Posted on Apr 4, 2023
BREAKING: Florida Becomes the 26th State to Allow Permitless Carry
588
38
7
14
14
0
7 more and we can have a constitutional convention on the matter that will probably result in a restoration of Gun Rights across the country. Or will the De Facto 2/3's negate the need for a convention? I don't know the answer.
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
BREAKING: Florida Becomes the 26th State to Allow Permitless Carry
Posted from ammoland.com
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
7
7
0
Although I'm a gun owner, (license to carry concealed) had owned and used firearms from even childhood days, learned early on how to handle them safely even with NRA shooting instruction and medals and do understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I even had three family Members that even on April 19th 1775 marched with the Minutemen from Sudbury, Massachusetts to Concord to battle the British Troops and prevent them from seizing firearms. I'm NOT for any seizure of Firearms from Law Abiding citizens which most of us are. That is in no way a good or even legal move IAW the US Constitution. Many politicians prove daily why We need to have that protection against them !
What does concern Me however isn't the majority but people such as one of My own family members who I'm thankful doesn't have access to firearms due to serious s mental health reason. For over the last 20 years I considerer Him dangerous and He has again been arrested and placed by the Court in a Mental Health Hospital again ! I'm also concerned with people that never had any firearms instruction and have no idea how to safely handle firearms and are dangers to not only others but themselves. Massachusetts on Permits does require a firearms safety course and initial firing range qualification for people without at least Police or Military backgrounds where they already learned to safely handle firearms. I was already covered with both Police and Military training and even in elementary school days owned and used firearms and in My lifetime never had an unsafe use or incident with a firearm.
Other than My own Vietnam service I've never even fired a shot at another Human being including over 40 years of full time Police background. I'm not for getting carried away to excess with making it difficult to obtain a permit which is also wrong but there are some to include criminals and people with mental health problems that should never be allowed to carry but then they are the exception for the protection of the rest of us. The rest of us barring circumstances such as mentioned should have no such restrictions ever ! I'm still however for proper training and actually learning how to use and carry firearms safely. Having said that in no way is any mass seizure of firearms justified and We still have the right to defend ourselves from Criminals, Political members out to violate our rights to carry and persons with Mental health problems. I don't and have never fell into one of those categories and no one is going to seize firearms from Me in violation of My constitutional rights as a Law abiding citizen of the United States of America !
Just to also be clear, Yes I am a Member of the NRA, National Rifle Association and also thank them for My earlier childhood learning how to properly handle and use firearms which has served Me well without any safely or other issues with firearms. I have been able to fire expert score with ALL the rifles and shotguns I've even fired in my Lifetime and never had an accidental discharge or unsafe background when shooting. I'm not obesssed with firearms but not uncomfortable handling them either.
What does concern Me however isn't the majority but people such as one of My own family members who I'm thankful doesn't have access to firearms due to serious s mental health reason. For over the last 20 years I considerer Him dangerous and He has again been arrested and placed by the Court in a Mental Health Hospital again ! I'm also concerned with people that never had any firearms instruction and have no idea how to safely handle firearms and are dangers to not only others but themselves. Massachusetts on Permits does require a firearms safety course and initial firing range qualification for people without at least Police or Military backgrounds where they already learned to safely handle firearms. I was already covered with both Police and Military training and even in elementary school days owned and used firearms and in My lifetime never had an unsafe use or incident with a firearm.
Other than My own Vietnam service I've never even fired a shot at another Human being including over 40 years of full time Police background. I'm not for getting carried away to excess with making it difficult to obtain a permit which is also wrong but there are some to include criminals and people with mental health problems that should never be allowed to carry but then they are the exception for the protection of the rest of us. The rest of us barring circumstances such as mentioned should have no such restrictions ever ! I'm still however for proper training and actually learning how to use and carry firearms safely. Having said that in no way is any mass seizure of firearms justified and We still have the right to defend ourselves from Criminals, Political members out to violate our rights to carry and persons with Mental health problems. I don't and have never fell into one of those categories and no one is going to seize firearms from Me in violation of My constitutional rights as a Law abiding citizen of the United States of America !
Just to also be clear, Yes I am a Member of the NRA, National Rifle Association and also thank them for My earlier childhood learning how to properly handle and use firearms which has served Me well without any safely or other issues with firearms. I have been able to fire expert score with ALL the rifles and shotguns I've even fired in my Lifetime and never had an accidental discharge or unsafe background when shooting. I'm not obesssed with firearms but not uncomfortable handling them either.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I'm thinking that along with the restoration of rights, teaching safety and handling would be instituted into the elementary education system. Like it was before the socialists got such a strangle hold on our education system.
(3)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
SGT (Join to see) - Seems also in the past many schools even had firing ranges and even teams to compete in shooting matches. Even above and beyond that what about subject such as Civics, History and even Geography which seem to have disappeared in far too many so called schools. Promoting ignorance instead of education and actually preparing You for Your own life and thinking for Yourself .
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
TL; DR: Yes mental health should be a disqualifier for weapons use - but only if a judge says so.
I agree with you 100%
But I do have to add a small caveat for mental health. Yes, there are ABSOLUTELY disturbed people who should not be handling a firearm. Not at ALL denying the truth of that statement. HOWEVER.... that is for a court to decide, and ONLY after a contested hearing. I am not saying this because I necessarily think you are advocating otherwise. Indeed, you specifically mention your family member being adjudicated in court.
But there are a whole lotta folks on the "mental health is an automatic disqualifier for guns" bandwagon who think that psychiatrists or psychologists or general practitioners or even cops or angry ex-wives should be able to unilaterally declare someone unfit for a weapon. I have seen multiple posts and even a couple Op-Eds in "respectable" newspapers that say everyone with PTSD and/or depression (or, in some instances, *any* mental health diagnosis, even ADHD) should be barred from touching a weapon. Some say for life, others until "cured" (which basically means for life - you don't cure major depression, and you rarely cure PTSD, you treat them and reduce or eliminate the symptoms). And that is a very VERY bad idea.
I agree with you 100%
But I do have to add a small caveat for mental health. Yes, there are ABSOLUTELY disturbed people who should not be handling a firearm. Not at ALL denying the truth of that statement. HOWEVER.... that is for a court to decide, and ONLY after a contested hearing. I am not saying this because I necessarily think you are advocating otherwise. Indeed, you specifically mention your family member being adjudicated in court.
But there are a whole lotta folks on the "mental health is an automatic disqualifier for guns" bandwagon who think that psychiatrists or psychologists or general practitioners or even cops or angry ex-wives should be able to unilaterally declare someone unfit for a weapon. I have seen multiple posts and even a couple Op-Eds in "respectable" newspapers that say everyone with PTSD and/or depression (or, in some instances, *any* mental health diagnosis, even ADHD) should be barred from touching a weapon. Some say for life, others until "cured" (which basically means for life - you don't cure major depression, and you rarely cure PTSD, you treat them and reduce or eliminate the symptoms). And that is a very VERY bad idea.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Big assumption there, and not sure it will hold up.
You assume that because 2/3 of states (which would need 34, BTW, not 33 - 33 is JUST below 2/3) support something for THEIR state, they would also support imposing it on ALL states. I don't see that as necessarily being a valid assumption. ESPECIALLY if we are talking conservatives.
You assume that because 2/3 of states (which would need 34, BTW, not 33 - 33 is JUST below 2/3) support something for THEIR state, they would also support imposing it on ALL states. I don't see that as necessarily being a valid assumption. ESPECIALLY if we are talking conservatives.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google