Gov. Lee announces permitless gun legislation

[Rickyvol77]

That’s highly subjective. I’d argue that anything that stands in my way to obtain and keep the best tools to defend myself is an infringement. The second amendment be damned.

He doesn't have a legitimate argument with this, which is why the governor will do this without any issues

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Okay, ANY road you travel on is government built. Better now?

Explains the cluster**** conditions of the roads.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

He does bring up some interesting points regarding the prohibition of guns to black people in the past. Makes one wonder why anyone would take anything the state has to say on the matter seriously. The state is NOT your friend.

 

[NCFisher]

All that says is "I want the government to make sure everyone is proficient at using a firearm before they can purchase one." That is reliance on government. You can frame it any way you want. I understand, it's typical of our society today. Depending on government for everything. Depending on others for everything. Depending on technology for everything. In the meantime we understand less and less how things work. Ever wonder why things get progressively worse? Why we have more mass shootings? It can't be because firearms are more accessible because years ago you could order them out the Sears catalog. I apologize for labeling you poor excuse of an American, it was over the top. I still think it is a lazy way to think that the government restricting who can own a firearm until they say it's ok. You go ahead though and put all that faith that the government will make it better if you just let them place those restrictions. Is there one thing that the government does good?

I'm not saying it. NICS says you're not a felon or mental, you got a gun. If someone is endangered, expedite and that person leaves with a gun. I'd expect her to carry, so waiver and have her complete a CC class in 30-45 days. I'd have no problem with anyone doing that.

We can't tout safety education as essential, bemoan another toddler who used Mom's .38 as a lollipop, shake our head and say "should have never owned a gun if she wasn't going to be responsible". I agree. And we know many or most won't. So we choose the greater of two evils because government? That makes us dishonest brokers and has nothing to do with faith in government.

 

[0nelilreb]

I'm not saying it. NICS says you're not a felon or mental, you got a gun. If someone is endangered, expedite and that person leaves with a gun. I'd expect her to carry, so waiver and have her complete a CC class in 30-45 days. I'd have no problem with anyone doing that.

We can't tout safety education as essential, bemoan another toddler who used Mom's .38 as a lollipop, shake our head and say "should have never owned a gun if she wasn't going to be responsible". I agree. And we know many or most won't. So we choose the greater of two evils because government? That makes us dishonest brokers and has nothing to do with faith in government.

We can’t dictate responsibility when it comes to a right . We can OFFER programs to people to help advance something like safety but we cannot dictate it as a condition of the RIGHT. Make sense ?

 

[NCFisher]

That’s highly subjective. I’d argue that anything that stands in my way to obtain and keep the best tools to defend myself is an infringement. The second amendment be damned.

Well, that's entirely a different conversation then. Unless you're a felon or mental, what are you barred from getting?

 

[NCFisher]

Registration is an infringement. There is no other way to look at it.

Registration violates "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".

How does passing a law saying you must register your firearms involve any of that?
Warrants satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable search and seizure if laws are broken.

 

[0nelilreb]

How does passing a law saying you must register your firearms involve any of that?
Warrants satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable search and seizure.

A national data base can and mostly likely will be weaponized by one political party / agenda or the other . Why give the government more “ ammunition “ to use against people than they already have ?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Well, that's entirely a different conversation then. Unless you're a felon or mental, what are you barred from getting?

A permission slip if I’d like to carry my handgun for self preservation. The government has absolutely no right to dictate such things. Our ability to own firearms predates the government. Further still, In a lot of states the sheriff keeps the money gained from permits for their own personal use. As has already been stated in this thread, permits are simply the state taking your right as a human being and selling it back to you. That repulses me to no end.

 

[hog88]

How does passing a law saying you must register your firearms involve any of that?
Warrants satisfy the legal requirement for reasonable search and seizure if laws are broken.

The .gov has no right to know what I own.

Now bring up car registration, it's the tried and failed comeback.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

A national data base can and mostly likely will be weaponized by one political party / agenda or the other . Why give the government more “ ammunition “ to use against people than they already have ?

New York Newspaper Publishes List of Concealed Carry Permit Holders Names, Addresses - The Truth About Guns

 

[NEO]

Sounds like a place you would love.

Wouldn’t you like to know, big boy......

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I'm not saying it. NICS says you're not a felon or mental, you got a gun. If someone is endangered, expedite and that person leaves with a gun. I'd expect her to carry, so waiver and have her complete a CC class in 30-45 days. I'd have no problem with anyone doing that.

We can't tout safety education as essential, bemoan another toddler who used Mom's .38 as a lollipop, shake our head and say "should have never owned a gun if she wasn't going to be responsible". I agree. And we know many or most won't. So we choose the greater of two evils because government? That makes us dishonest brokers and has nothing to do with faith in government.

This is utter trash. We cannot save people from themselves.

 

[NCFisher]

We can’t dictate responsibility when it comes to a right . We can OFFER programs to people to help advance something like safety but we cannot dictate it as a condition of the RIGHT. Make sense ?

I understand the concern; this forum is far from the first time I've heard it. It presumes several things; that CC is a right, has no limits, and that you're under no obligation to exercise your rights responsibly.

