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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

When they are widely available it will be so much easier to get them. At least with a knife you can try and run away.

I guess knife-throwing doesn't exist over there. Must be nice. I know a few guys who are more deadly throwing a knife than firing a gun at 100 feet.

Close range, please pull a gun on me. I won't have a scratch when all is done. Pull a knife close range, and I can't guarantee that. Knives are infinitely more dangerous than guns at close range.

It's like the Yanks are afraid that King George is going to come back and get them, or something. That precious "but what if we are invaded!" line gets me every time.

Nah, George is dead, and anyway, we whipped him before he managed to die off.

We have firearms because it is our right to have them. We do not use a monarchy; we allow the government to have power that is vested in the people, not in some government or king or parliament, under specified restrictions. These restrictions are the US Constitution; it is no more than a contract between the collective people of the USA and the government of the USA.

Should the contract be broken, legally our government would no longer have the right to govern. All actions against it by the citizenry would be allowed, because it would be an illegal entity. The sad truth is that we have become a weak society of mindless automatons who depend on this government and who are too afraid to go against it.

I find it precious, though, that you are the first one to mention fear of invasion in this thread. Jumping the gun (pun intended) aren't we?


posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by tommyb98201
I do not believe we are in any danger of loosing our right to carry weapons anytime soon. We just might have to wear a holster. I dont agree with this and Im not all that much into guns. I do , However support the 2nd amandment as I have read it and supporters of it several times.

The founding fathers werent as much concerned about protecting ourselves from each other as they were protecting us from a government gone mad. Thats the conclusion I have drawn.
Bury a few guns and ammo somewhere just in case, then come protect me, I dont own any. I will feed you.


Ok, I always like it when someone other than me cooks anyway, I'll come protect you in case the government goes madder than it is.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:13 PM
CCW / Gun Facts & Fiction

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:40 PM
To be fair I mentioned "invasion" but it was in the context of what type of weapons does the 2nd amendment allow (the answer is no restrictions are listed at all) but the key is in the other writings of the founding fathers.

The founding fathers wrote a great many letters and articles during the formation of the constitution and it's in those papers, the "Federalist Papers" and the personal correspondence where the minute details of the debates and discussions took place. The founding fathers had seen tyranny and an attempt to disarm the public, they were very clear in their writings that the populace needed to maintain weapons of the same class they would be faced with. They did not say the Army should have the best available and the citizenry should have limited version of those same weapons.

This all took place during a time when government oppression and invasions by hostile forces were not only possible but were a real occurrence. It was their intention that the public be well armed and maintain a citizen army in order to protect the country from all threats, external and internal.

The Swiss, Israel and quite a few other countries not only require citizens to serve in the military but remain reservist, store and carry arms. The difference is that in those countries the populace is required to own firearms and these are fully automatic weapons. The Swiss maintain hidden caches of arms including explosives, projectiles, artillery and so on under the control of civilians.

I wish we were in a point and time in our history where war and invasions no longer took place but that's just not the case. To try and paint the picture of a paranoid and gun toting America is just wrong, however. Far too many Americans have no clue what the 2nd amendment means let alone bother to be educated about government or remain vigilant and active against its abuses.

The tyranny and oppression seems to be building much more intensely in Britain. Why would any true Brit push the slavery attitude as being correct? For the people who survived the blitz and stood up to Hitler you've slipped a long, long way.

I sincerely hope all freedom loving people wake up and wake up fast. We've all been attacked in our sleep and the ability to act via peaceful means requires greater numbers and much higher intensity.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:55 PM

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
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]

The idea behind is that it starts small, and get big. They grab what they can now while being inconspicious, raise the standards, make it harder, whatever they have to do just to get it started. And then before you know their asking everyone for their weapons, and to turn in all firearms.

One small ball at the top of the hill, is catastrohic when it reaches the bottom.

- Cm.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:10 PM
This says Concealed permits. Not all gun permits. Why do you have to hide the gun? Here in VA you only have to have a concealed weapons permit if you are hiding the gun under clothing or in your car. It's perfectly legal to walk around if your gun is visible.

I'm going to get bashed for this but I think this is a good thing. Real men don't hide their guns. Why do you have to sneak around? Doing something sketchy?

I support the right to bear arms but this law is not taking that right away. Think before you post, or did the OP post this to get a rise out of people.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by Djdoubt03

Concealed carry is needed because of anti gun propaganda put out by schools, leftists, and other anti gun retards.

A large number of people nowadays have an irrational fear of guns, and tend to freak out when they see someone packing openly.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:39 PM
Personally, I actually prefer open carry to concealed carry.

Reading the original article, it seems like what happened is not a crackdown on CCW holders so much as it is a review of CCW permits issued by a sheriff who was issuing them improperly in return for campaign donations...

