What do you think of this set of firearms laws?

LCpl Mark Lefler — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:58:05 -0400

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/connecticut-gun-permit-law-prompts-220108952.html

Connecticut gun permit law prompts federal legislation

Members of Connecticut's congressional delegation announced Thursday they have introduced legislation to encourage other states to develop handgun permitting programs similar to the system in Connecticut. ...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 11 at 2015 8:03 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:03:09 -0400

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.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jun 11 at 2015 8:20 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:20:09 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 11 at 2015 8:35 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:35:34 -0400

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

Response by LTC Gavin Heater made Jun 11 at 2015 9:11 PM

LTC Gavin Heater — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:11:39 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 9:30 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:30:40 -0400

This is pure nonsense as it makes WILD assumptions. How is what works for Connecticut citizens, highly taxed predominantly white liberals all of sudden representative of what works in the rest of the USA? How does the state legislature guarantee that the local law enforcement isnt making this process burdensome? Let's see these restrictions to get a voter registration card instead.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 9:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:54:30 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Arch Nissel made Jun 11 at 2015 9:55 PM

CPT Arch Nissel — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:55:37 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 11 at 2015 11:23 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:23:25 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 11:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:35:21 -0400

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.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 12 at 2015 12:05 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:05:00 -0400

What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not get?

I also found the following statement funny: ""All states require licenses to drive a car or hunt or fish — so why not handguns, which can kill," Blumenthal said." Sure guns can kill if used in that way. Cars can also kill! Hell, I've heard of people dying in fishing accidents too, but these gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge that, or they say "Well, you need a license to do it..."

We already have a license to keep and bear arms. It's called the Second Amendment. Maybe they should read it.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 12 at 2015 12:08 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:08:29 -0400

I love living in a right to carry state like Arizona. Not only is it legal per state Constitution to open carry, I also have the right to concealed carry WITHOUT a permit, though permits are available and I do have one.

In fact, there is a process in place to obtain a concealed weapons permit (CWP) in Arizona, and it's much like what Connecticut is proposing, only it is NOT mandatory here in the great state of Arizona.

http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/

Concealed Weapons & Permits - Arizona Department of Public Safety

Arizona Concealed Weapons and Permits services home page. Here you can find all the relevant information pertaining to concealed weapons within the state of Arizona.

Response by MSgt Daniel Armstrong made Jun 12 at 2015 6:10 AM

MSgt Daniel Armstrong — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:10:38 -0400

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.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 12 at 2015 6:28 AM

PO3 David Fries — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:28:09 -0400

I live in CT. The law was enacted two years after I left for Boot Camp. Liscensing does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, because criminals (you know, being criminal and all) ignore laws and liscences. All it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain one.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 12 at 2015 7:11 AM

SGT William Howell — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:11:30 -0400

The words Connecticut and Gun should never be used in the same sentence. You can use Connecticut Politician and Moron in the same sentence.

Response by SPC Daniel Joslin made Jun 12 at 2015 8:58 AM

SPC Daniel Joslin — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:58:59 -0400

As a nation, we already have numerous gun control laws on the books; none of which seem to keep the criminal from getting guns. They only make it more difficult on law abiding citizens. As a law enforcement person myself, I have no problem with an armed citizenry as long as they abide by the law. It is the criminals that concern me, because no matter how many laws are enacted, they won't abide by them. That's what makes them criminals.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jun 12 at 2015 11:06 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:06:44 -0400

Senator Chris Murphy is retarded.

"Permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would fail a background check, and our bill would help other states develop programs similar to ours here in Connecticut,"

Really? So he really believes that a criminal intent on committing a crime using a firearm is going to be stopped simply because he can't buy a gun at Bass Pro SHop? Sure that works, and Osama Bin Laden was not really bad either. He was just mis understood and needed a hug.

Archie Bunker said it best when confronted with the issue. His response when being told the statistic for gun violence? "Would it make you feel any better little girl if they was pushed out of windows?"

The simple truth is there are bad people in the world. They are going to commit nefarious acts for whatever reasons. Some are lazy, and don't want to earn their way, some are psychopaths that harm for enjoyment, zealots that kill for their cause (whether religious, philosophical, political, idealogical, or other), etc...

The point is that they are going to commit their acts regardless of what laws are put in their way. Plain and simple if these individuals are willing to maim and kill, who in their right mind thinks that a law saying that they cannot purchase a particular item is going to stand in their way. They obviously do not care about the laws to begin with.

And yet I am insane too. I keep repeating the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 3:19 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:19:33 -0400

Will they ever get it?

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Jun 15 at 2015 1:30 PM

SFC William "Bill" Moore — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:30:08 -0400

"All states require licenses to drive a car or hunt or fish — so why not handguns,,," Hunting Fishing and driving a vehicle ARE NOT rights protected by the Constitution. To be exact, the aforementioned licenses are more for making money and regulating natural resources. If the states would ban hunting and fishing, or driving, for that matter, then strap on your sidearm, walk to the grocer and buy your meat and fish, then walk on home. These folks really don't get it! Shall not be infringed!