Should Judges get to carry a handgun without a permit?
- Thread starter Smurfslayer
- Start date
- Status
Lupinus
Member
Most definatly.
There is absoloutly no reason ANYONE should need a permit or permission to exorcise their rights.
There is absoloutly no reason ANYONE should need a permit or permission to exorcise their rights.
Now that is one very good idea!
]
I cannot believe anybody could actually believe this! :banghead:
We have to have some protection against dangerous felons, the insane etc. carrying, so the right of honorable people to carry is not furthur eroded.
Last edited:
Lupinus
Member
you do relize the wide range of non-violent crimes that wil lget you a felony conviction right? Hell in most states doing 26 or so mph over the speed limit is a felony. A wide varity of things will get you that felon wrap.
Now is you speak specificaly to rapists and what not? If you are that dangerous you can't be rehabilitated in a timely manner in jail you should have a long drop with a quick stop and not be walking the streets in the first place.
1911 guy
Member
Everyone should be allowed. Judges and such do deal with the dregs of society, but what if the same dregs are lurking in the parking garage when you go to file a complaint or pay a traffic ticket?
pacodelahoya
Member
Beretta,
What we need to do is actually punish those who hurt other people and leave everyone else alone. If you are ok to be out of prison, then you shouldn't need any further restrictions on your rights. Harming someone is illegal, why would making the use of a firearm illegal stop someone intent on doing harm?
What we need to do is actually punish those who hurt other people and leave everyone else alone. If you are ok to be out of prison, then you shouldn't need any further restrictions on your rights. Harming someone is illegal, why would making the use of a firearm illegal stop someone intent on doing harm?
Yes,I do realize that.
However, no voting rights, but you can own a gun? A Felony is a felony no matter what stupid thing the person did to get to that point. Someone that is so careless as to drive so fast, that it is a felony? That person obviously has no regard for anyone around them. Give 'em a gun?:banghead: Good idea
OK that would include: Grade school kids, anyone in an insane asylum, anyone in jail or prison, all gang members, anyone whose sole intent was to rob or kill someone, illegal aliens, terriorists, mobsters, anyone who should be in an insane asylum, drug dealers, junkies, pimps, wife and girl friend beaters, child molesters, hit men etc. I think you get my point.
pacodelahoya
Member
Beretta,
Why don't you tell us how you are going to stop all those baaad people from getting guns?
Why don't you tell us how you are going to stop all those baaad people from getting guns?
Frog48
Member
Yes. If a felon has completed their probation/prison/parole sentence successfully, why not? If they're still a danger to society, they should not have been released yet (if at all).
The "felons cant be trusted to vote, so why should they be trusted with guns?" argument in bogus. Voting eligibility is determined by the states, not the federal government. In fact, in most states felons CAN vote, usually after a set period of time after release from the criminal corrections system. So... its apples and oranges to lump 50 different voting laws together, and then further try to compare them to a federal prohibition.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
beretta9, how do we know YOU should be allowed to have a gun? Because of your THR "handle"?
Why not grade school kids? I wandered along Shoal Creek in Austin, Texas, with my Daisy Red Ryder when I was eight years old. I wasn't alone, either. I had full access to a .22 rifle at about that same age. Same for many of my friends.
Now, this was back in the WW II era. Past generations were not only smarter, we were nicer.
But I don't like the idea of punishing people for what they haven't done or have yet to do. I've heard about this old-fangled idea about "innocent until proven guilty of some danged thing or another." Or do I have it backwards?
Art
Why not grade school kids? I wandered along Shoal Creek in Austin, Texas, with my Daisy Red Ryder when I was eight years old. I wasn't alone, either. I had full access to a .22 rifle at about that same age. Same for many of my friends.
Now, this was back in the WW II era. Past generations were not only smarter, we were nicer.
But I don't like the idea of punishing people for what they haven't done or have yet to do. I've heard about this old-fangled idea about "innocent until proven guilty of some danged thing or another." Or do I have it backwards?
Art
Why not? If they're dangerous with weapons they shouldn't be out of jail, a huge variety of things are felonies.
