Proves my point

[biku324]

This is why your best result is lobbying at and voting for good people in your statehouse.

I live in deep blue NM. It's been that way since 1932 in the legislature. We have no firearms permits to purchase or possess, can carry openly most places, carry concealed on our own property and in vehicles on roadways without permit, and CCL is 'shall issue' after a course that is heavy on 'when' and lighter on 'how.' We've been 'stand your ground' for criminal law since 1912, but for wrongful death civil suits whether you safely could have avoided shooting can be considered by your jury.

These above are all because of an accessible, service-oriented volunteer legislature that is time-limited on their sessions. We also have low property taxes, and do NOT have personal property tax. Government services are few, but we don't need many.

For my money, state legislatures can work - part of the genius of the Founding Fathers and the shrewd system they designed.

Free speech is open in most public spaces, prohibited in some; if you want to practice free speech in those, you'll need a permit. As well, you're prohibited by both criminal and civil law from provably dangerous, libelous, or slanderous free speech. Limits. There are limits. The same is true for freedom of association, freedom of religion, eminent domain, right to speedy trials, and on and on.

Limits.

 

[BB57]

I'm noting a lot of "permits won't help" comments from folks who are apparently Constitutional Carry advocates or perhaps fan boys.

Be careful what you wish for.

Nothing is perfect, and yes people with permits and training can still do stupid stuff. But while all y'all are busy pointing out how useless permits are in preventing accidents and gun crimes, and that they should be abolished in favor of Constitutional carry laws, a whole lot more anti gun folks will use that same "permits don't make a difference argument to claim they are not enough and that handgun carry should be banned.

My response to both camps is that while nothing is perfect there is substantial data in a half dozen states that shows conceal carry permit holders are about 7 times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officer who are themselves 3 times less likely to commit crimes than the general public.

That's a much more solid argument for the value of vetting concealed carry permit holders than pointing to a very small N of outlier examples of officers or permit holders doing stupid stuff with a gun.

Frankly though, with "permits don't do any good" arguments I have to ask who's side are you on?

 

[Yaworski]

Two SP gate guards playing quick draw, on duty no less, one fatally wounded his partner.
Probably with the issued Model 15.

Back in the early 80s, I had a co-worker who had been in the Air Force and he told me that he came across two of his sentries playing quick draw with their loaded revolvers. And people say that the Air Force recruits the smart ones.

 

[Yaworski]

Not sure I'd call this an "accident"...more like pure 100% stoopidity...or....there is more to the story. We will never know...

I'm thinking lovers' spat.

 

[keith44spl]

State/Gov't sanctioned firearm training/permit programs,
are a liken to driver license/permit training.

There is no amount of training to prevent stupid actions.

Common sense and reasoning is a purty high bar for some folks.


///

 

[steelslaver]

You can practice your basic right to speak on any public property without a permit. But, you can not practice you basic right to bear arms, and a permit to purchase means you are not even allowed to keep and bear arms in your own home without a permit. They don't just appear by magic ya know, although some may have tried that with their wives.

I get prohibited persons not being allowed, but, most of those, who are the main problem in the first place don't pay a lick of attention to the laws anyway.

You can't legislate common sense or even teach a lot of people to think. A whole bunch of close to brain dead manage to pass a back ground check and get permits.

Fact, the 3 places in the US that had the highest intentional homicide rate in 2020, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are notoriously difficult to get a permit in and #3 Louisiana requires a carry permit. The 4 states with the lowest intentional homicide rate do not require a permit.

The real joke is that if you added up the homicide rate of the permitless states and divide by 23 you get a rate of 5.3. When you do the same thing with the permit required states and DC and drop out PR and divide by 28 you get a rate of 6.3. Permits do NOT lower the homicide rate. I could not find a list of states by accidental gun death, but did find that only 1% of gun deaths are accidental at about 430 per year. Of the 45,222 in 2020 54% were suicides (24,292), 43% were homicides (19,384) and just 3% classified as other. That would include justifiable like Law enforcement (611), and unintentional (535) had undetermined circumstances (400)

As comparing states with permits vs states without shows no big difference in homicide rates and in fact favors no permit states. Those in favor of permits must believe that permits would some how reduce the deaths in the 935 in the unintentional and undetermined group and your going to have a hard time showing any proof of that.

Yes one life saved is worth it and all that. The theme song of the gun control crowd. Common sense laws. Once again I ask "whose common sense mine, your's or Joe's"?

