Legal: Making a gun Purchase Permit meet the same requirements as a Carry Permit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Firearm safety course required to merely purchase a firearm? That doesn't sound legal.

That is the requirement for most states to carry a firearm not simply purchase one. Although I am a believer in Constitutional Carry .


In MN you can get a Permit to Purchase for handguns and so-called Assault Rifles only. You can purchase a shotgun or other guns without any permit. A permit to purchase is just a pre-done background check that lasts 1 year.



Requiring a training course to merely purchase a gun sounds unconstitutional. Thoughts?






https://www.foxnews.com/politics/or...ict-gun-bill-ballot-gop-gains-ground-gov-race





Screenshot_20221027_092254.jpg

Screenshot_20221027-083913_Brave.jpg
 
Last edited:
The left leaning states have made it clear that they will not let the US constitution or court rulings stand in the way of any laws or income producing regulations when it concerns legal gun owners. This however is a ballot question, essentially the people deciding whether or not to give up their rights and further empower their state government at the risk of future legal challenges.
 
The goal of the socialist Left is to turn the USA into the USSA, a mirror image of European social engineering. One is not a citizen with Liberty. A person is but one unit of the aggregate, the herd. More people living in American hamster cages called megalopolises are amenable to accepting this condition. Their self image either dissolves into the masses, or some of these people become an isolated unit in a cage, i.e. their apartment or condo. These people have lost all touch with nature -- actually, with reality. They see food as something that appears in grocery stores. They have never grown their own food. They have never hunted their own food. When some item in their home or apartment breaks, they call someone to repair it for they have no tools nor abilities to fix much of anything. Many cannot even conceive of the idea of self-defense -- that is the job of "those people in blue uniforms." They see the state as their protector, their Big Brother. George Orwell was far too prescient.

There is America and there is Amerika. This country is split between those wishing Liberty and those wishing security. Liberty entails risk. Tens of millions of Amerikans are readily willing to give up their essential rights as human beings to be a herd-unit protected by the state. This is what Americans are up against.

3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F600x315%2Fcb%2Fda%2Fbd%2Fcbdabd3e7f8070bb5ce188c74299b6ee.jpg
 
dweis said:
It’s in Oregon. The annual amount of rainfall they have there seems to have led to brain mold. I don’t see it as Constitutional. Purchase of a firearm is 2A. Rights do not require a license. However, in Oregon that does not matter.
Click to expand...

"Rights do not require a license."

Spot on. This is an absolute.

> Should Big Brother determine which religions are "safe for the good of the people" and only issue permits to attend those services?

> If I wish to speak on whatever topic, should I first get permission from the state to speak my mind?

> So I want to travel from my state across the country to another state, should I be required to get a permit for that specific journey on top of having a "Citizen's License to Travel"?

The Sacred rights of individuals are inalienable rights. These Rights are NOT bestowed by government.

From Merriam Webster Dictionary:

"Unalienable -- adjective
un·alien·able | \ ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə- \
"Definition of unalienable
": impossible to take away or give up : inalienable
"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' — United States Declaration of Independence"

Thomas Jefferson wrote those words.

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”
– John Adams, 1765

“Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all.”
-- Maximilien Robespierre

============================================================================
 
I live in Redmond, OR. I can't count the number of "NO on 114!" signs I see around here. There are so many signs they are practically a traffic hazard.

If it passes it will be the few big cities imposing their California liberal politics on the rest of the state AGAIN!

Abortion is a right although it is mentioned no where in the constitution but gun ownership is a privilege to be controlled for the very select few??? (Personal I do not see any need for any further impediments to either).
 
MikeInOr said:
I live in Redmond, OR. I can't count the number of "NO on 114!" signs I see around here. There are so many signs they are practically a traffic hazard.

If it passes it will be the few big cities imposing their California liberal politics on the rest of the state AGAIN!

Abortion is a right although it is mentioned no where in the constitution but gun ownership is a privilege to be controlled for the very select few??? (Personal I do not see any need for any further impediments to either).
Click to expand...

Glad to hear about that support for the 2nd Amendment.

Have also heard that there are those in the eastern part of Oregon who would like to secede from western/coastal Oregon and become part of Idaho.

People in central and southwestern Virginia LOATHE Richmond and the northeast of that state. They wish to merge with the state of West Virginia. During a push to ban semi-automatics in Virginia, people marched on the state capitol building in protest. Over 90 county sheriffs said that they would deputize all gun owners in order to negate any sort of state mandate banning semi-autos.

The people of the U.S. who still hold to Constitutional rule are getting more than just fed-up with the socialists. Deep anger is growing mightier by the month.
.
 
