Is getting a carry permit supposed to be *this* easy?
- Thread starter Swordlady
- Start date
I believe the permits (specifically this thread) are for conceal carry only. There may be some cities or states that have draconian laws that require permits for ownership, but thankfully I don't live in one.mrhnau said:Gun permits are for purchase, not for owning, correct? Or is this state specific? I'm asking because my grandparents passed me down one or two when they died... I was just curious
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
mrhnau said:
Well, I am the last guy who should comment on this, because I have rarely met a gun that I liked.
But, it would seem to me, that if you were unable to pass the background check to acquire a weapon, inheriting a weapon would also be verboten. At least in principle.
The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. However, there are some instances where residents forfeit this right, such as a prior felony conviction.
I'm sure someone can point you into the correct direction on this question.
Mike
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
Swordlady said:
It's got the strictest EVERYTHING laws in this country, Jen, that's why I want out.
I was born here, I was raised here, but I sure'n hell ain't gonna die here.
arnisandyz
Master Black Belt
Not quite that easy in my state, but easy none-the less. In FL, in addition to meeting the other qualifications, you have to take a certified class and fire 1 shot in front of a qualified instructor. You have to get fingerprinted and have passport type photos taken and send it in with your signed certificate and your payment. Takes a couple months.
We also have a waiting period on handguns. Don't remember how long, I think its 3 days. (If you have a License there's no wait). Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer went in to buy a gun and they told him there was a waiting period. his disappointed reply, "But I'm angry now..."
We also have a waiting period on handguns. Don't remember how long, I think its 3 days. (If you have a License there's no wait). Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer went in to buy a gun and they told him there was a waiting period. his disappointed reply, "But I'm angry now..."
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Andy Moynihan said:
I dunno, Andy... at least there is a REMOTE possibility of getting a carry licence there... DON'T... I repeat DON'T come to Illinois...
There shouldn't even BE a process for law abiding citizens. I think asking us to pay and fill out paperwork...maybe take a test is lunacy. The criminals won't suffer from any pangs of conscience for not going through the legal process. Also, the STATISTICS where concealed carry reduces violent crime in every instance should point us and lawmakers in the right direction. Enforce the laws that punish criminals using guns, ban felons from legally owning guns, post areas where guns can't be carried and just quit assuming everyone is incompetent or has criminal intent! That's my opinion...
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Radhnoti said:
How do you suggest the State enforce a ban on felons from legally owning a firearm, without asking those expressing a desire to purchase a firearm to demonstrate they do not fall into that excluded group?
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
Technopunk said:
I know. Only took me 4 YEARS and instructor creds to get mine, and the carry provision could be taken away at a whim if the next chief desired.
Been to Chicago before.
A nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to die there.
michealedward, sorry for my lack of clarity. The paperwork I was referring to was that which I had to fill out to legally carry a concealed weapon. I wasn't referring to the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm. The focus of my rant was all the hoops people who want to follow the law AND carry a firearm concealed have to jump through. It just seems like potential victims, who obey the law, end up with the real burden, if they want to defend themselves, as things stand now.
Radhnoti said:
This is, disturbingly, true in many areas, including this one. Punitive laws have a history of punishing those who follow the law, and missing those who are willing to break it.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Kacey said:
Is there an alternative?
michaeledward said:
Well, enforcing the laws that already exist, instead of passing new laws that are more restrictive than the ones not being enforced, seems like a good place to start... but that doesn't seem to be very effective of late.
This is an issue that goes well beyond the issue that started this thread, so I'm not going to say much - but it does seem like carry laws, along with many other categories of law, have a much greater negative effect on the law-abiding than on the law-breaking, and that the response of law-makers is often to pass more laws, rather than to enforce the laws that already exist. A prime example of that in today's world would be restrictions on what can be placed in carry-on luggage. As a law-abiding person, I have to pay for the choices of people who are not law-abiding - and somehow we, as a society, need to come up with a proactive, rather than a reactive response to such issues.
"As a law-abiding person, I have to pay for the choices of people who are not law-abiding - and somehow we, as a society, need to come up with a proactive, rather than a reactive response to such issues."
You do more than just 'pay' for choices of law abiding, somewhat tangential, but we as a society 'pay' for Smoker's health coverage, when we don't smoke, we pay for Drunk driver accidents, when we don't drink, so on and so on. Firearms is another issue of singular punishment for collective reward. I will punish or restrict the law abiding citizen who has to go through (varies by state) more legal headaches and requirements to exercise his/her 2nd amendment right, than the criminal who by very definition will not bother to abide by. So to prevent that criminal from breaking the current laws, we as a society create stricter laws for him/her to ignore. This to me is akin to putting an assault victim in jail to protect them from further assaults. The ongoing debate regarding firearms or illicit small arms. Is a classic example of emotion vs. logic. And sadly media and culture side on emotion.
You do more than just 'pay' for choices of law abiding, somewhat tangential, but we as a society 'pay' for Smoker's health coverage, when we don't smoke, we pay for Drunk driver accidents, when we don't drink, so on and so on. Firearms is another issue of singular punishment for collective reward. I will punish or restrict the law abiding citizen who has to go through (varies by state) more legal headaches and requirements to exercise his/her 2nd amendment right, than the criminal who by very definition will not bother to abide by. So to prevent that criminal from breaking the current laws, we as a society create stricter laws for him/her to ignore. This to me is akin to putting an assault victim in jail to protect them from further assaults. The ongoing debate regarding firearms or illicit small arms. Is a classic example of emotion vs. logic. And sadly media and culture side on emotion.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Aikironin said:
Yes, you have defined a problem, (I don't know that I would agree with this definition, incidently), but what is a solution? It sounds like these arguments are for the abolition of government. What, then, is the function of government?
"That government is best that governs least." - Thomas Paine
You don't have to completely get rid of government, just keep it from becoming a "nanny state". Aikironin stated it better than I, the laws outlawing concealed carry don't affect criminals. Making more laws will NOT improve the situation. The best thing (rationally, and even statistically when you look at drops in crime rates as concealed carry increases in specific states) would be for the U.S. government to drop the laws that end up hurting the law abiding citizens.
You don't have to completely get rid of government, just keep it from becoming a "nanny state". Aikironin stated it better than I, the laws outlawing concealed carry don't affect criminals. Making more laws will NOT improve the situation. The best thing (rationally, and even statistically when you look at drops in crime rates as concealed carry increases in specific states) would be for the U.S. government to drop the laws that end up hurting the law abiding citizens.
