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: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
at one time I was going for a permit, took all the test, the class, and had the papers. I decided against it as my state is open carry. Why do I ned it if I can oc all the time? However many here will give you a hassle including law enforcement. That would be the only reason I would conceal carry.

respectfully

reluctantpawn




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Should the child rapist not be entitled to defend himself against a lynch mob? Or are you a proponent of mob justice?


Certainly.

The child rapist should be able to kill the lynch mob with his government authorized weapons, and override the government by a coup using his team of molesters that also have been authorized firearms and other weapons..

After that he should be able to impose laws making child molestation legal.

Because, you know, every man for himself.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician

What do you really know about this? Why are the people receiving the notices of revocation?

I know very little, really. I admit it. I do know this: California already has extremely strict laws on firearms, not to mention on about any individual freedom. That's why I don't know much about it. I've been to the place several times, and I'd just as soon not go back. If it cracked off the continent and floated away, I wouldn't be too upset, to be perfectly honest.

My replies have been more toward the constitutionality of the revocations, and of the general attitude of California towards individual rights, as I have witnessed. They are a state under the United States of America, which makes them subject to the restrictions and privileges specified in the Constitution. And if I remember my history, California asked to become a state; nobody conquered them.


... and don't give me any 2nd amendment BS.

BS? I take it then that you consider freedom of speech to be BS? How about freedom of assembly? How about freedom to be secure in one's own home? Oh, wait, maybe giving women the right to vote is BS. Or making slavery illegal; that would be BS too, right?

All of these rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution, along with the one right you seem to want to deny others: the freedom to keep and bear arms. They are not somehow separate from the 2nd amendment. If you consider one amendment, one right, one freedom as "BS", then you consider them all as such. Perhaps Iran would be more to your liking? They don't have these silly rights like we do. Or maybe France? I don't think they are armed (with anything more than a surrender flag
). A lot of people in the USA actually want to keep their rights, as silly as that may seem.

Beware what you consider BS, my friend.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Red, not to be a muck raker here, but France has some of the better firearms laws in Europe. The average citizen may own weapons there that we have to jump through hoops to buy. I was very surprised at this knowledge. They can even import weapons from here fairly easily!
Other than that, your spot on as usual.

Zindo



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

"The Department has determined that your identified risk does not meet the good cause threshold as required under the new CCW policy based upon the information you provided. As a result of this determination, the Department's present intention is to revoke your CCW license," reads the form letter sent out this month.

What was the "new identified risk"?

I wonder if it has anything to do with ever having taken certain medications. I read that if you've ever been prescribed depression medications, your life insurance premiums will be raised. This is information that can now be accessed, though, that wasn't the case a few years ago due to privacy laws. That's why I'm wondering if the people who received this letter revoking their license may have lied on their applications and the information in their medication history is now provable.

Or was it something else?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The anti gun posts are getting pretty weird...

The county in California from the article had a CCW program in place but made it very difficult for anyone to obtain said permits. Very few people had permits prior to the ex Sheriff. Out of all the permits he issued how many were found to be "questionable"?

One

If that "questionable" permit had been to an ex felon or someone legally not allowed to carry it would have been the headline in big bold print. What they define as "questionable" has yet to be determined as the new Sheriff doesn't seem to want to share that information.

You can get a permit in NYC and DC also, it's just completely impossible unless you have political connections. The reality is that in certain states CCW permits are "sold" by corrupt politicians or barely granted, period.

The new sheriff is not "cleaning up corruption", she's trying to roll back the number of CCW permits to dozens in number. I wonder if any of her parties contributors who have permits will receive one of those letters? I predict she'll have a very short term as Sheriff unless that county is packed with anti-gun types.

The entire CCW permit system is a form of disarmament and is unconstitutional. Anyone who attempts to fight these gun bans in court finds the full weight and finances of the Federal govt lined up against them. It took incredible legal funds and resources to right the recent DC gun ban case.

The entire FFL system is to create paper trails for the purpose of knowing who to go after when the SHTF. They do nothing to prevent crime. Again and again we find that violent criminals were usually felons who cannot legally own a gun outside their home and more often than not were using stolen guns.

Concealed carry results in less crime, especially less violent crime. No one has been able to provide valid statistics showing otherwise. You don't like guns and don't want to own one? Fine, it's your right you're surrendering. When you try to take guns away from lawful owners you not only infringe on their rights but you make your community more dangerous.

Learn history. Read the writings of the founding fathers. They wanted us to all own guns so people in power would not subvert our freedom and put a dictatorship in place. They were very clear that the citizens should be able to fight back if needed. Putting limits on weapons, disabling them so they are weaker than what our government or an invading force carries is not what they intended.

The 2nd amendment was not explicit because to our founding fathers having a gun was as normal as owning a hammer or a screwdriver. It was a necessity. Our countries revolution against England began when British troops began disarming the colonists. Anyone who wants to disarm you or me is an enemy of this country, period.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone

France has some of the better firearms laws in Europe.

I'll concede to you on this Zindo. I have to say it shocks me as well, though. I need to find somebody else to laugh at, I guess.

Keep nit-picking. You just denied some ignorance I had.


