The End of "May Issue" CCW?

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it." A CCW is about protecting yourself from all sorts of threats. There's more than just one threatening thing out there. Today, no one may be out to get you, but tomorrow a whole gang is coming after you or your significant other hired a hitman to dispatch you.

 

EDIT: You know what, scratch that, you can demonstrate it. Simply go into the court room while concealing a weapon, and before it begins, draw that sucker and say the following: "See this gun? I just threatened you and you weren't even expecting it. Things like this happen everyday, and I'm sure you'd feel safer if you had been concealing a firearm of your own." Radical, yes, should it get the point across, I think so. Would it go over well in the end? Probably not.

Edited July 16, 2010 by VaiFanatic90

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it."

 

The clause isn't supposed to make sense; it's supposed to keep people from obtaining a permit. What you listed is exactly what they use to deny permits.

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it."

 

The clause isn't supposed to make sense; it's supposed to keep people from obtaining a permit. What you listed is exactly what they use to deny permits.

 

Yeah, and it's a total crock. But as long as we have yahoos attempting to run the show, it's gonna be nothing but more shit that makes no sense. "Please demonstrate your need for a tax refund." You - "Uhm... What???"

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it."

 

The clause isn't supposed to make sense; it's supposed to keep people from obtaining a permit. What you listed is exactly what they use to deny permits.

 

Yeah, and it's a total crock. But as long as we have yahoos attempting to run the show, it's gonna be nothing but more shit that makes no sense. "Please demonstrate your need for a tax refund." You - "Uhm... What???"

 

Yes, but this suit seeks an injunction against the enforcement of such laws. Hopefully the court rules in his favor, and if they do, these laws will be on their way out.

[TonyRumore 1,332]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it."

 

The clause isn't supposed to make sense; it's supposed to keep people from obtaining a permit. What you listed is exactly what they use to deny permits.

 

Yeah, and it's a total crock. But as long as we have yahoos attempting to run the show, it's gonna be nothing but more shit that makes no sense. "Please demonstrate your need for a tax refund." You - "Uhm... What???"

 

Yes, but this suit seeks an injunction against the enforcement of such laws. Hopefully the court rules in his favor, and if they do, these laws will be on their way out.

 

So I read. I can only hope they rule in his favor, because then we can start getting rid of the lovely 922r that we just love oooooohhh so much. I can maybe, just maybe, understand regulating fully automatic weapons though I think it infringes on our rights as well, considering the Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms with no listed limitations. It doesn't say we can't own handguns, doesn't say we can't own rifles or shotguns and so on. But back to my original point, who gives a flying fuck how many foreign pieces are in the gun! If I wanted an AK stock from Russia that had the most beautiful wood grain, I shouldn't have to change something else out to allow me to use it. I got something for them to throw a compliance on, cheap shit made in China. 80% of all products sold in stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreen's, etc., must be American made. Let's see how fast the economic collapse comes then.

[L5K 162]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

 

While it's good to have places like this, the problem is exactly that. Some people live in places that cause them lots of problems with getting a CCW. Your rights should not hinge on where your house happens to be.

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

 

While it's good to have places like this, the problem is exactly that. Some people live in places that cause them lots of problems with getting a CCW. Your rights should not hinge on where your house happens to be.

 

They shouldn't really, but in the grand scheme, our rights are hinged everywhere. For example, you have your freedom of speech, BUT, you can't say this or that or even that, because it offends such and such or you are being too much of a free thinker.

[thehopping1 105]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it."

 

The clause isn't supposed to make sense; it's supposed to keep people from obtaining a permit. What you listed is exactly what they use to deny permits.

 

Yeah, and it's a total crock. But as long as we have yahoos attempting to run the show, it's gonna be nothing but more shit that makes no sense. "Please demonstrate your need for a tax refund." You - "Uhm... What???"

 

Yes, but this suit seeks an injunction against the enforcement of such laws. Hopefully the court rules in his favor, and if they do, these laws will be on their way out.

