I ran into a buddy of mine at church this morning and I mentioned that Kansas has introduced legislation that would do away with the handgun permit system in their state.

My friend looks at me and says “Oh that ain’t good” and I asked him “why?”

Him: “Well that means anyone can carry a gun legally”
Me:“No it doesn’t, if you can’t legally own a gun you can’t legally carry it. That won’t change”

Him: “Well criminals don’t pay attention to that anyway.”

Me: And requiring me to have permit changes that how exactly?”

I got “the Look.”

Then I said to him “you’re a police officer, if you pull someone over and they aren’t legal to own a gun and they’re carrying one you arrest them right?” (We had already stipulated that any time he pulls someone over he runs them for wants, warrants and priors).

Then he says “Well if know one has to have a permit how would I know they were carrying a gun?”

Me: “How do you know now?”

Him “Well, I don’t.”

Me: “Me: And requiring me to have permit changes that how exactly?”

Then I started to say that in his shoes I’d ask everyone I stopped if they had a gun on them. He then said “There’s really no point, the only people that will tell you the truth are the law abiding and the criminals who don’t.” (I got schooled a little there)

To which I replied “And requiring me to have permit changes that how exactly?”

Then something came up and he had to leave but he walked up to me after church and said I thought about what you said all during service and you’re right permits only effect the law abiding and we shouldn’t have to get one.

I was very surprised because before service he was dead set that Kansas (and by extension Colorado if it ever happens here) going permitless was a bad thing.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Like much of all gun control throughout its history, there is clearly a racial motivation involved. Permits to carry a firearm started out as a requirement that slaves have written permission from their owners to have a firearm. This was followed by requirements for carry permits, which were routinely granted to certain citizens and routinely denied to others, frequently based upon race or ethnicity.

Gun control has never really been about guns per se. Very few have ever advocated in favor of disarming the government, military, police, security personnel, etc. Gun control has always been about a group having political and economic power and wanting to dominate and control others. The history of gun control has always been a history of using fear to control the populace.

Most of what we have gained in recent years has been in the passage of laws that require federal, state, and local authorities to treat all persons the same. "Shall issue" carry permit laws do not permit arbitrary or discriminatory action; unless a person can be shown to be specifically prohibited under the law the permit must be issued. "Constitutional carry" (essentially doing away with permit requirements) take the ultimate step of recognizing the plain language of the 2nd Amendment as a guaranteed right to possess firearms and to carry them about without undue government infringement.

I can recall reading a claim by gun control advocates to the effect that background checks had, in one year, prevented some 40,000 firearms transactions, represented as keeping guns out of the hands of 40,000 criminals. When I researched that claim I found that only about 40 criminal cases had been filed against those individuals for violating GCA-68 prohibitions, and only 4 had actually been convicted. The overwhelming majority of transaction denials were based upon error. These facts do not support the gun control argument, so the anti-gun crowd cites only the 40,000 number in order to incite fear.

You got that right.

The Sullivan gun law in NYC from 1910 or so was cronyism from the Tammany Hall guys wanting power for themselves and deigning it to those of a different political point of view.

And it is still in force.

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Gun control is not about guns. Gun control is not about crime or crime reduction. Gun control is about control. Guns are the best means of self defense and the best way to strip someone of their ability and right to defend themselves is to take guns away.

Even before firearms were invented, tyrants tried to take weapons away from their potential enemies and victims.

Human nature hasn't really changed much in all that time.

Why the gun is civilization by my friend Marko Kloos

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Quote:
"I can recall reading a claim by gun control advocates to the effect that background checks had, in one year, prevented some 40,000 firearms transactions, represented as keeping guns out of the hands of 40,000 criminals. When I researched that claim I found that only about 40 criminal cases had been filed against those individuals for violating GCA-68 prohibitions, and only 4 had actually been convicted. The overwhelming majority of transaction denials were based upon error. These facts do not support the gun control argument, so the anti-gun crowd cites only the 40,000 number in order to incite fear. "

Most of the instant check denials are in fact errors that get rectified in a short time. The "40,000 Criminals" claim is B.S.
Yep: That lie was right up there with "90% of the guns confiscated in Mexico came from the United States". What the true believers neglected to tell everyone was that ONLY those guns that probably came from the United States were included which was a very small perentage of the ones seized. I guess this same group is still waiting for "Blood to start running in the streets"!

Quote:
"The Sullivan gun law in NYC from 1910 or so was cronyism from the Tammany Hall guys wanting power for themselves and deigning it to those of a different political point of view."

The primary reason for the Sullivan law was to keep guns out of the hands of the increasing numbers of Italian immigrants. They didn't speak English, and gathered into specific areas. The decendent of these Immigrants have now been integrated into mainstream America of course.
Jim

What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to LEOs, the courts, the public, the media, etc.?

Why should a law abiding citizen have to ask the permission of some public official to exercise a Constitutional guarantee? The Constitution is very clear on this.....any state law that is in conflict with the supreme law of the land is "notwithstanding". Check it out.....U.S. Constitution, art.VI, para. 2.

Not to worry as I am certain that most LEOs and the courts will turn on their respective oaths to the Constitution and trash it by turning justice into "just us", should anyone run afoul of the law and end up in the system for carrying without written permission or God forbid, be in New York City and get caught exercising their 2A Rights.

All that permits and licenses do is make an act "legal" that would otherwise be "illegal". CCW permits make as much nonsense as permits to think, pray or speak.

CA. is a good example of this being 50% Latino. Up until a short time ago it was up to the sheriff who he issued a permit to. How many permits were issued to whites compared to Latinos. I don't know but I would guess it wasn't exactly the same number.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.