The state legislative precedents imply CC isn't a right. SCOTUS has turned down at least two CC cases since 2017, so it's up to state government. If confirmed as a right as some point, the court is unlikely to find it limitless or that you've no right to be responsible. A number of buildings/areas are off limits to any carry. Property, privacy, self-defense rights are not limitless, for instance.

 

[NCFisher]

This is utter trash. We cannot save people from themselves.

Then education never improves anything? Learning to handle a weapon properly is of no practical value.
Now that's trash.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

I understand the concern; this forum is far from the first time I've heard it. It presumes several things; that CC is a right, has no limits, and that you're under no obligation to exercise your rights responsibly.

The state legislative precedents imply CC isn't a right. SCOTUS has turned down at least two CC cases since 2017, so it's up to state government. If confirmed as a right as some point, the court is unlikely to find it limitless or that you've no right to be responsible. A number of buildings/areas are off limits to any carry. Property, privacy, self-defense rights are not limitless, for instance.

If you do anything irresponsibly that causes harm or damage to another you are liable. What is difficult accept about that concept?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Then education never improves anything? Learning to handle a weapon properly is of no practical value.
Now that's trash.

If demanded by the state to exercise a right, yeah it’s trash. I’d prefer people actually learn how they see fit. Not what some bureaucrat deems necessary.

 

[volfanjustin]

I have a concealed carry permit.

The license did not require any proper training.

About a day at a fun shop talking legal stuff and then three shots at the range.

I agree there should be proper training but the license part was a joke.

My trainer started the day by saying, "this class is supposed to be 8 hours long we will be done in 5 hours." Then "If you don't get a 100 on this test you are an idiot because we go over the answers together"

 

[NCFisher]

A permission slip if I’d like to carry my handgun for self preservation. The government has absolutely no right to dictate such things. Our ability to own firearms predates the government. Further still, In a lot of states the sheriff keeps the money gained from permits for their own personal use. As has already been stated in this thread, permits are simply the state taking your right as a human being and selling it back to you. That repulses me to no end.

Until SCOTUS takes a case to determine the nature and extent of carry rights, states have the say over whether it is a right. States' history has been that it is not, and that concealed carry definitely isn't. Rights are not limitless and carry a burden of responsibility, we now this from judicial rulings. You're giving me your opinion of your rights, and I'm stating what the legal landscape up to now looks like.

Aside from that, I think basic safety proficiency is not too much to require for traveling armed in public, and we're not going to agree on that.

I think we're just rehashing, now.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Until SCOTUS takes a case to determine the nature and extent of carry rights, states have the say over whether it is a right. States' history has been that it is not, and that concealed carry definitely isn't. Rights are not limitless and carry a burden of responsibility, we now this from judicial rulings. You're giving me your opinion of your rights, and I'm stating what the legal landscape up to now looks like.

Aside from that, I think basic safety proficiency is not too much to require for traveling armed in public, and we're not going to agree on that.

I think we're just rehashing, now.

So what are the decisions of the Supreme Court? Simply their opinions, right? I’d rather not put my well being into the hands of robed megalomaniacs. That’s my “opinion” on the matter. The role of the government seriously needs to be redefined before we’re overwhelmed by the parasites. We’re nearly there now...

 

[NCFisher]

The .gov has no right to know what I own.

Now bring up car registration, it's the tried and failed comeback.

No need to. Try hiding taxable property, income, or cap gains from them; you'll see who has a right to what.
We're rehashing at this point. It's uncomfortable to consider a lot of things we think are rights might not be, or that rights aren't limitless, In an ideal world, you'd be right, but it ain't.

 

[NCFisher]

So what are the decisions of the Supreme Court? Simply their opinions, right? I’d rather not put my well being into the hands of robed megalomaniacs. That’s my “opinion” on the matter. The role of the government seriously needs to be redefined before we’re overwhelmed by the parasites. We’re nearly there now...

Don't much disagree.

 

[NCFisher]

If you do anything irresponsibly that causes harm or damage to another you are liable. What is difficult accept about that concept?

We can insist people intending to carry a deadly weapon can handle with basic safety, perhaps learn a teeeeeny bit about using deadly force, and cut down some on the liable cases and unintentional shootings. Maybe even save a few more lives.

I think both our concepts are dandy ideas and one doesn't exclude the other.

 

[hog88]

I understand the concern; this forum is far from the first time I've heard it. It presumes several things; that CC is a right, has no limits, and that you're under no obligation to exercise your rights responsibly.

The state legislative precedents imply CC isn't a right. SCOTUS has turned down at least two CC cases since 2017, so it's up to state government. If confirmed as a right as some point, the court is unlikely to find it limitless or that you've no right to be responsible. A number of buildings/areas are off limits to any carry. Property, privacy, self-defense rights are not limitless, for instance.

Property rights will always Trump the right to carry. The government has no business deciding whether a person is allowed to carry a firearm on private property, it's up to the owner. Since property owned by the .gov is essentially communal property there should be an overwhelming and obvious need to bar firearms before any such policy is enacted.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Had this in KY for a year now. I am willing to bet that the only people that this has an effect on are those that already carry without a permit. I have talked to probably 20 or 25 "law abiding" folks that carried without a permit. All you are doing is legalizing those guys.