 

So I read. I can only hope they rule in his favor, because then we can start getting rid of the lovely 922r that we just love oooooohhh so much. I can maybe, just maybe, understand regulating fully automatic weapons though I think it infringes on our rights as well, considering the Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms with no listed limitations. It doesn't say we can't own handguns, doesn't say we can't own rifles or shotguns and so on. But back to my original point, who gives a flying fuck how many foreign pieces are in the gun! If I wanted an AK stock from Russia that had the most beautiful wood grain, I shouldn't have to change something else out to allow me to use it. I got something for them to throw a compliance on, cheap shit made in China. 80% of all products sold in stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreen's, etc., must be American made. Let's see how fast the economic collapse comes then.

 

That probably wont work considering we owe China a butt load of money. We have dug ourselves a nice little hole.

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Well of course you can't demonstrate a threat! If she said "Oh, I've got a stalker who's been breaking into my car and house for the past week," they'll most likely say "Ma'am, you do not need a permit for that as the authorities will handle it."

 

The clause isn't supposed to make sense; it's supposed to keep people from obtaining a permit. What you listed is exactly what they use to deny permits.

 

Yeah, and it's a total crock. But as long as we have yahoos attempting to run the show, it's gonna be nothing but more shit that makes no sense. "Please demonstrate your need for a tax refund." You - "Uhm... What???"

 

Yes, but this suit seeks an injunction against the enforcement of such laws. Hopefully the court rules in his favor, and if they do, these laws will be on their way out.

 

So I read. I can only hope they rule in his favor, because then we can start getting rid of the lovely 922r that we just love oooooohhh so much. I can maybe, just maybe, understand regulating fully automatic weapons though I think it infringes on our rights as well, considering the Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms with no listed limitations. It doesn't say we can't own handguns, doesn't say we can't own rifles or shotguns and so on. But back to my original point, who gives a flying fuck how many foreign pieces are in the gun! If I wanted an AK stock from Russia that had the most beautiful wood grain, I shouldn't have to change something else out to allow me to use it. I got something for them to throw a compliance on, cheap shit made in China. 80% of all products sold in stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreen's, etc., must be American made. Let's see how fast the economic collapse comes then.

 

That probably wont work considering we owe China a butt load of money. We have dug ourselves a nice little hole.

 

That's my point exactly. Allowing us to use foreign parts on our guns doesn't dig us into any hole. Continuing to allow China to produce 85% (just a guess) of what we buy is what's digging that hole. All I'm trying to say with what I said is that the Government is regulating the wrong shit. We're wasting all this money trying to control marijuana. Legalize it, and let the government throw it's little tax on it and be done with it! That's all money we can use to force those companies that outsource and want bailouts to get their asses back into the US. Though quite frankly I don't support bailouts either. You fuck up and want money to continue doing so?? Wrong answer.

[paprotective 362]

I was licensed to do PI work in NJ back iin 2003-04 and was thinking of getting my CCW. My friend/boss suggested NOT as the training is required every 6 months (like police) and has to be witnessed by an NRA instructor and a STATE police officer..

 

That shooting class is $200 and is every 6 months.. And even if you passed, the LOCAL COUNTY 'head' CRIMININAL Judge has FINAL yes/no decision..

 

I didn't do it.. too much BS and 'if denied in home state' you may be ineligible in other states kept coming to mind..

 

I had a FL, PA, ME, and CT carry permits at the time... I also got NRA Certified as Pistol Instructor at the time and UT Certified for the CCW permits.. (let that lapse.... dumb I know).

 

I now have just PA and my PA Act 235 Lethal Weapon/Armed Guard (40 hour class)...

 

The loopholes in NJ are working for police/sheriff or EMERGENCY MGMT... or armed guard or lawyer or $$$.

 

Back in 2003 there were only like 3000 STATE WIDE permits.... Mostly guards and lawyers and $$ buddies...

 

There are bills in NJ assembly since 2002 but they keep getting brushed off EVERY session and have to be re-intro'd....

 

NJ sucks.. PA is much better..

 

 

Al

[VaiFanatic90 360]

I was licensed to do PI work in NJ back iin 2003-04 and was thinking of getting my CCW. My friend/boss suggested NOT as the training is required every 6 months (like police) and has to be witnessed by an NRA instructor and a STATE police officer..