 

[steelslaver]

I'm noting a lot of "permits won't help" comments from folks who are apparently Constitutional Carry advocates or perhaps fan boys.

Frankly though, with "permits don't do any good" arguments I have to ask who's side are you on?

Yep, constitutional fan boy thats me. I am on the side of every law abiding American who wishes to carry a gun.

 

[johngalt]

This is why your best result is lobbying at and voting for good people in your statehouse.

I live in deep blue NM. It's been that way since 1932 in the legislature. We have no firearms permits to purchase or possess, can carry openly most places, carry concealed on our own property and in vehicles on roadways without permit, and CCL is 'shall issue' after a course that is heavy on 'when' and lighter on 'how.' We've been 'stand your ground' for criminal law since 1912, but for wrongful death civil suits whether you safely could have avoided shooting can be considered by your jury.

These above are all because of an accessible, service-oriented volunteer legislature that is time-limited on their sessions. We also have low property taxes, and do NOT have personal property tax. Government services are few, but we don't need many.

For my money, state legislatures can work - part of the genius of the Founding Fathers and the shrewd system they designed.

Free speech is open in most public spaces, prohibited in some; if you want to practice free speech in those, you'll need a permit. As well, you're prohibited by both criminal and civil law from provably dangerous, libelous, or slanderous free speech. Limits. There are limits. The same is true for freedom of association, freedom of religion, eminent domain, right to speedy trials, and on and on.

Limits.

Requiring permits to assemble on public property is more about scheduling, so that you don't have multiple groups trying to hold rallys at the same time on the same ground. I'm not aware of anyplace that requires a permit for the purpose of determining a person's qualifications for speech. That would be censorship.

 

[johngalt]

There's a Japanese proverb: Even monkeys fall out of trees. (Re cops and gun safety.)

I, too, suspect alcohol or drugs. It is such a fundamental, basic rule of gun ownership, to not point a gun at a person, much less pull the trigger.

And twice? After racking the slide the second time?

Nevertheless, while it will not stop all negligent discharges or, of course, murders, I too, favor a training requirement to own firearms.

We often, on this forum, lament how times have changed, how people have become less responsible, less polite, less competent, and more apt to cause problems to others than was the case in our youths.

If we believe so, perhaps time to change the laws pertaining to gun ownership.

That amounts to saying that we should let the worst of society define what rights we can have. I wholeheartedly reject that. Instead of reducing ourselves to the lowest common denominator, those who refuse to live as civilized members of society should be removed from it.

 

[biku324]

Requiring permits to assemble on public property is more about scheduling, so that you don't have multiple groups trying to hold rallys at the same time on the same ground. I'm not aware of anyplace that requires a permit for the purpose of determining a person's qualifications for speech. That would be censorship.

Spend 10 seconds on an internet search for 'free speech permit.' Not all are 'shall issue.'

Be sure to put, "None of your business" in the topic portion of your application.

While you're fixing things simply worded in the Constitution, be sure to demand a speedy trial within 48 hours of arrest.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[johngalt]

Spend 10 seconds on an internet search for 'free speech permit.' Not all are 'shall issue.'

I did a quick search, I found that restrictions/reasons for rejecting an application were for things like expected capacity, impeding traffic, noise issues (amplification) and the sort. Basically use of property issues. I couldn't find anything that says applicants can be discriminated against based on viewpoint.

I'm not sure how regulating use of public property is comparable to someone carrying and minding his own business.

 

[biku324]

I did a quick search, I found that restrictions/reasons for rejecting an application were for things like expected capacity, impeding traffic, noise issues (amplification) and the sort. Basically use of property issues. I couldn't find anything that says applicants can be discriminated against based on viewpoint.

I'm not sure how regulating use of public property is comparable to someone carrying and minding his own business.

Here ya go.

We offer a streamlined permit application process for rallies that meet the following requirements:

-The event's purpose is about public issue speech.

Request a Free Speech Event Permit - City of Orlando

Once again, there are limitations to nearly all Constitutional rights.

 

[steelslaver]

The only way I will go for requiring training is if everyone has to have it.

I have long believed that gun safety should be taught in schools. I do not care if you don't own any guns, you don't want to own any guns and don't want your children to. In this country not very many people are going to make it all the way through life without seeing any in one situation or the other. Even if you don't or wouldn't touch one it certainly behooves you to know when one is being mishandled and the dangers to you and others when they are.