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   




Why should someone who has sexually molested a child have the right to carry a firearm?

Why should a rapist have the right to carry a firearm?

... because.................................... why?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ZindoDoone

France has some of the better firearms laws in Europe.

I'll concede to you on this Zindo. I have to say it shocks me as well, though. I need to find somebody else to laugh at, I guess.

Keep nit-picking. You just denied some ignorance I had.


TheRedneck


You can laugh at us British then, the government keeps tightening the laws on AIRGUNS heading towards licencing laws or an outright ban. If they try to make us register them I will conveniently forget that I have any.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
The Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill of Rights is the only one that GUARANTEES the rest of the rights.

How a candidate stands on the Second Amendment will tell you if he/she thinks you are a citizen or a subject.

Obama and Biden both have an F-. McCain has a C-, Palin has an A+.

WWI+WWII our allies were Australia, Britian and Canada. Those countries gun rights have been gutted in the past twenty to thirty years.

The movement to gut USA gun rights has been afoot for as long.

All of the CCW, registration, permit, class, license, instruction, safety lock, instant background check, are all erosions of the God given right to self defense from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Liberty is freedom from excessive laws and regulations.

Freedom is being able to act in a law abiding fashion.

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.
There are TWO action verbs in the second amendment which are KEEP and BEAR. Freedom means to be able to ACT.

Keep means have, possess, store, own, ...
Bear means, carry, use, fire, transport, purchase, hunt, recreate, build, experiment, and other uses inferred in the word bear.



The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was simply to take away the people's arms and make it an offense for people to keep them.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">http...://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Since this country relies on a citizen army, all citizens need to know how to handle a firearm, proficiently.

If you do not know how to shoot or how to handle a firearm you are in my definition a no darned good citizen, who shuns your duty onto a good citizen to if needed place his/her life in peril to defend both your and their rights.



[edit on 13-10-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by erwalker
Please don't bother coming to Canada. Your right to bear arms stops at the border. Quite a few Americans have found this out to their chagrin.


Yeah RIGHT.... You mean HAND GUNS... but ARMS include rifles and shotguns which are LEGAL to own in Canada

There is an average of three firearms in every gun-owning Canadian household. The majority of gun-owning households in Canada own rifles and/or shotguns; on a per capita basis, Canadians own nearly as many rifles as Americans.






Ten Myths About Gun Control

1. �VERY FEW PEOPLE IN CANADA OWN FIREARMS�

Exactly the opposite is true: twenty-nine per cent of Canadian homes possess an estimated total of nine million firearms. Other authorities insist that even this figure is too low, and that there is at least twenty million firearms in Canada. The UN reported that Canada ranks third among the developed western countries (behind the United States and Norway) in the civilian ownership of firearms.





2. CANADIANS WANT MORE RESTRICTIVE �GUN CONTROL� LAWS

On the contrary: more than 90% of Canadians do not believe that stricter �gun control� laws are a solution to violent crime, and two-thirds of Canadians believe that passing more severe laws over legitimate gun owners will have very little influence on criminals. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadians favour severe penalties for crimes involving firearms; only 8% favour increasing restrictions over existing firearm owners. Eighty per cent of Canadians do not support the confiscation of firearms from legitimate gun owners. Ninety per cent of Canadians believe that citizen compliance with mandatory firearm registration will be minimal. Two-thirds of Canadians believe that using a firearm in self-defence is justified. Support for more �gun control� dramatically decreases after the Canadian public is informed about existing firearm laws.


www.cdnshootingsports.org...



[edit on 13-10-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician




Why should someone who has sexually molested a child have the right to carry a firearm?

Why should a rapist have the right to carry a firearm?

... because.................................... why?


They shouldn't and by law can't. Felons, addicts, stalkers, and the mentally unstable can't get a CPL in Michigan. There are a handful of misdemeanors that will disqualify you. Honestly I don't mind the strict (in some people's opinion) rules for concealed carry in Michigan. It ensures (mostly) that us law abiding citizens of sound mind are the ones carrying legally and as the numbers grow those who would do harm will run into those of us who carry more and more.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


"Nighswonger said many of the current revocations listed their reason for having a concealed gun as "avid shooter.""

From the article. Most of these guys basically didn't bother to say anything more than I LIKE GUNS DUHHHH

There is no conspiracy here, and I totally agree with you. Non-issue.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Alex Krycek
 


Here, you are coached by the people teaching the CPL class that when asked why you want a CPL you should respond with "For personal protection." which is basically "I LIKE GUNS DUHHHH" Do you really need a better reason?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowbeard
 

So you are going to forget that you have an AIRGUN. That is very funny.

I do not think an airgun is something that falls under the definition of an "ARM", arm meaning what you fight to the death with, as in war or defense.

So it is that pathetic over in Britian?

Airguns being outlawed?

I myself here am unhappy that Wal Mart and K Mart have stopped selling firearms.

TPTB will not come door to door to take away the actual weapons, no they will just dispatch troops on a long weekend to confiscate all of the ammunition at every outlet that sells ammunition. Very few Americans reload their own rounds now days.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Supes
 


A better question would be why should someone have to give a reason at all?

