Concealed Carry & Open Carry Licensing Is Unfit To Exist

[90volts]

It's ironic that democrats (generally) cry loudly about the poor being disenfranchised when they need to obtain a state ID to exercise their right to vote (when the card is usually free) but they are all for charging for another right, carrying a firearm.

[freesoul]

It's ironic that democrats (generally) cry loudly about the poor being disenfranchised when they need to obtain a state ID to exercise their right to vote (when the card is usually free) but they are all for charging for another right, carrying a firearm.

moronic not ironic

[ideaman]

I agree. In America, we don't have to have a need to buy property, and any property confiscation must require due process.

The OP presents a quandary: Other than stupid relatives, how do you prevent psychos or criminals from getting firearms? Once government enters the scene with a law, government's nature, similar to tumors, is to grow.

[Sparks]

At the risk of going off on a tangent: IMO as long as the character clause exists, PA is truly may issue. They can call it shall issue all they want (just like they call the handgun registry an incomplete sales database) but personally, I'm not buying it.

If you can have a clean record and still be denied by the decision of one man, that is not shall issue.

Even Phila does not try to play that game.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Only in Philly or during a SoE would the denial of a LTCF be offensive to such.

A person can still carry openly.

Folks should be more offended at PA 6108 and 6106(a)'s vehicle clause than the character clause.

There are plenty of undocumented mentally defective people and non-convicts that absolutely shouldn't be carrying a gun because that do have a potential to cause harm to others or themselves - which the character clause has a purpose for. Every village has their idiot that isn't in the system..

I agree that the vehicle clause is a problem. I believe all licensing is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Commonwealth Constitution. Shall not be questioned is am amazingly strong phrase. No checks. Not cursory, perfunctory, in depth or otherwise. No questions & No licensing.

But to my original point: If a "convict" is to dangerous to be allowed to have a firearm, than he is to dangerous to be released, he should be incarcerated, executed or rehabilitated. When he is released, he again regains ALL of his rights - because they are rights, they can not be removed except by force.

[ErSwnn]

As it stands today, the "reasoning" behind licensing was to help assure the criminals were denied the ability to carry. I doubt it did much good. But it sure made the antis happy. From there we found the bottom of the slippery slope we are in today.

But....rights do come with limitations. Gun rights are a prime example. Beat people, rob people and you forfiet your right. No one "took" it from you, you gave it up as part of the penalty for your crime. Freedom is a natural right yet we lock people away every day. But we didn't deny them freedom, they gave it away as the price for their crime.

Personally I don't like the permit crap at all....for all the usual reasons. I support, in many circumstances, that the right be reinstated after a set of requirements has been achieved. X amount of years with no trouble, satisfaction of the penalties, etal. Those who wish to regain the right will make it through, those who won't aren't going to obey any laws either way.

Vermont is a great example of the lack of permission. Shootings are rare, crime is minimal and regular folks have no concerns as to cops without knowledge, cities with anti agendas, and no idiotic hoops that the bad guys never submit to anyway. I like their motto too but I'd like to see it one day modified to "Live Free Then Die."

[ErSwnn]

I agree that the vehicle clause is a problem. I believe all licensing is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Commonwealth Constitution. Shall not be questioned is am amazingly strong phrase. No checks. Not cursory, perfunctory, in depth or otherwise. No questions & No licensing.

But to my original point: If a "convict" is to dangerous to be allowed to have a firearm, than he is to dangerous to be released, he should be incarcerated, executed or rehabilitated. When he is released, he again regains ALL of his rights - because they are rights, they can not be removed except by force.

But how do we know if a convict has reformed? Many of these people are masters at manipulating the system to their advantage. I have no issues with a bona fide rehabilitation including the reinstatement of all rights but we have no way of knowing, without letting them prove it, if someone has figured out their life.

This is why I like the idea of a set amount of time, as well as the other acquirements of life.....steady jobs, a stable home, a good reputation, a lack of infractions, etc before we let them have it all back. And keep in mind, we didn't take away their rights, they gave them up when they committed their crime.

