2
2
0
Firearms and Guns
Law
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 18
7
7
0
I think they're asinine. You shouldn't have to get fingerprinted or apply for a permit to exercise a fundamental Right, let alone a Protected one.
If someone said you needed a permit to exercise Free Speech, people would lose their minds.
If someone said you needed a permit to exercise Free Speech, people would lose their minds.
(7)
(0)
SSG Leonard Johnson
ummmmmm because I want to make sure u American....what does voting have to do with firearm sales lol
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
One is limited to a specific group of US citizens and by age, plus eligibility..,, Im sure you know that, and there is a common reason for fraud....elections have consequences and big payouts for those that WIN
The other is afforded to all citizens.
Second, NOW your using the word ID, before you advocated permits and licenses ..Huge difference.
Show ID to prove you're a resident and over 18.. sure.... Ask permission from the State and BUY a permit, NO
The other is afforded to all citizens.
Second, NOW your using the word ID, before you advocated permits and licenses ..Huge difference.
Show ID to prove you're a resident and over 18.. sure.... Ask permission from the State and BUY a permit, NO
(3)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
What Rc Layne said. You DO need an ID to purchase a firearm. It's called your state-issued driver's license or military ID card.
I don't know about anyone else, but I also have to show that same state-issued driver's license (or state-issued ID card if one doesn't have a driver's license) to vote.
I don't know about anyone else, but I also have to show that same state-issued driver's license (or state-issued ID card if one doesn't have a driver's license) to vote.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
not in favor of any handgun laws or any firearms laws at all. With the exception of explosives. explosives are different from firearms as we all know. That should be regulated. I consider any handgun law or firearm law it illegal. I will not follow any law. I have natural rights
(4)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
so we should have laws governing voting which is also constitutionally protected but not for firearms?
(0)
(0)
Not a fan of having to obtain a license, simply to own a handgun. Definitely not a fan of the fingerprinting and background check requirements. I think that would all be reasonable for a concealed carry permit, but not simply to own a handgun.
(4)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
That's a good point on concealed carry, and I hadn't thought about it that way. Doesn't change my stance, but it's a valid point that may sway some people. I just think that if people are going to be out in public carrying a concealed weapon wherever they go, there should be some vetting process. It's one thing if you're keeping it on your own private property, but that changes when you go out into public spaces. Just my $0.02.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think they should adopt Montana gun permit laws. You don't need a permit, or permission from the government to exercise your rights
In a free society, the government answers to the people, the people do not answer to the government.
In a free society, the government answers to the people, the people do not answer to the government.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Why, why, why can't the federal government keep their nose out of state affairs? If people in California want stricter gun laws then so be it. Don't force that practice on all the states. You think states like Texas and Kentucky want to restrict their gun laws? When this country was founded, states were to govern them selves with the federal government SUPPORTING the states, NOT running them.
(3)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SSG (Join to see)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/idaho-has-declared-it-won-t-obey-new-federal-gun-laws-20140325
I wanted to share this with you. I had a customer call in and tell me about this. He also said that if you wanted to own a machine gun or suppressor you just go buy one. It can only be possessed in Idaho and can not be sold to anyone outside Idaho. Therefore, not interstate commerce and the Feds have no jurisdiction. It is time states take back their own states laws.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/idaho-has-declared-it-won-t-obey-new-federal-gun-laws-20140325
I wanted to share this with you. I had a customer call in and tell me about this. He also said that if you wanted to own a machine gun or suppressor you just go buy one. It can only be possessed in Idaho and can not be sold to anyone outside Idaho. Therefore, not interstate commerce and the Feds have no jurisdiction. It is time states take back their own states laws.
Idaho Has Declared It Won’t Obey New Federal Gun Laws
In conservative states, “nullification” laws are becoming popular — but they’re likely pointless.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
And there you can see in the response from Eric Holder that Kansas could face litigation if they decide to enforce the law. The government should not have the power nor the right to tell a state what laws are appropriate for that state. That's why they have a governor and state legislators.
More and more, states are losing their rights to govern themselves. Te federal government does a less then stellar job of managing what it does right now. Giving it even more responsibilities that SHOULD be handled at the state level makes absolutely no sense.
More and more, states are losing their rights to govern themselves. Te federal government does a less then stellar job of managing what it does right now. Giving it even more responsibilities that SHOULD be handled at the state level makes absolutely no sense.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The words Connecticut and Gun should never be used in the same sentence. You can use Connecticut Politician and Moron in the same sentence.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Nope! Connecticut can take their intrusive, stifling restrictions on a Right that is specifically guaranteed to all free citizens under the Constitution and stick it up it's collective 4th point of contact! Funny, this magnificent law, which Connecticut's Congressional delegation so gleefully wishes to see enacted in other states, could do absolutely nothing to prevent the worst shooting incident in that Connecticut history, now could it? Yet another glaring example that gun control is not about preventing crime, but everything about controlling the lives of lawful citizens!
There are many good reasons why I choose not to reside in the deep liberal-blue New England states; love of my Constitutional freedoms is near the top of that list. Nobody should have to submit to fingerprinting and the consent of a police chief or county sheriff before being able to purchase a firearm! The inherent flaw in this design is that the chiefs office and the sheriffs office are political offices, held not necessarily by competent law enforcement professionals, but by political appointees or elected politicians. If gun control is an agenda item for them, just how fair can the taxpaying citizen expect them to be when acting on their request for "permission" to purchase a firearm? A review of recent history reveals that it's a real crap shoot. Our Constitutional liberties were never intended to be played with like a game of chance, based largely upon where we live and who's in power at a given time. Connecticut's approach to gun purchasing is frightening in a free republic.
