User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/2/2001 11:04:38 PM EDT
[#1]
Oh, the web poll questions are on campaign finance reform and which is you favorite amendment in the bill of rights?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2001 1:27:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: 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. 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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2001 2:02:12 PM EDT
[#3]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2001 2:16:11 PM EDT
[#4]
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. Do you infer that a CCW shall issue state affords some constituional protections? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2001 4:12:06 AM EDT
[#5]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2001 4:19:01 AM EDT
[#6]
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. 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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2001 6:47:18 AM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2001 10:01:44 AM EDT
[#8]
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.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
