It is my view that most of America's gun laws are too weak. they allow anyone who can pass a background check to buy a gun. they require no permit to buy a handgun. some states don't even require a license to concealed carry a handgun. some states allow open carry of all legally owned firearms. this needs to change. at the bear minimum: - concealed carry of a handgun requires a license. -no open carry of any firearms. -all handguns should require a permit to buy, which requires fingerprint background check -handgun purchases should be limited to one-per-month. however, NYC's gun laws are too strict. -CCW should be allowed for any law abiding, mentally healthy citizen who can articulate a safety-based need to concealed carry a handgun, and can pass a basic safety/shoot-out handgun course -guns should not require registration. -handgun and longgun permits should be reduced to the exact administrative cost of the permit itself, not a dollar more.
First you speak favorably about the firearm-related legislation in the state of New York working to keep criminals from procuring firearms within state territory. Now you are saying the firearm-related legislation is far too strict and should be changed. Are we experiencing a shift in approach to doing things? Or merely a contradiction in the presented message?
What in the freezing hell are you going on about? American gun laws are illegal. You don't need a permit or background checks to exercise your rights. If you're for that than let me see your permit to speak openly, or are you working to get those regulations and pieces of legislation put through?
And as I pointed out before, here in Portland Oregon, the Portland Police Bureau detain Felons for Illegal possession and Illegal concealed carry, no concealed carry license, yet those Felons are charged with a Misdemeanor, not a Felony, why is that ??? No jail time, a small fine.
Alright Ronstar,I oughtta be able to get me a full-auto tommy gun with a suppressor.But I can't. My cousin has a full-auto Tommy gun. I want one like that with a suppressor,but I can't get it (immediately) and it makes me mad
You want permits to purchase and purchase limitations without registration? Ronny old boy you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.
constitutional rights are not subject to a PERMIT and the federal government does not have the power to limit how many handguns you buy because that means its powers change based on what you have done. the second amendment is a blanket restriction on federal government you have never ever-in all the hundreds of posts you have made-established that your desired laws would do a damn thing to reduce crime and guess what-that is the only possible argument in favor of your proposals
We can't, they built higher walls and have too many guns there. Something democrats are supposed to be against. At least they shut down free speech as expected.
Who gives a flying fart what you democrats think of the US Constitution. I don't like listening to you Democrats, but hey we got the first amendment so flap away. Unfortunately for you Democrats that don't like guns we got the second amendment. So too bad Ronnie. Maybe move.
At least if he could give substantial reasons for such restrictions, he can't, because there are none ! The universal background check exists in all States, it is a comprehensive check of all unified criminal records Nationwide, once that is complete, Why have further restrictions ? there is no proof that open carry is a problem, or that Constitutional or permit-less carry for law abiding people is a problem, the criminals will carry illegally anyway, and they eventually get caught. And it is bare minimum, not bear minimum...
Background checks violate the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. The Democrats and Republicans are both soft on the 2nd. Susan Collins tried to come up with some illegal "moderate" option during the Democratic sit-in in Congress.
try having a 1,000 person protest in the middle of 5th Ave in NYC, without a permit. see what happens
You are correct of course, however as it stands now, it is currently in place, when the Court in Puerto Rico ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, it removed all restrictions save two, the UBC, and 4473 form, otherwise PR is Constitutional otherwise, Vermont is identical.
What will happen ? do tell, thrill us with your acumen, because I responded to such things in NYC, and it never amounted to much. Because the way you talk, you seem to silently imply a Tiananmen Square scenario.
No permit is necessary as long as we wouldn't be blocking traffic and interfering in the rights of others. You can peacefully protest on the sidewalks all day long if you want. Well unless you're a BLM protest, whose purpose is to block traffic and business.
So, at a bare minimum as you put it...... all handguns should require a permit to buy, which requires fingerprint background check However, you say that guns should not require registration. I got news Ronny...... a required permit with fingerprinting IS registration. So which do you believe? Registration or not?