 

That shooting class is $200 and is every 6 months.. And even if you passed, the LOCAL COUNTY 'head' CRIMININAL Judge has FINAL yes/no decision..

 

I didn't do it.. too much BS and 'if denied in home state' you may be ineligible in other states kept coming to mind..

 

I had a FL, PA, ME, and CT carry permits at the time... I also got NRA Certified as Pistol Instructor at the time and UT Certified for the CCW permits.. (let that lapse.... dumb I know).

 

I now have just PA and my PA Act 235 Lethal Weapon/Armed Guard (40 hour class)...

 

The loopholes in NJ are working for police/sheriff or EMERGENCY MGMT... or armed guard or lawyer or $$$.

 

Back in 2003 there were only like 3000 STATE WIDE permits.... Mostly guards and lawyers and $$ buddies...

 

There are bills in NJ assembly since 2002 but they keep getting brushed off EVERY session and have to be re-intro'd....

 

NJ sucks.. PA is much better..

 

 

Al

 

That's a situation where the states are looking at the constitution as more of a suggestion, as opposed to what they should be doing. The states that joined the CSA before the civil war happened argued that constitution was nothing more than a piece of paper and that the federal government was nothing more than a loose alliance between states. They felt as independent states, they could make their own laws, and that there would be no federal government regulating or setting standards for their laws.

Edited July 17, 2010 by VaiFanatic90

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

I was licensed to do PI work in NJ back iin 2003-04 and was thinking of getting my CCW. My friend/boss suggested NOT as the training is required every 6 months (like police) and has to be witnessed by an NRA instructor and a STATE police officer..

 

That shooting class is $200 and is every 6 months.. And even if you passed, the LOCAL COUNTY 'head' CRIMININAL Judge has FINAL yes/no decision..

 

I didn't do it.. too much BS and 'if denied in home state' you may be ineligible in other states kept coming to mind..

 

I had a FL, PA, ME, and CT carry permits at the time... I also got NRA Certified as Pistol Instructor at the time and UT Certified for the CCW permits.. (let that lapse.... dumb I know).

 

I now have just PA and my PA Act 235 Lethal Weapon/Armed Guard (40 hour class)...

 

The loopholes in NJ are working for police/sheriff or EMERGENCY MGMT... or armed guard or lawyer or $$$.

 

Back in 2003 there were only like 3000 STATE WIDE permits.... Mostly guards and lawyers and $$ buddies...

 

There are bills in NJ assembly since 2002 but they keep getting brushed off EVERY session and have to be re-intro'd....

 

NJ sucks.. PA is much better..

 

 

Al

 

 

Well said, with just one correction. I held a NJ carrying permit for ~2 years (07-09) as an armed guard and the training is once every 2 years for NJ CCW, retired LEO is every 6 months, and can be done by a private instructor/range no witness needed just an instructor and the form notarized. My qualification cost $100 flat and the instructor was a notary as well, but I can easily see jerkoff NJ ranges charging $200 and saying "go to the bank for a notary".

 

What got me the most were the egregious requirements for the permit, such as having to go to state police barracks on a tuesday or thursday morning to wait about an hour and a half so that a detective could come into the waiting room for 5 minutes and hand you a form they could have mailed you. It didn't matter to me since I was getting paid to be there, but for an average joe tuesday morning probably means missing a day of work. Just straight bullshit to make people less willing to apply. Or the fact that when the thing expires you have 5 days to turn the expired card in or supposedly they come looking for it (wouldn't put it past them).

 

And you are totally right about the judges too, county-level fuckwads that take 5 months to sign it and then put a false date on the damn thing saying they signed it exactly at the 90 day mark. And on top of their final say, they can also throw whatever restrictions on it they want, there were about 50-60 of us at our old company and despite many of us living in the same county as someone, almost no two people had the same wording on their permit

 

Oh god I hate this place.

[Paulyski 2,227]

I had a really fun & exciting misspent youth. I did many insanely irresponsible & not exactly legal acts, so citing multiple run ins with the law, my CHL was denied by my county's Sheriff.

I researched Oregon law by myself & filed suite against the Sheriff.