[Sgt.K]

...because they are rights, they can not be removed except by force.

You forgot due process of law...

[knight0334]

I agree that the vehicle clause is a problem. I believe all licensing is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Commonwealth Constitution. Shall not be questioned is am amazingly strong phrase. No checks. Not cursory, perfunctory, in depth or otherwise. No questions & No licensing.

But to my original point: If a "convict" is to dangerous to be allowed to have a firearm, than he is to dangerous to be released, he should be incarcerated, executed or rehabilitated. When he is released, he again regains ALL of his rights - because they are rights, they can not be removed except by force.

Rights can be lost for life - which you apparently agree if you support the death penalty. ....cant give that right back after serving death.

Back when we did allow the execution for any felony offense that may have worked. But with lessor acts now considered to be felonies - imposing a death penalty for littering in North Carolina would violate the Constitution just the same(yes, you can become a felon for common littering in NC). Also, holding someone in prison for life because they are simply a felon or other prohibited person would be excessive too. ....so, you take away their legal right to the weapons. It is completely constitutional to strip someone of their rights - it is called Due Process.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If a person doesn't want to lose their rights - then they shouldn't commit the crime.

Here again, you should be more offended at the scaling and grading of offense than the possibility of a person to lose their right(s) for life.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Sgt.K: There is supposed to be a due process of law. But you know better than most that in the end: It is often force, or the threat of force by the state, not respect for the law that causes compliance.

Rights can be lost for life - which you apparently agree if you support the death penalty. ....cant give that right back after serving death.

Back when we did allow the execution for any felony offense that may have worked. But with lessor acts now considered to be felonies - imposing a death penalty for littering in North Carolina would violate the Constitution just the same(yes, you can become a felon for common littering in NC). Also, holding someone in prison for life because they are simply a felon or other prohibited person would be excessive too. ....so, you take away their legal right to the weapons. It is completely constitutional to strip someone of their rights - it is called Due Process.



If a person doesn't want to lose their rights - then they shouldn't commit the crime.

Here again, you should be more offended at the scaling and grading of offense than the possibility of a person to lose their right(s) for life.

Respectfully: Did I ever say I think not have a problem this the scaling and grading of offenses? Buried somewhere in the forum, you well find that I firmly believe we should scratch most (if not all), if the criminal code, & go back to Common Law. I think that a extreme majority of "felonies" do not meet the definition of them.

The well quoted number is that the average American commits 3 felonies a day.

A woman in my county became a convicted felon after she deleted a free software program - which was re-installed by her employer - with no actual loss of data to the company per the testimony. She violated the Commonwealths "hacking" laws - she served no time, paid no fine. Felon. So when you say: If you do not want to lose your rights, you should not commit the crime - I reply that in today's day and age, with today's legal system, and so many laws on the books you could not fit them into your county library - let alone the relevant court rulings, three letter agencies making "polices" with the force of law - IT is impossible for a person, even a Rhodes Scholar to know if they are committing a crime, or not.

I also believe that we should be punishing people far more in line with traditional common law. Violent Rapists, Thieves (who assault, forcible entry), those who commit pre-meditated murder. Should all be hung at the county court house, it should not need to go higher.

I also, & I understand I am in the minority. I do not believe that the Constitution can allow, or authorized the removal of inalienable rights.
Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor
sacrosanct: (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with
inviolable: never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored

As long as a person is alive, they have those rights. How many "criminals" have guns when they are prohibited? How many "prohibited" persons who have cleaned up their act and been hurt/killed because they did not have a firearm? How many good men have been sent to jail because they got a firearm to protect themselves, but screwed up decades prior?

Self defense is not a "right" that can ever be taken away. A firearm is the primary and most effective way to ensure their right. Therefore, if a person is to dangerous to be allowed to have a firearm, than he is to dangerous to be released, he should be incarcerated, executed or rehabilitated.