There are many good reasons why I choose not to reside in the deep liberal-blue New England states; love of my Constitutional freedoms is near the top of that list. Nobody should have to submit to fingerprinting and the consent of a police chief or county sheriff before being able to purchase a firearm! The inherent flaw in this design is that the chiefs office and the sheriffs office are political offices, held not necessarily by competent law enforcement professionals, but by political appointees or elected politicians. If gun control is an agenda item for them, just how fair can the taxpaying citizen expect them to be when acting on their request for "permission" to purchase a firearm? A review of recent history reveals that it's a real crap shoot. Our Constitutional liberties were never intended to be played with like a game of chance, based largely upon where we live and who's in power at a given time. Connecticut's approach to gun purchasing is frightening in a free republic.
(2)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
and thus no one should need an ID to vote as it is also constitutionally protected, don't need one in Connecticut need one in conservative NC.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Lefthead, did I say anywhere here that an ID needn't be required? That a buyer shouldn't have to submit to the Federal background check prior to purchase? No, I did not, so quit cramming your leftist agenda down my throat!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting a valid ID to vote, and don't give me your old song and dance about how it's biased against the poor and therefore disenfranchises them! That's the biggest load of BS from the Left today! The poor need a valid ID to apply for and receive government benefits, to cash a check, to enroll a child in school, to access medical care, to apply for and receive heating assistance, housing assistance, basically, the poor need a valid ID more than anyone else does to get by. And yet, come election time, you all want to sing this song about how they won't be able to vote? Get off of it, more accurately, with voter ID laws in effect, it will be harder to commit voter fraud on the backs of the poor, hauling them all over town and having people vouch for them at same-day registration stations at the polls and voting multiple times in the same election! Yes, you'll deny that too, but why then do you fight so hard against something that is common sense?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting a valid ID to vote, and don't give me your old song and dance about how it's biased against the poor and therefore disenfranchises them! That's the biggest load of BS from the Left today! The poor need a valid ID to apply for and receive government benefits, to cash a check, to enroll a child in school, to access medical care, to apply for and receive heating assistance, housing assistance, basically, the poor need a valid ID more than anyone else does to get by. And yet, come election time, you all want to sing this song about how they won't be able to vote? Get off of it, more accurately, with voter ID laws in effect, it will be harder to commit voter fraud on the backs of the poor, hauling them all over town and having people vouch for them at same-day registration stations at the polls and voting multiple times in the same election! Yes, you'll deny that too, but why then do you fight so hard against something that is common sense?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I am in the Firearms Industry and I feel that:
1) The Constitution says The RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
2) Felons should not have guns, but even more so, career felons should not be on the streets to have guns.
3) Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be a Convenience Store and NOT a government agency
4) Senator Ted Kennedy killed more innocent people with his car than I ever have with a gun
5) Blaming guns for violence is like blaming pencils for bad grammar, matches for house fires and spoons for fat people.
1) The Constitution says The RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
2) Felons should not have guns, but even more so, career felons should not be on the streets to have guns.
3) Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be a Convenience Store and NOT a government agency
4) Senator Ted Kennedy killed more innocent people with his car than I ever have with a gun
5) Blaming guns for violence is like blaming pencils for bad grammar, matches for house fires and spoons for fat people.
(2)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
No my friends, Guns are just tools, the real problem is people. It is not my problem that the inhabitants of large urban areas can not raise their children to be law abiding citizens and gun crime is rampant. IN MY TOWN, nearly EVERYONE carries a concealed weapon, and we have almost no crime, because if you try to rob someone in my town you will likely get shot.
I can understand the mothers and significant others of criminals still grieve when their loved one is killed while in commission of a crime, but from outside the box, if they had raised decent kids to not be criminals, they would not be dead.
I can understand the mothers and significant others of criminals still grieve when their loved one is killed while in commission of a crime, but from outside the box, if they had raised decent kids to not be criminals, they would not be dead.
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
I agree with you completely all felons should have no rights what so ever. In order to commit a felony you have to knowingly or it least should have know what you were doing was a crime. There are certain lesser crimes, like speeding, that you do not have to knowingly do to be found guilty, but make on mistake about it, felonies you have to know.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I have a problem with any law that is preemptive on firearms. I went through all the fingerprints, photos, and background checks for a few machine-guns, silencers, short barreled rifles, shotguns, and my explosive manufacturing license.
I do not know of one violation of the law this has stopped. They need to enforce the laws they have on all the people that have violated this part of title 18 and execute them if they spilled blood.
There has to be some fear retribution to deter an act.
I do not know of one violation of the law this has stopped. They need to enforce the laws they have on all the people that have violated this part of title 18 and execute them if they spilled blood.
There has to be some fear retribution to deter an act.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Massachusetts is just as restrictive. Each of the 350 city or town Police Chiefs sets their own rules. Firearms safety course required. Target and hunting is hard enough to get. Concealed near impossible. Magazines limited to 10 rounds. Even Mace and Pepper Spray are controlled. Glad these rules were not in effect during the American Revolution.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google