Are people required to give reasons why they want to exercise any other Constitutional right?

Should we set up a little checkpoint outside every church where a government agent will determine if someone should be allowed in based upon their reasoning for wanting to practice the religion of their choice?

Better yet, why not do away with search warrants and just give the government power to search everything and everyone unless a justifiable reason why they shouldnt be able to is produced?

The entire premise of needing to give a reason why you want to carry a gun is ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Amen!

Someday some of you anti gun types may end up in the unfortunate situation of having life and limb threatened and come to the realization that a gun in your hand or in the hands of someone around you would be useful. What if just one person on the campus of VA Tech had been packing? how many would have been saved? How about when someone starts firing off rounds in a crowded McDonald's? Will your tune change then? Stricter gun laws do nothing but hurt. Those who are breaking the law don't really care about adding a firearms offense. Then you say "get rid of all guns!" Thats when they get crative and make zip guns or just use a knife knowing full well that us law abiding citizens are obeying the law and are no longer armed. Be careful what you wish for "proles".



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Good point, I do not need a permit, license, class to practice religion, speech, press, assembly, petition redresses, and other rights in the Bill of Rights. I therefore do not need any of these to keep and bear arms.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Canada's tough new gun control law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2001, requires individuals to obtain licenses to posses or purchase either guns or ammunition. By Jan. 1, 2003, registration of all guns in Canada will be required. The Firearms Act regulations apply to the importing, exporting, possession, use, storage, display and transportation of all firearms, and are in effect across the country.
Under the Canadian Firearms Act, the three classes of firearms are:

1. Non-restricted (most ordinary rifles and shotguns);
2. Restricted (mainly handguns); and
3. Prohibited (full automatics, converted automatics, handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm (approx. 4") or less, and .25 or .32 caliber handguns among others).



Americans bringing Guns into Canada..



Bringing Guns Into Canada

Prohibited guns, or replicas of prohibited guns cannot be taken into Canada. No exceptions.

To bring a Restricted gun into Canada, you must be 18-years of age or older and acquire an Authorization to Transport (ATT) from a provincial or territorial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) before you arrive at the point of entry into Canada.

To bring Non-Restricted guns into Canada, you must be 18-years of age or older, declare your guns at your first point of entry, complete a Non-resident Firearms Declaration form in triplicate, have it confirmed by a customs officer and pay a $50 (Canadian funds) fee.


usgovinfo.about.com...


More...



CANADIAN GUN LAWS

The good news is that Canadian law allows non-residents to bring ordinary long guns into Canada with relatively little difficulty, for hunting, competition, transport to Alaska, and protection against wildlife in remote areas.....



Contrary to what many people have said, and signs posted at the border say, it is possible to bring handguns into Canada, including to transport them between the continental US and Alaska. It requires considerable advance planning and preparation, but it can be done. Signs that say "handguns are prohibited in Canada" are wrong.

The easiest way to understand Canada's gun laws is to think "New York City style." That is: classification of firearms, licensing of gun owners (this includes buying ammo), registration of all firearms, additional restrictions on handguns and certain long guns including how they may be transported and carried, and some guns banned entirely.

Canadian firearm owners are licensed with either a Possession-Only License (POL), or a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL). Non-residents are eligible to obtain a PAL. In addition, there are two special licenses for short-term visitors, the Temporary Borrowing License and the Non-Resident Firearms Declaration.


So it IS possible to own handguns in Canada, even to carry for US citizens but it takes a hell of a lot of paperwork



But 'normal' rifles and shotguns are non-restricted and if your coming to kick my door in... its hard to miss with a shotgun


Also Black Powder weapons are not on the restricted list... that includes the old Colt cap and ball pistols
Don't know about you but but they still have a lot of stopping power...



Being in Re-enactment myself... I have a nice arsenal of swords, bows and crossbows myself... and we have even worn these in public in a Vegas Casino... (The Welsh longbow and arrows DID cause a few rookie security some concern...

But we won the day...
and got in a little Dragon hunting..



I do note however that Australia has begun permitting sword ownership... and the Republic of Kalifornia is also making it harder on us...



[edit on 13-10-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney

Very few Americans reload their own rounds now days.

I do, and so should anyone else who does any real amount of shooting (target practice). I have a .444 Marlin (grizzly gun, I call it my 'lazy man's chain saw' since it will cut down a decent size tree). The shells back when I got it were costing about $1 a shot; I could reload for 25 cents a shot. I can also get bullets in any arrangement I want, armor-piercing, semi-jacket hollow-point, wad cutters, etc., since it uses the same chunks of lead as a .44 Magnum. I can also tune the amount and type of powder to the gun and my preferences. After all, it's not every day I want to crush my shoulder.


The press I got was about $50.00, and I was buying die sets for something like $25.00 each. So I broke even after 100 rounds, which used to be one shooting session for me. After that, it's pure profit. And it doesn't take nearly as long to reload ammo as it does to drive to a store and buy it.

Oh, since this is the Internet, I should mention that I sold that particular gun to an unknown person for an unknown sum on an unknown date and have absolutely no idea of it's whereabouts....


TheRedneck




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join