Replies

There is an absurdity to CCW permits. Since every state prohibits felons. et al. from concealed carry (not to mention prohibition on even possessing firearms), there is no effect of such bureaucratic permit processes on criminals, who will either carry illegally, or not, regardless of which CCW laws are in place.

However, for those qualified to receive permits, all the CCW laws do is create two classes of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Those who jump through the bureaucratic hoops, and those who don't.

There is no public safety benefit to all the fingerprinting and data collecting, except as makework for bureaucrats in law enforcement.

The retrictions they were discussing had to do with violent misdemeanors and not felonies. Under the original proposal, there was a way for people convicted of violent misdemeanors to eventually be able to own and carry a firearm...pretty stupid if you ask me. Granted, lawbreakers will always break laws, but should we drop laws pertaining to murder because murderers will murder whether or not it's legal? You have to have something to prosecute them with.

I agree with the police wanting demonstrated proficiency as a requirement for license. This keeps Joe Schmoe from just buying one on a whim one Saturday. People who are serious about carrying firearms will go to the necessary lengths. Those who are content to keep it in the nightstand won't bother.

I must say I completely agree with Taft's decision to look for consensus amongst law enforcement since they are the ones who have to deal with the having an armed populace.

There is no way, IMHO, that "the public" will ever go for everybody, carry everywhere, anytime.

So what we're left with is basically as you say: Criminals will carry and break the law. Law abiding citizens, who try to do the right thing, end up not carrying half the time because of the STUPID restrictions on concealed carry. Finally, the second part of the otherwise law-abiding citizens will carry and break the law. Of course, when they are caught, they will be prosecuted and then, they too become certified as criminals.

Best PRACTICAL solution: Once you pass a background check and prove proficiency, you get a license to carry everywhere that a peace officer carries when on duty.

Finger prints, licenses et al makes us servile to the government for protection, and it is a slipery slope. Unfortunately the crowd that does not own guns have rejected self protection and pledged allegiance to the police for protection - a welfare mentality. So, yes, just as building your own business makes you less dependent on welfare pay checks and hence financialy freeer, more guns means freeer and more effective protection capabilities and options. THey can make whatever ridiculous assertions or "studies" or annecdote, they cannot destroy the above inalienable self evidence of liberty above life necessitating the balance of powers that necessitates the people to rid themselves of police social security welfare mentality.

In other words, people who do not own guns rob the tax payers in payment to police forces. And that is unacceptable.

While I would advocate a dynamic balance of powers between government and people, the anti-gun crowd's overt dependence on government for protection is ridiculous given the fact that legal gun owners are in no position to subvert the government in organised manner, nor are they willing to do that.

While this should be a sane discussion of power balance, people make it a safety issue, which is almost irrelevant since liberty is more important than human life. But humanists servile to live humans want it differently.

America is starting to follow a devilish cult if it starts talking about public safety instead of the liberty that balances the needs of National Security and the needs of free industry, depending on the situations. LEt us note that the 2nd amendment puts severe restrictions on legislation of ownership of devices of any kinds, and that leaves mostly the executive leadership and the commander in chief with the capacity to use the militia (and not disarm it save for blatant cases of treachery such as when the South sided with Great Britain against the North)