GambJoe
Member
If I wanted a permit to purchase I'd move back to NJ.
How about a federal permit to purchase?
- Thread starter Dmath
- Start date
- Status
Texan Scott
Member
You don't get it AT ALL, do you? The whole point of the 2A, its SOLE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF ITS EXISTENCE, is to ABSOLUTELY FORBID the federal government ANY regulatory authority over citizens' private possession of arms.
This is the WORST idea I've EVER seen posted on THR. There have been some doozies, but you just won the title.
This is the WORST idea I've EVER seen posted on THR. There have been some doozies, but you just won the title.
colorado_handgunner
Member
Exactly this. The end.
armoredman
Member
Strongly disagree - the tide has shifted. Heller and MacDonald show that, and we must press forward at both federal and state level to get the Constitution back online.
ryan3465
Member
No one should need a permit to utilize their Constitutionally guaranteed right. Here in Maine we have no FOID or other card, no waiting period, and it works.
I always have to wonder, if we were having the same "debate" that we are having on the 2nd Amendment, on the 1st Amendment, how many gun grabbers would be completely up in arms? This is no different. You can't pick and choose your guaranteed freedoms. It's all of them, or none.
I always have to wonder, if we were having the same "debate" that we are having on the 2nd Amendment, on the 1st Amendment, how many gun grabbers would be completely up in arms? This is no different. You can't pick and choose your guaranteed freedoms. It's all of them, or none.
beatledog7
Member
If a lion has you on the ground, do you offer him your arm and expect him to be happy with that?
danez71
Member
How about a Govt permit to speak or be a member of a church?
Or ,how about a permit against unreasonable search and seizure?
Or, how about a permit to have a fair trial?
No. Bad idea.
Or ,how about a permit against unreasonable search and seizure?
Or, how about a permit to have a fair trial?
No. Bad idea.
If there is any doubt here is what Senator Casey (PA) thinks via his email to me.
Apparently the Founding Fathers were pro-hunter, that Freedom thing, not so much.
"Dear Mr. (Removed):
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system.
As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain military-style weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon and was able to kill many children and adults very quickly. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that could lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not infringe upon the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.
Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services.
On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.
This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. On March 14, 2013, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the Assault Weapons Ban by a vote of 10-8. The Judiciary Committee also recently approved legislation to expand background checks for gun sales and legislation to punish and deter firearms trafficking.
On March 21, 2013, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada introduced S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. This bill includes three pieces of gun legislation previously reported out of the Judiciary Committee: S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013; S. 54, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013; and S. 146, the School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013. On April 8, 2013, Senator Reid moved to proceed to S. 649 and begin consideration in the full Senate. Please be assured that as the Senate considers this important legislation, I will have your views in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/ "
Apparently the Founding Fathers were pro-hunter, that Freedom thing, not so much.
"Dear Mr. (Removed):
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system.
As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain military-style weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon and was able to kill many children and adults very quickly. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that could lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not infringe upon the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.
Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services.
On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.
This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. On March 14, 2013, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the Assault Weapons Ban by a vote of 10-8. The Judiciary Committee also recently approved legislation to expand background checks for gun sales and legislation to punish and deter firearms trafficking.
On March 21, 2013, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada introduced S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. This bill includes three pieces of gun legislation previously reported out of the Judiciary Committee: S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013; S. 54, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013; and S. 146, the School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013. On April 8, 2013, Senator Reid moved to proceed to S. 649 and begin consideration in the full Senate. Please be assured that as the Senate considers this important legislation, I will have your views in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/ "
Rail Driver
Member
Not everyone is a licensed driver. I haven't had a need to renew my drivers license in over 13 years.
smalls
Member
Citizenship isn't required to own or purchase firearms...
oneounceload
member
Now THAT might be worthwhile;
elsewhile, I smell a TROLL
Averageman
Member
How about we give you a permit for free speech?
A permit to go to Church?
A permit so you are free from unwanted search and seizures?
How about if we dont give you a permit and we will send six rowdy Sailors to live in your home and eat your food?
A permit to go to Church?
A permit so you are free from unwanted search and seizures?
How about if we dont give you a permit and we will send six rowdy Sailors to live in your home and eat your food?
rodinal220
Member
NO!!
mgmorden
Member
We have no purchase permit system in SC, and we don't have any waiting periods either.
Overall, there is nothing good and a lot bad about any "purchase permit" system.
jerkface11
Member
How about an amendment to the constitution that guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms without infringements?
Excellent analogy. Some people seem to have confused compromise with concession.
InkEd
Member
Nope. I'll pass on having the Feds further restricting my rights
okiewita40
Member
msb,
I got almost the exact same letter from Sen. Coburn back in Jan. Just have to sub OK for PA.
As far as needing a permit to own or carry a firearm by any legal citizen. It is a 2nd amendment right. So I do not think we should need to have a permit at any level of govt.
I got almost the exact same letter from Sen. Coburn back in Jan. Just have to sub OK for PA.
As far as needing a permit to own or carry a firearm by any legal citizen. It is a 2nd amendment right. So I do not think we should need to have a permit at any level of govt.
JohnsXDM
Member
We have the FOID here in Illinois. They do a back ground check for you to get it, once you have one they( State Police) run it thru back ground check EVERY day !! When you go to buy a handgun the FFL has to run you thru NICS again then we have to wait 72 hrs before we can even take delivery !! Its all way to wrong in so many ways!
wgaynor
Member
My right to own a firearm was established by God, not granted by a government. So no.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
What the OP is wanting to do is trade this or that for not getting worse restrictions later. It doesn't work like that. This is like offering just your hand to an alligator to eat, in hopes that this will satiate its hunger. But instead it keeps coming back for more until it has eaten you. The gun grabbers are just like that alligator.
Why are we even having this discussion on here?
I know Uncle Ted isn't always looked at favorably on here. But he had it right. "The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit. Period."
Why are we willing to make it more complicated than that?
I know Uncle Ted isn't always looked at favorably on here. But he had it right. "The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit. Period."
Why are we willing to make it more complicated than that?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
