical ammo, no guns that shoot faster than an arbitrary speed I've set, and blah blah blah.

I'm in a state where open carry is perfectly "legal" (like the 2nd makes it anything less than perfectly legal) but a permit is required for concealed carry (the permitting process includes of showing a utility bill proving you live in the town and a $10 fee) and I'm still worried that one day for any reason that will all change. You other "shall-issue" people should be equally concerned. If we truly had any damn rights at all the matter would stop at the 2nd. There wouldnt be any permits, arbitrary criteria to meet, bullS bans on stupid crap being rammed down our throats (Biden I'm looking at you) or any of this other nonsense decades of "common sense" crap and bent over compromise has gotten us.

The moment the first idiot agreed to any other idiot who cried for some pointless regulation or registration we've been doomed.

I wouldnt hold the Heller decision up like it was some saving grace either. If that decision meant anything or any politician thought it truly meant anything CT, MA, NYC, CA and the other gun-phobic dependent heavy cesspools in this loosely connected conglomerate called a country would have immediately ceased all of their crap laws and regulations but they didn't.

If Obama/Biden get in and their little permanent AWB is even mentioned in Washington we're done for. Once something like that passes into law only an act of god could get it repealed.

No more compromise. No more "common sense."

Those of you in states that have that NRA safety crap class as a requirement know how BS it is. I'm an instructor and I know it's BS. As long as your check clears you pass. I have never come across a student so thick and clueless they couldn't apply the knowledge of "this end will kill you." The NRA supports this crap because they get money training the crooks like me to satisfy some arbitrary criteria by taking the money of people like you in states that require you comply with the scheme. It's a great racket I had when in CT. $100 a pop and a day at the range. Thanks NRA! And thank-you sucker states who mandate your residents get scammed by people like me. What do I need for full auto? $200? That makes me "safe" in the eyes of anti-gunner fools? That I can write a $200 check that will clear?

I know for a fact the fools that push for these pointless restriction which boil down to simply being able to spend money have absolutely no idea what an NFA stamp requires or what an NRA safety class consists of. Yet they support them whole-heartedly (as long as they help build the bridge to complete banning they do).

Hunters better stop pretending that bans dont matter too. You like your bolt 7mm? That's great. I like my AR-15. Leave it the !@#$ alone. If you dont think once they take mine they'll stop coming for yours your kidding yourself right into disarmament.

Then there's Bloomberg suing a gun shop in VA because he claims the shop sold somebody a gun that was used in a NY crime. The shop settled!! There's a terrible precedent for you. Anybody else live in NH? It wont be long before every crackhead ghetto-trash gang-banging dropout POS who commits a crime with a gun will be NH's fault. That leads to interstate and federal lever bans and restrictions even without the passing of Obama/Bidens AWB.

The situation is much, much worse than I'm afraid many "pro-gun" people are noticing.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 05:05 PM
[although I would expect a full-blown riot if they tried it here]

In my personal opinion that is EXACTLY why they are doing it .They need to have a reason to JUSTIFY a martial law scenerio ...which I do believe they have planned for the coming WORLD GOV .they know that the people of our country (especially our country) will not WILLINGLY give up our Constitution for the UN one ....(Even if our Gov is all for it ) Most Americans will not be ...

For years I have wondered why do they tell everyone they need to get this this this and this ..and then turn around and tell them Well now we think it is bad for you so now give it back to us ..(Like guns etc) ....
Its like dangling a carrot ..then snatching it back just to PISS YOU OFF on purpose ..
(Not that I care about having a gun because I dont) ..
They do this same thing though with everything ..they allow porn etc then tell you you will go to jail now if you get caught with it on your puter etc ..(I know they are just concerned with child porn) but porn in itself is why so many child molesters etc are out there now ..Porn should not have ever been legalized in the first place ...(at least in my opinion)...

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 05:23 PM
I think someone needs to take the Sheriff's gun away from her and see how she likes it. Actually if she or someone like her tried to take away my permit, this is what I'd say to her: "As long as you and your officers can guarantee me with 100% certainty that you can be here within 30 seconds of me getting raped/held up/mugged/stabbed/etc. - then I'll be glad to give up my gun." This really irks me...

reply to post by daeoeste

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 05:27 PM
This is a prime example of why I carry concealed without a permit.