I think we can all agree corruption shouldn't be rewarded.

I'm a gun owner and a gun rights advocate, OTOH I can live with CCW permits and training requirements - there are some people out there I wouldn't trust to safely operate a tricycle without instruction, let alone a Kahr PM9

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by Double Eights

if you cant read the constitution,it still gives you rights. even if you cant figure out what"bear arms" means.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:21 AM
Im wondering how theyll even be able to disarm Texas, damn theres alot of arms there ahhahaha. I think thats when the doodoo really hits the fan.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:55 AM
I don't have any felonies against me but I have had a restraining order. To say the least It was completely unprovoked and full of made up. I guess it looks like they're going to use someone else's pack of lies against me as an excuse not to grant me my Civil rights to have weapons. Just another reason to hate that woman.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by theotherhawk

Buy them from a private seller

no 4473 to fill out, no background check

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by zorgon

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

I remember how the Canadian FEDERAL Authorities raided some guys house, just because they held the belief that he owned "too many" Firearms. They even brought in Helos and a Tac. Team, without bothering to work with the Local Peace Officers. Even the Head LEO thought the Government actions were absurd.

I also know that the Canadian Gun Laws are created by the Urban Liberals in Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto. They actually have the ignorance to enforce THEIR views, through National Laws, upon their Rural Citizens. Thus you have hard-scrabble Frontiersman/Women in the Northwest and Yukon Territories being left to the Mercy of their environment, which includes Polar Bears, Grizzlies, Mountain Lions, and Wolves, all due to some naive yuppies thousands of miles away in Ontario.

Word is, is that the Provincial Attorney Generals have actually refused to prosecute under the National Firearms Code in these locations. For an American relevance in perspective, why should some clown living in Beverly Hills, CA be able to affect a law which effects those living in Nome, AK? It makes no sense whatsoever, and that is what you get from a Socialist Government (AKA Obama/Biden).

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by theotherhawk
I don't have any felonies against me but I have had a restraining order. To say the least It was completely unprovoked and full of made up. I guess it looks like they're going to use someone else's pack of lies against me as an excuse not to grant me my Civil rights to have weapons. Just another reason to hate that woman.

If you DID have am RO, and no longer do, it does not affect your ability to own a Firearm. Even for a Concealed Permit, this should be a Non-issue, meaning Not a Problem.

I know a guy who had Assault Charges pressed on him, AND a Restraining Order, because he was a Bouncer. He Bounced at a party for someone, then when the crowd grew too large he placed his arms outwards (Sideways in a Sweeping Motion) and was essentially effecting Crowd Control by moving them back. Some lady tripped and fell over in the process, so she then called the Police and they arrested the guy. Too many Domestic Cases (With Mandatory RO's), and Assault Cases (Optional RO's) are used by individuals as a shield with which they can threaten and blackmail an individual. 90% of the time the Male is arrested if a Female was involved, simply because the Authorities believe the Male could of handled it differently. Either that, or the LEO's involved are too dumb to see past their own ambitions.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:36 AM
Check the laws in your state. In TX, a felon can own a weapon if it's been 5 years since the end of his or her parole / probation. If he or she already owns a weapon they are allowed to have it in their primary residence but cannot buy one until the 5 years have passed. At no time can a felon who hasn't reached that 5 year mark be found in possession of a weapon outside their primary residence.

You cannot have a current RO against you though it is possible for a past one to cause problems with the FFL background check. Treatment for mental health issues, a stint in rehab or a current warrant for a speeding ticket can all create issues. My FFL dealer says there is a huge problem with people having similar names and close birth dates so apparently the database is not exact in it's identifiers. (No surprise there, I designed and built the TSA no fly database for a major airline and was shocked at how vague some of the entries were. Based on what I saw, they can pretty much claim anyone is on the no fly list if they decide to target you).

Where I get confused is the private sale rules.

Supposedly, I can buy an assault rifle from a private individual with no paperwork in TX. However, if I want to buy one from a dealer I will be run through the system.
If I want to buy one from a private individual in another state, even though FTF sales are legal in both states, now they have to take the weapon to a FFL dealer so they can ship the weapon to a FFL dealer in my state who will then run me through the system. If I want to drive to that state, I can buy the same weapon with no paperwork.

I don't get it. Is the paperwork legally required for private sales via Fed EX / UPS or is it just something people do to CYA?

If it's legal for me to own defensive weapons with no registration then I want that for obvious reasons. If the SHTF I don't want Blackwater pulling my local dealers 4473 file and knocking on my door. What blows my mind is that other gun owners will force a 4473 when it's not required. (Most gun sites advise people to involve a FFL check even for a private sale now).

