Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
2/23/2017 5:55:53 PM
Posted: 4/2/2001 8:56:08 PM EST
We need some presure from gun owners to keep the CCW movement going. As more states adopt right-to-carry laws, it makes it easier to pass National Reciprocity. News at the "phone book" icon at: National CCW Reciprocity Foundation http://www.NationalCCW.com Plus 2 new web poll questions.
Link Posted: 4/2/2001 10:04:38 PM EST
Oh, the web poll questions are on campaign finance reform and which is you favorite amendment in the bill of rights?
Link Posted: 4/3/2001 12:27:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/3/2001 12:28:10 PM EST by andreusan]
Originally Posted By NationalCCW: We need some presure from gun owners to keep the CCW movement going. As more states adopt right-to-carry laws, it makes it easier to pass National Reciprocity. News at the "phone book" icon at: National CCW Reciprocity Foundation http://www.NationalCCW.com Plus 2 new web poll questions.
View Quote
What you propose, is to take away a right, turn it into a priviledge (contract), which can then be revoked for any reason! Once you take a priviledge (contract), in place of a right, you can never go back to a right! CASE LAW this past month in New York State Court proves this fact: To wit NYC POLICE issue permits for CCW to the civilian population, they NYPD openly admit they deny 30% of the renewals for what they say is public safety issues every year now. An individual brought an action before the state court, after his permit was not renewed, claiming the non-renewal violating his constitutional right to keep and bear arms! The court dismissed the case, citing that the man had vacated any right by entering into a contract with the state thus has no standing! Only fools follow the pied piper to the demise of their constitution!
Link Posted: 4/3/2001 1:02:12 PM EST
All that proves nothing. New York is [b]not[/b] a "shall issue" state. Shall issue CCW and reciprocity is what NationalCCW is pushing for.
Link Posted: 4/3/2001 1:16:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By David M: All that proves nothing. New York is [b]not[/b] a "shall issue" state. Shall issue CCW and reciprocity is what NationalCCW is pushing for.
View Quote
Do you infer that a CCW shall issue state affords some constituional protections?
Link Posted: 4/5/2001 3:12:06 AM EST
I infer nothing. Merely pointing out that your comparison is a poor one. New York has a carry permit system that is designed to keep applicants at the whim of the issuer. NYC is worse. There it has been made a privilege, very hard to get a carry permit in NYC. Also, if I remember right, there is a ceiling quota on permits in NYC, someone has to die, or get revoked to open a slot. In Florida, the "right to bear arms" is recognized in the State Constitution and throughout Florida state law. "Shall issue" means that anyone, not a criminal or insane or a dope addict, [b]must[/b] be issued the permit after applying for it. No privilege here. There is one exception, will talk about later. Is it a compromise of your rights? Sure it is. But go ahead and carry concealed without it. Unless you are up in Vermont, you get caught, [b]you are going to jail.[/b] Reality bites. If Florida law were changed, the permit suspended, we would be no worse off than if it had never been. As it is, we need to keep up the push for shall issue and reciprococity. The exception is why the Emerson case is so critical. Here we have it that someone not guilty of a felony or not even charged with a crime, merely under a restraint order, deprived of their rights. The Government's position, [b]The "right to bear arms" is not an individual right![/b] Hence, no rights are taken away. Scary stuff. The best solution is to make wife beating a felony, put it right up there with abusing your dog. But, I believe that they have avoided that obvious solution, so as to keep attacking the 2nd.
Link Posted: 4/5/2001 3:19:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By David M: I infer nothing. Merely pointing out that your comparison is a poor one. New York has a carry permit system that is designed to keep applicants at the whim of the issuer. NYC is worse. There it has been made a privilege, very hard to get a carry permit in NYC. Also, if I remember right, there is a ceiling quota on permits in NYC, someone has to die, or get revoked to open a slot. In Florida, the "right to bear arms" is recognized in the State Constitution and throughout Florida state law. "Shall issue" means that anyone, not a criminal or insane or a dope addict, [b]must[/b] be issued the permit after applying for it. No privilege here. There is one exception, will talk about later. Is it a compromise of your rights? Sure it is. But go ahead and carry concealed without it. Unless you are up in Vermont, you get caught, [b]you are going to jail.[/b] Reality bites. If Florida law were changed, the permit suspended, we would be no worse off than if it had never been. As it is, we need to keep up the push for shall issue and reciprococity. The exception is why the Emerson case is so critical. Here we have it that someone not guilty of a felony or not even charged with a crime, merely under a restraint order, deprived of their rights. The Government's position, [b]The "right to bear arms" is not an individual right![/b] Hence, no rights are taken away. Scary stuff. The best solution is to make wife beating a felony, put it right up there with abusing your dog. But, I believe that they have avoided that obvious solution, so as to keep attacking the 2nd.
View Quote
Ok, you made a point, I believe what you refer to, here in Florida is 790.25 (3)(a), if so, a case is in the courts now in Palm Beach STATE vs. CYR. Visit http://www.fsdf.org/no-justice.htm for filing yesterday, keep an open mind though! Good Day!
Link Posted: 4/5/2001 5:47:18 AM EST
To further help put this issue into perspective there is a new CCW law proposed in MO.. We lost a "shall issue" amendment 04/06/99 due to blatant ballot fraud. We placed tremendous pressure on the state to for CCW. The new bill will be a "may issue" inititive. In my opinion we are better off to vote it down and fight for a "shall issue" later. Once they have passed the "may issue" they can say we gave you CCW but the truth is most Missourians will be denied their rights to presonal protection. I plan to vote against it for that reason even though as a retired police officer I would be one of the few that would be granted a permit. Instead of adopting the "I've got mine" attitude I want to see every law abiding citizen be allowed their God given right to protect themselves and loved ones. In most cases "allowing" a "may issue" screws the people worse than no CCW at all.
Link Posted: 4/5/2001 9:01:44 AM EST
What's really strange, as a non-resident, I am allowed to carry concealed in MO, as long as I travel through non-stop, food and/or gas stops only.
Top Top