Once you apply for a permit, you are turning your rights into a privilege. One does not need to ask permission to exercise a right.

To make it simple: When you apply for permission, you give the issuing authorities the power to revoke your right.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Has anyone attempted to take this stance in the appeal of a gun charge related to illegal concealed caryy? I remember a reading about a guy in Montana who refused to get a driver's license and had the case thrown out as he successfully proved that citizens have the right to travel by common means without the need for a special license or permit.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by ninthaxis

I honestly do not know. However, if I am ever presented with that situation, I will indeed challenge it to the highest courts as possible.

I know there have been some court cases where people have been both convicted and in other cases acquitted for refusing to get a drivers license on religious grounds, but to the best of my knowledge no one has challenged concealed carry laws, as most likely it would be in vain anyways. Courts these days tend not to side with freedom.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Didn't need a concealed carry permit to carry a six-shooter in the wild west days, didn't need a license for the horse either. If this is what the founding fathers intended, wouldn't they have taken the initiative themselves?

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by ninthaxis

Exactly my point.

If the founding fathers had intended for the people to get permission first, they could have simply added a phrase along the lines of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as proper permits have been issued."

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar

Not to be nit picky, but I would like to change one letter of your post. I would like to change "could" to "would" to read "the founding fathers would have...."

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by daeoeste

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.

Uhh, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns in the first place..

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by krestan

Did you actually read what you typed before you posted it?

I hope not.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:34 PM
I find it ironic that a county with such strict gun laws has such a terrible crime rate. People have a right to defend themselves against criminals as well as tyrants.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by krestan

Originally posted by daeoeste

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.

Uhh, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns in the first place..

So law abiding citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves, or heck, go hunting if they so choose? That is what you are saying right? that none of us should ever protect ourselves. a baseball bat does nothing against an intruder with a gun.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:50 PM
What most have not heard about the CCW permits in the OC Sheriff Mike Carona was there were two ways to get your permit.
under the old sheriff you could go the regular route or you could buy a permit by donating to the old sheriff election campaign.

Sheriff Sandra Hutchens decided to review the county’s 1,024 concealed weapons permits after allegations that previous Sheriff Mike Carona may have handed them out as political favors. Carona will soon go on trial on federal corruption charges.

Here are a few more excerpts from the Times article:

An indictment would mark a spectacular fall for the 52-year-old sheriff, who only five years ago was widely seen as a rising star in California Republican politics.

His conduct had hurt the department’s integrity and morale, according to the critics, who pointed in particular to allegations that he had issued badges and concealed-weapons permits to campaign contributors without background checks or ensuring that they had proper training.

from what i understand the ones getting revoked are the holders with the badges and CCWs

[edit on 12-10-2008 by ANNED]

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Double Eights
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?

They want you to THINK that they can tell you whether you can carry a gun or not.

Originally posted by Tiloke
It is a big deal because for no reason, the authorities simply decided that 15% of permit holders are now not permit holders.

Yep and then another 15 or 20% then another 15 or 20%...

Originally posted by krestan

Uhh, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns in the first place..

You, my misguided little friend... need your head examined...
Are you on drugs or something?
Why would a law abiding citizen need a gun? o let me count the ways...
1.To hunt and feed their family (saving ridiculous ammounts of money)or for sport.
2. To protect yourself and your family from criminals.
3. To protect yourself and your family from our government.
All of these are valid reasons to own a gun, which I would like to add, is a constitutionally given, and protected right.
If you think no law abiding citizen has the need for a gun (I'm assuming because you think our government will, and should do everything for us including protecting us in our own homes) than I think you need to move to another country where you can be surrounded by communists or socialists where you would fit in just fine.
However, here in the good 'ol U.S. EVERY law abiding citizen should own a gun.
Try reading the constitution before you run your mouth under the assumption that you know what you are talking about.

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by traderjack
I find it ironic that a county with such strict gun laws has such a terrible crime rate. People have a right to defend themselves against criminals as well as tyrants.

I've got two honest questions to ask:
1) How many criminals care about obeying strict gun laws?
2) Statistically, who are most likely to be engage in criminal behavior?

I am a person who likes to just get out of the way, and let the data tell the story:


top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in