I'm looking for the lower part of a certain weapon so I can build my own rifle, it's cheaper and very educational. I have been unable to find a private individual to buy one from in TX. The part in question is completely legal, btw.

Until you get to ride the roller coaster, the permits and BS checks seem really smart. In reality they are a paper shield which provide no real protection, just harassment of legal citizens.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:24 AM
my god, i cant believe that anyone can actually advocate gun laws under the delusion that they reduce crime. does it occur to you that the U.S. has the slackest gun laws in the world and the highest guns per capita in the world, and yet it also has THE HIGHEST GUN CRIME RATE as well as the highest non gun crime rate

[edit on 14-10-2008 by slykiwi]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by slykiwi
my god, i cant believe that anyone can actually advocate gun laws under the delusion that they reduce crime. does it occur to you that the U.S. has the slackest gun laws in the world and the highest guns per capita in the world, and yet it also has THE HIGHEST GUN CRIME RATE as well as the highest non gun crime rate

[edit on 14-10-2008 by slykiwi]

Having the biggest population allowed to own weapons and also tracking crime will do that. The real statistics are that communities which implement concealed carry permits see a huge reduction in violent crime.

The parts of the US with the highest gun crime incidents also happen to have the strictest gun control laws.

Gun bans and limitations do nothing to stop criminals. They do not buy their guns legally and often import weapons illegally such as fully automatic machine guns. If you're going to study statistics study them all. Countries with gun bans have huge crime problems, especially gun related homicides. All gun bans do is create a huge pool of helpless victims.

The police and government are not going to protect you. They will try to find the person or persons who killed you, after the fact but they will not be there to stop you from being victimized.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:09 AM

Originally posted by nfotech
.....Countries with gun bans have huge crime problems, especially gun related homicides. All gun bans do is create a huge pool of helpless victims.....

that is ridiculous. gun bans stop guns getting into anyones hands not just innocents. one of the problems in our 'great' country, is that our constitution contains the seeds of doom in the words "the right to bear arms". innocents to not carry around guns, if they know that no-one else has them. a man who carries a gun however, may jump on an opportunity to rob, rape, or defile that he would not if he did not have the power. in the U.S. it is far easier to get guns even in the states with strict anti gun laws, than anywhere else in the world. if you think that other countries have higher gun crime then you are obviously severely deluded.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by slykiwi]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:25 AM
reply to post by slykiwi

Sorry but your idealistic views are completely wrong in the real world. Guns have been banned for quite a while in New York and DC yet they have the highest rates of gun violence. Criminals always carry guns, banned or not.

Guns are banned in England yet the criminals still carry them. The few who don't have a gun use a knife, baseball bat, tire iron, brick - since when do criminals follow any rules of "honor" in combat? It's a fact that most rape and murder victims are unarmed while the perpetrator is not.

If they can import pot, heroin, etc they can import guns.

Real world math, real world statistics prove you wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I wish we lived in a world where people didn't victimize other people, where having a gun wasn't necessary to protect your family. Unfortunately that just isn't the real world.

The people who want to ban guns don't care about your safety, they care about the difficulties in running roughshod over a well armed society. The politicians want to ban guns so they can do away with any pretense of freedom. I hate to say this but you might want to do some real studying on the issue and maybe grow up a little.

As a man, I have a duty to protect my family. As an American, I have a duty to protect my fellow citizens from those who would victimize them. Unfortunately there are still people who don't live with honor, who see no problem in taking what they want by force. Only the fear that the house they might be breaking into contains a person who has a weapon and is willing to use it makes them think twice. They don't care about stiffer sentences or the fact the weapon they are carrying is illegal. That's the real world as ugly as it is.

People like you seem to think all guns will vanish and hence all violence and crime will also vanish. It's a fairy tale and has no basis in reality. The problems in our society are far more complex and need for more intelligent solutions. Banning guns is an emotional reaction pushed by people with other agendas, nothing more.

If you don't like it then get a majority of states to ratify a constitutional amendment. The unconstitutional, illegal gun bans and limitations are being challenged in court and are failing.

Show me an example of a country where banning guns worked. Just one.

It sure worked great for the Soviet Union, China, Hitler's occupied countries....

A gun is a tool, just like a knife, hammer or screw driver. It's the person who holds the tool who determines the character of it's use. If you could magically eliminate guns from the Earth, would that stop the bad people from being bad? Would that really fix the problem?

Like I said, some people really need to grow up and face reality.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:38 AM
YE GODS MAN! Slykiwi you obviously do not understand true American values. Our forefathers fought for our rights and you just want to throw them away. Have some respect for the great heroes of our nation. They not only have done America a favor, but they have assisted the human race in becoming the great species that it is today.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by UnderCover9]

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in