It's Oregon, what are you going to do? I suppose an org. like SAF could challenge it in court, assuming it passes, and see what the USSC says if they would even consider it. I doubt the USSC would find it unconstitutional based on 2A, given all the other restrictions states have imposed on gun owners, including OR.

Oregon is a point of contact state for the NICS.1 Before the sale or transfer of any firearm, a firearms dealer must request by telephone that the Oregon Department of State Police (DSP) conduct a criminal history record check on an applicant using NICS and state databases (including the state’s mental health data system).2 For this purpose, the dealer must check the purchaser’s identification, complete a firearms transaction record, and obtain the signature and thumbprints of the purchaser.
Click to expand...

Not many people know this but OR has been registering every firearm that passes through their BC for a long time.
 
Plan2Live said:
Help me understand, are you saying there should be zero restrictions on who can carry a concealed firearm? No age limits, no regard to pending legal charges, zero restrictions?
Click to expand...


I think the age of majority is fine, 18 years old, which is the age you can be drafted into the military. I believe if you can be sent to other countries to kill for your country you should be able to drink alcohol, purchase and carry firearms.


Any citizen should be able to legally carry a weapon barring they aren't a felon that is barred from possessing firearms and you should be able to purchase any legal firearm with the NCIC background check when you purchase your firearm and you should be able to walk out of the store with it that day.



And no, pending legal charges should not matter, if you've been convicted that's one thing.
 
Aim1 said:
I think the age of majority is fine, 18 years old, which is the age you can be drafted into the military. I believe if you can be sent to other countries to kill for your country you should be able to drink alcohol, purchase and carry firearms.


Any citizen should be able to legally carry a weapon barring they aren't a felon that is barred from possessing firearms and you should be able to purchase any legal firearm with the NCIC background check when you purchase your firearm and you should be able to walk out of the store with it that day.



And no, pending legal charges should not matter, if you've been convicted that's one thing.
Click to expand...
So what it sounds like you really mean, since the Constitution doesn't mention any of the restrictions you cite, is Permitless Carry.
 
Plan2Live said:
So what it sounds like you really mean, since the Constitution doesn't mention any of the restrictions you cite, is Permitless Carry.
Click to expand...


Permitless Carry could be used as another name for Constitutional Carry but I believe all the states that have it, I believe 24 states, call it Constitutional Carry.


Basically the Constitution is my Carry Permit.
 
Would the required training, which I don't believe should be mandatory and agree with others who assert the constitution being their means to posess/carry any firearm they choose, but if there was a mandatory training do you think that would go any lengths to quashing the oft repeated talking point of the anti's in favor of strict gun control that say the average citizen isn't part of a "well regulated militia".

Certainly shouldn't be a requirement for the average gun owner, but if you are of age to be conscripted into war or drafted and were willing to attend basic training, firearm quals, take an oath to defend the constitution/ homeland but didn't want to sign a contract and be an active military member, etc.... should that be a thing, I know it isn't likely to happen but is it even a good idea or just crazy that we could have like an actual militia that was under the National Guard, like non active minutemen??? Idk, I think crazy things sometimes.
 
They're taking Illinois' FOID to another level. FOID issues are well known, with intentional delays in processing due to the state intentionally short staffing the department that processes them. As with any of these laws, it's simply the anti's trying to make gun ownership as difficult as possible seeing how they can't do away with the 2A.
 
These laws are designed to punish the law abiding, not fix the criminal's doing the actual shootings. But in order to do that, they would have to admit that there's a culture problem, the same problem that they're making us even more unsafe with bail "reforms" and that other crap. But that's getting into the weeds and off topic.
 
Aim1 said:
I think the age of majority is fine, 18 years old, which is the age you can be drafted into the military.
Click to expand...
What about the other end of the age spectrum? If you couple gun ownership to the age at which you can be drafted, then the upper cutoff would be 45. Then old geezers like me would have to give up our guns.

The fact is, old geezers are not the problem involving guns, but young men are.

There's nothing wrong with having different qualifying ages for different things. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --- Emerson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
ATF: Permit To Carry Satisfies Background Check For Buying Guns
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Walkalong
Walkalong
A
How has a Constitutional Carry (no permit necessary) case never reached SCOTUS?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
AlexanderA
A
Old Hobo
  • Locked
Oregon anti-2A measure, Nov 2022 ballot
Replies
6
Views
602
hso
hso
A
  • Locked
WA governor signs big gun control package, including 'assault weapons' ban: 'No one needs an AR15'
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Walkalong
Walkalong
N
  • Locked
300,000 Hoosiers have gun permits
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
El Tejon
E
Back
Top