Lets look at it from the practical standpoint, all the felons that are out of jail that want to do harm to people with a weapon are going to get one anyway. Remember no matter how noble the sentiment of gun control, it doesn't work. I think you'll find that any felon that wants to break existing law and own a weapon will have no trouble acquiring one now. Criminals break the law, this type of law only punishes those that would follow it.
denfoote
Member
Not that I'm against judges carrying concealed, but they should follow the same laws as the rest of us!!
While i agree with that statement, many are released simply because they have served their sentence. What possible reason is there for allowing a convicted criminal, to carry a firearm?:banghead:
If a person is foolish enough to commit a crime that sends him or her to jail, what, exactly is going to transform that person into a responsible gun owner, simply because they have served their sentence?
I totally agree with you. But why let them carry legally? They will find a way to get a gun, but let 'em get caught with the illegal gun during the commission of a crime. Can't you hear the anti's screaming "see, he purchased the firearm legally, and committed that crime. "This would only support their distorted, twisted, view of guns.
It is because I have had a background check showing I haven't been in an insane asylum, I haven't committed any felonies, and have been shown proficient in the use of a firearm.
Read my last post, then put it in writing that it is ok for all of these people to carry a firearm. Not bb guns, or toy pistols, but real 9mms, 45's, shotguns AK 47's etc. And this is not just down a country road, this is Walmart, mainstreet, the local mall.
Autolycus
Member
As Soybomb said: if they are so dangerous should they even be on the streets?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
beretta9, none of us with CHLs go around wearing the license dangling on a chain around our necks. Joe Sixpack can't tell you or me from Norman Nutcase, just by looking. Nor can anybody tell from reading a post on the Internet.
I've never seen it as irrational to object to gun ownership on the part of those with any history of violent instability. I just don't include the relatively young in that group.
But, times are different, for sure. I once rode a city bus to take my 1917 Enfield downtown to the gunsmith for some work. 1951. When I got on the bus, the driver commented, "Do you mind taking the bolt out?" The little old lady, next to whom I sat, asked what kind was it, and did I deer hunt with it.
Through my years, though, I don't think I've seen anybody casually wandering around town with a long gun.
Art
I've never seen it as irrational to object to gun ownership on the part of those with any history of violent instability. I just don't include the relatively young in that group.
But, times are different, for sure. I once rode a city bus to take my 1917 Enfield downtown to the gunsmith for some work. 1951. When I got on the bus, the driver commented, "Do you mind taking the bolt out?" The little old lady, next to whom I sat, asked what kind was it, and did I deer hunt with it.
Through my years, though, I don't think I've seen anybody casually wandering around town with a long gun.
Art
Liberal Gun Nut
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 388
I agree with LAR-15. As much as it rankles me that some people should get a free pass, I think that, in this case, judges should get a free pass. It's a good first step.
GrammatonCleric
Member
No, they should not
I voted no, I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the judges in this country with a piece of wet string, let alone a firearm. Let's not forget that these guys are the type of idiots that award multi-million dollar settlements to inbred half-wits who spill McDonalds coffee on themselves.
I voted no, I wouldn't trust the vast majority of the judges in this country with a piece of wet string, let alone a firearm. Let's not forget that these guys are the type of idiots that award multi-million dollar settlements to inbred half-wits who spill McDonalds coffee on themselves.
Autolycus
Member
Liberal Gun Nut: It is a good step towards creating a seperate class of people. Just like HR 218 did. That was the bill that allows LEOs national reciprocity.
No where in the bill of rights does it say that judges and agents of the state are guaranteed their rights while the rest of us can have limitations put on us.
No where in the bill of rights does it say that judges and agents of the state are guaranteed their rights while the rest of us can have limitations put on us.
pacodelahoya
Member
Ah, but Tecumseh, I have it on good authority that you'll be eating crow any day now.
Me, I'm gonna make bacon and eggs cuz I'm gettin a little hungry NOW.
I'd like to add, that once the agents of the state are the only ones armed, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says!
Me, I'm gonna make bacon and eggs cuz I'm gettin a little hungry NOW.
I'd like to add, that once the agents of the state are the only ones armed, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says!
- Status