Ron, I believe this is a flawed analogy. I think you are confusing the fact that the rights you are comparing are all the same in the sense that they are individual rights with the fact that they nevertheless have differing amounts of governmental involvement required in order to freely exercise them. This confusion is understandable, since the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments all contain the distinct phrase “the right of the people,” and this phrase is always used to describe a right held by individual citizens. But the rights operate in different ways—with some by their very nature requiring an amount of governmental involvement. For example, the 4th Amendment often requires you to notify government that you are standing on its protections (i.e. During a traffic stop when an officer who has no probable cause asks for your permission to search your car anyway….). Now to take your example of the right to peaceful assembly and petition in a public venue…. Unlike a firearm purchase, the government is inextricably intertwined in the right to assembly at a public venue. The government is charged with maintaining the peace at these public venues, and government can require advanced notice of the use of the space whenever the protest requires a police presence to ensure safety and to prevent disruption of the free travel of others. Secondly, the public space is itself a finite resource. The public venue cannot be run on a system of “everybody just show up and the largest and most forceful group wins the fistfight to use the space that day.” A permit system is required to ensure all protest groups have fair access to the public space. Restrictions like permits are constitutional for this right because the very nature of the right often requires it. Here the permits are allowed so long as a governmental minister’s discretion to issue them is extremely limited and not based upon personal approval of the content of the message the protest wishes to convey. Furthermore, the permit scheme must be narrowly tailored to meet a legitimate interest of fair use and safety at the public venue. Therefore, in your 1st. Amendment public venue protest scenario notice to the government and a permit are often necessary to create the conditions for the actual free exercise of the right, and the permit scheme exists only because of this requirement of governmental assistance, if you will, due to the use of a public space already controlled by the government. In contrast, when free assembly petition permit systems are sought that do not require governmental assistance in ensuring a safe and fair use of a finite public resource, these permit systems are universally rejected as unconstitutional pre-conditions on the free exercise of a right. See, for example, the following case dealing with a local law that required religious organizations to obtain a permit before a “public” exercise of the right of free assembly—this time going door to door to spread the Word: “If the exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction. If one who solicits support for the cause of labor may be required to register as a condition to the exercise of his right to make a public speech, so may he who seeks to rally support for any social, business, religious or political cause. We think a requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment.” Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 164 (2002). (Note Justice Stevens, the primary dissenter in Heller, wrote this opinion. In addition, 2 other Heller dissenters, Ginsburg and Breyer, also joined this opinion….) This scenario is far more analogous to the purchase of a firearm—which occurs at a private business (or home) involving two private individuals or a private individual and a private business. Like the missionaries in Watchtower, no governmental assistance is needed to ensure my free exercise of the RKBA by private purchase of a firearm. The government is not charged with my safety and the safety of others at this private venue, and the government is not needed to ensure that the supply of firearms is sufficient for me to “get my turn” to by a firearm. And so the question becomes—why can’t you have the above quote read: “If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, it is immune to such a restriction.” So here you go, Ron. If you want to have a permit law, then I invite you to take a crack at writing one that passes constitutional muster with the above case. And I’ll broaden the question again to all those who think we need more gun laws. Write me the law so we can look at it together. Don’t hypocritically complain about others who don’t support laws you cannot or will not attempt to write. If you want my support, then tell me what you want to do and write the law to do it. Then I’ll consider it and we can debate it. If you are really that passionate about the subject, then get your pen out of your mouth and write something for us to consider. Otherwise you’re just playing a false game of blaming others for failing to do work you will not consider doing yourself.
you don't need a permit to assemble or say something. Only if you are going to do it in some areas. a permit to own a gun is the same as requiring a permit to say something-even in your own home or on your own property so your analogy is just plain flawed
It's only relevant to me because I asked you, "You don't need a permit or background checks to exercise your rights. If you're for that than let me see your permit to speak openly, or are you working to get those regulations and pieces of legislation put through? and you never responded. So maybe respond to me bringing it up.