You want to cut down on those accidental gun deaths that is far and away your best bet. Why not put you efforts there? Lots of accidental gun deaths are cause by what I call casual gun owners. The daddy hunted, they hunted, lots of them don't conceal carry. Bird hunted stick the loaded gun it the rig and a dog steps on it type dead guys.

I live in a state with one of the highest rates of gun ownership. Almost every single person I know that has been shot (other than suicide) was shot by out and out stupid gun handling. One kid was hit in the thigh by his hunting buddy as they walking along, obviously poor muzzle control, he bled out in no time, another was found dead in the road by his truck with a chest wound, they believe from pulling his loaded rifle out of his gun rack, muzzle first, a 80 year old rancher I know has managed to shoot himself twice and survived both times. One guy's daughter was hit by a 41 mag round because he was an idiot and stuck a fully loaded pre transfer bar Ruger Blackhawk on top his gun cabinet and when it was struck the gun dropped and went off. Thankfully she lived. He blames all hand guns, they are not safe. Nit Wit.

 

[johngalt]

Here ya go.

We offer a streamlined permit application process for rallies that meet the following requirements:

-The event's purpose is about public issue speech.

Request a Free Speech Event Permit - City of Orlando

Once again, there are limitations to nearly all Constitutional rights.

That application doesn't allow discrimination based on viewpoint. It simply says it is to be a public issue. Which seems obvious - why hold a public rally on something that isn't a public issue?

I agree with you that all of the amendments have been 'excepted' practically out of existence. That doesn't make it right.

Except for quartering troops in ones house. I haven't heard of any exceptions to that one yet.

 

[biku324]

I absolutely agree with gun safety being required periodically in public schools! Whether one ever intends to own firearms in their family or not, most Americans will encounter firearms throughout their life experiences. I also believe first aid should be required periodically.

 

[steelslaver]

When you can show me I need a permit to walk up to the governor on a public street and tell him he is an idiot you will have proven your point.

I am no more dangerous walking down the same street with a loaded gun in my pocket. In fact it is less dangerous to the public, because in the case above someone might well attack me for just for stating my opinion of the governor.

 

[biku324]

That application doesn't allow discrimination based on viewpoint. It simply says it is to be a public issue. Which seems obvious - why hold a public rally on something that isn't a public issue?

I agree with you that all of the amendments have been 'excepted' practically out of existence. That doesn't make it right.

Except for quartering troops in ones house. I haven't heard of any exceptions to that one yet.

Not precisely - it says, "public free speech issue." Who decides what that is? The Constitution? Nope - in this case, it's the city, which is organized under a charter limited by the state constitution; the state is organized under the US Constitution. The city decides, and if you disagree, you go to court.

The 3rd is not free from limitations - see US District Court for the Southern District of New York - 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). The complaint in this action alleged that the plaintiffs' Due Process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent.

 

[johngalt]

If they were facility-residences then they weren't their own private property.

Permits for public rallys are about regulating use of public property, not regulating free speech.

 

[biku324]

If they were facility-residences then they weren't their own private property.

Permits for public rallys are about regulating use of public property, not regulating free speech.

The 3rd doesn't specify that homes must be private property in its text. It says. "...Owner."

No - permits for free speech events on public property are about 1) allowing legitimate public free speech, 2) on public property.

What does the First Amendment say about public free speech in its text?

 

[steelslaver]

US District Court for the Southern District of New York - 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

I did look it up . There is a lot more to the story. Thinking it is some kind of precedence is very shaky and as it stand only applies in New York, Vermont, and Connecticut.

It was a 2-1 decision and one judge actually split the difference. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Irving R. Kaufman maintained that the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and that the special circumstances of residency in prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection.
"The tenancy was regulated by the Department of Correction"
Kaufman deemed the application of the Third Amendment to be "far-fetched".[24]


The people displace in that case when not home owners, but tenant on strike form the facility that owned the property and needed to billet the national guard troops. Th tenant were stretching the 3rd a bit just to claim it was their property. It was only their home because they worked for they worked for the facility.


The case was remanded to District Court where it was decided in the defendants' favor, due to the principle that, as agents of the state, the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity unless they knowingly acted illegally.[21] In the absence of any previous precedent on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met.[22][23]

PLUS, READ the 3rd. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

The State which displace d the tenant WAS the OWNER