 

Oregon is a SHALL ISSUE state, & barring select VIOLENT acts, a PATTERN of violence, or the usual things that would impede one from obtaining a firearm, the Sheriff MUST issue the permit.

 

It was one of the high points of my narcissistic existence when I mopped the floor with the seasoned County Attorney's ass in court & not only won, but made them pay my court fees. (representing myself)

 

The hardest part was writing the court order for him to issue my permit. A person's lawyer usually does that.

I had to research in the law library a quite a bit & screwed up the first time before I created it & submitted it in the correct format.

[VaiFanatic90 360]

I had a really fun & exciting misspent youth. I did many insanely irresponsible & not exactly legal acts, so citing multiple run ins with the law, my CHL was denied by my county's Sheriff.

I researched Oregon law by myself & filed suite against the Sheriff.

 

Oregon is a SHALL ISSUE state, & barring select VIOLENT acts, a PATTERN of violence, or the usual things that would impede one from obtaining a firearm, the Sheriff MUST issue the permit.

 

It was one of the high points of my narcissistic existence when I mopped the floor with the seasoned County Attorney's ass in court & not only won, but made them pay my court fees. (representing myself)

 

The hardest part was writing the court order for him to issue my permit. A person's lawyer usually does that.

I had to research in the law library a quite a bit & screwed up the first time before I created it & submitted it in the correct format.

 

Great work taking matters into your own hands working for yourself. Bet that Sheriff wasn't too happy.

[Paulyski 2,227]

 

Great work taking matters into your own hands working for yourself. Bet that Sheriff wasn't too happy.

Thanks.

I doubt he lost much sleep. It's a large area & I wouldn't think he personally does the tasks of Concealed Handgun Licence approval. I would think he has others to do that stuff & he just signs his name. I just couldn't just lay down & let my rights be violated by some organization that thinks everyone will just bend over & take it.

 

Administrative rules & ordinances, although long, dry reads, are rather clear on most things. They are on the internet posted by the states in most cases.

 

One can find the pertinent info by looking at communications that the state sends you on any given subject.

There will usually be citations in state's communications such as ORS-166.291 & if a person search out the law, they can read it. I read that particular document on the link provided. If you know the law, you can live much freer than when ignorant.

But a lot of lawyers are even too lazy to sit down & give them a read or study rare legal precedences relating to your case when your rights are denied.

There are also Administrative Rules ("OAR"s in Oregon) on the subject.

If any man follows all the numbers he comes across while he reads his ass off, & the common man can actually have a chance.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Paulyski

[VaiFanatic90 360]

 

Great work taking matters into your own hands working for yourself. Bet that Sheriff wasn't too happy.

Thanks.

I doubt he lost much sleep. It's a large area & I wouldn't think he personally does the tasks of Concealed Handgun Licence approval. I would think he has others to do that stuff & he just signs his name. I just couldn't just lay down & let my rights be violated by some organization that thinks everyone will just bend over & take it.

 

Administrative rules & ordinances, although long, dry reads, are rather clear on most things. They are on the internet posted by the states in most cases.

 

One can find the pertinent info by looking at communications that the state sends you on any given subject.

There will usually be citations in state's communications such as ORS-166.291 & if a person search out the law, they can read it. I read that particular document on the link provided. If you know the law, you can live much freer than when ignorant.

But a lot of lawyers are even too lazy to sit down & give them a read or study rare legal precedences relating to your case when your rights are denied.

There are also Administrative Rules ("OAR"s in Oregon) on the subject.

If any man follows all the numbers he comes across while he reads his ass off, & the common man can actually have a chance.

 

I agree. If I were in such a situation, I'd do the same as you and spend hours reading my ass off to defend myself. No one really knows the case better than you, the person who was wronged. A lawyer is just some random lazy ass in a cheap suit (or expensive, all depends on who you hire, haha) who's doing his "best" for his fair share of the money, win or lose.

[Paulyski 2,227]

That perticular ORS document is useful information to have just so one knows the intricacies of the law for day to day life.

It contains the vast majority of the answers to many questions one might have if they live in my state & all states have similar formats to research.

A person may not win an argument with an officer, just by knowing the fine aspects of the laws, but he can get it thrown out of court, or prevail if he's informed.

The biggest problem is... When many people need to do their legal research REAL QUICK, so proceedings are immediately halted, the person may be unable do to detention.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Paulyski

[VaiFanatic90 360]

That perticular ORS document is useful information to have just so one knows the intricacies of the law for day to day life.

It contains the vast majority of the answers to many questions one might have if they live in my state & all states have similar formats to research.

A person may not win an argument with an officer, just by knowing the fine aspects of the laws, but he can get it thrown out of court, or prevail if he's informed.

The biggest problem is... When you many people need to do their legal research REAL QUICK, so proceedings are immediately halted, the person may be unable do to detention.

 

Bookmarked for future reference. Any info on defending myself should I find myself in a situation like yours is vital, and I'd much rather have it on hand as opposed to having to search for it all over.

[DogMan 2,343]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

 

While it's good to have places like this, the problem is exactly that. Some people live in places that cause them lots of problems with getting a CCW. Your rights should not hinge on where your house happens to be.

 

They shouldn't really, but in the grand scheme, our rights are hinged everywhere. For example, you have your freedom of speech, BUT, you can't say this or that or even that, because it offends such and such or you are being too much of a free thinker.

 

The difference is that reasonable people don't think it's a bad thing that someone can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. And saying something that merely offends someone is usually not a crime. For me the litmus test is to ask the question "Do the majority of reasonable people (meaning THE PEOPLE, not government officials) think that it is reasonable to have this law which technically infringes upon a certain right because we acknowledge that it is clearly and overwhelmingly for the greater good of the people?" No reasonable person would agree that the way the CCW permit process exists in some parts of this country is in any way reasonable.

[G O B 3,516]

Here in MD you can only get a CCW if you are approved by the MD State Police. For $114 in nonrefundable $$$ and 2 fingerprint cards You will get turned down for not being a Judge or a major contributor to Gov. O'Malley's corrupt political machine.

Hope this suite s settled in our favor soon, maybe the car jacking rate will go down when we can shoot back!

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

 

While it's good to have places like this, the problem is exactly that. Some people live in places that cause them lots of problems with getting a CCW. Your rights should not hinge on where your house happens to be.

 

They shouldn't really, but in the grand scheme, our rights are hinged everywhere. For example, you have your freedom of speech, BUT, you can't say this or that or even that, because it offends such and such or you are being too much of a free thinker.

 

The difference is that reasonable people don't think it's a bad thing that someone can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. And saying something that merely offends someone is usually not a crime. For me the litmus test is to ask the question "Do the majority of reasonable people (meaning THE PEOPLE, not government officials) think that it is reasonable to have this law which technically infringes upon a certain right because we acknowledge that it is clearly and overwhelmingly for the greater good of the people?" No reasonable person would agree that the way the CCW permit process exists in some parts of this country is in any way reasonable.

 

Regardless of being sane, insane, responsible, irresponsible in nature, no infringement on a right can be justified as being "for the greater good." It's just so the Government doesn't have to worry about shit hitting the fan because someone said something. It's for the greater good that we do have these freedoms, and infringing them does not support the greater good for all people, because you're taking their freedoms away.

[patriot 7,197]

An old dead guy said it best:

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

Benjamin Franklin

[VaiFanatic90 360]

An old dead guy said it best:

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

Benjamin Franklin

 

No argument there. It makes perfect sense too, because giving up a liberty means you'll cower under anything, therefore not deserving of safety because you don't stand and fight for your God-given rights.

[macbeau 902]

I just want nation-wide reciprocity (like with a drivers license - which, btw, isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights).

I can go from Key West, Fl to the UP of Michigan (up US1 to I-75) and be good, but if I go to S.C. (2 miles away), I can't carry...til I get to N.C. (up I-95) Same way on I-10 Fl to TX, I'm good, Disarm in N.M., Rearm in AZ, disarm in Ca... Totally retarded...

Kind of a 14th Amendment issue... (Says that ALL states are bound to abibe by the U.S. Constitution)

Edited July 17, 2010 by macbeau

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Certain states, like Washington, don't have reciprocity with States like Texas, because Texas will issue a CCW to an 18 year old who is in the military, national guard, etc.

[DogMan 2,343]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

 

While it's good to have places like this, the problem is exactly that. Some people live in places that cause them lots of problems with getting a CCW. Your rights should not hinge on where your house happens to be.

 

They shouldn't really, but in the grand scheme, our rights are hinged everywhere. For example, you have your freedom of speech, BUT, you can't say this or that or even that, because it offends such and such or you are being too much of a free thinker.

 

The difference is that reasonable people don't think it's a bad thing that someone can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. And saying something that merely offends someone is usually not a crime. For me the litmus test is to ask the question "Do the majority of reasonable people (meaning THE PEOPLE, not government officials) think that it is reasonable to have this law which technically infringes upon a certain right because we acknowledge that it is clearly and overwhelmingly for the greater good of the people?" No reasonable person would agree that the way the CCW permit process exists in some parts of this country is in any way reasonable.

 

Regardless of being sane, insane, responsible, irresponsible in nature, no infringement on a right can be justified as being "for the greater good." It's just so the Government doesn't have to worry about shit hitting the fan because someone said something. It's for the greater good that we do have these freedoms, and infringing them does not support the greater good for all people, because you're taking their freedoms away.

 

So you think the criminally insane should lawfully own weapons then? Because the second amendment doesn't say that everyone except the criminally insane shall have the right to bear arms. This is technically an infringement but it is one that virtually nobody with any credibility has a problem with. These are the kinds of things I am talking about.

[VaiFanatic90 360]

Depending on where you live in California, a CCW can be no problem to obtain. Specifically, San Luis Obispo, CA. If you live there, anyone can get a CCW.

My dad got one in 1970 and mom in 2004.

 

Tony

 

While it's good to have places like this, the problem is exactly that. Some people live in places that cause them lots of problems with getting a CCW. Your rights should not hinge on where your house happens to be.

 

They shouldn't really, but in the grand scheme, our rights are hinged everywhere. For example, you have your freedom of speech, BUT, you can't say this or that or even that, because it offends such and such or you are being too much of a free thinker.

 

The difference is that reasonable people don't think it's a bad thing that someone can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. And saying something that merely offends someone is usually not a crime. For me the litmus test is to ask the question "Do the majority of reasonable people (meaning THE PEOPLE, not government officials) think that it is reasonable to have this law which technically infringes upon a certain right because we acknowledge that it is clearly and overwhelmingly for the greater good of the people?" No reasonable person would agree that the way the CCW permit process exists in some parts of this country is in any way reasonable.

 

Regardless of being sane, insane, responsible, irresponsible in nature, no infringement on a right can be justified as being "for the greater good." It's just so the Government doesn't have to worry about shit hitting the fan because someone said something. It's for the greater good that we do have these freedoms, and infringing them does not support the greater good for all people, because you're taking their freedoms away.

 

So you think the criminally insane should lawfully own weapons then? Because the second amendment doesn't say that everyone except the criminally insane shall have the right to bear arms. This is technically an infringement but it is one that virtually nobody with any credibility has a problem with. These are the kinds of things I am talking about.

 

You're misunderstanding, I'm not saying criminally insane people should be allowed to own a gun, I'm saying any of those people should be able to recognize an infringement on rights when it happens. Even if you're the most careless and irresponsible person in the world, you should still be able to notice when you're rights are being infringed. I'm not saying when ex-cons get out, they need to be handed guns to lawfully own on a silver platter.

[tsawy93 19]

Do not eat a heavy meal fore several hours before your class. yoga is best practiced on an empty stomach. Do new york city asian escorts drink water, both before and after your practice in order to keep your new york city asian escort body well hydrated.yoga for a beginner is the first step on a journey of ever new york city escorts increasing self-awareness, a greater level of strength, endurance, and flexibility, and a new york city escort deeper sense of peace. Have fun and enjoy everything along the way!Della Menechella is a yoga and fitness enthusiast who has been involved in fitness for over thirty years.

 

 

R.A.P.