Permit less carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I looked up the online references that Lovehappiness referenced in some of his posts from where I assume his positions are based. One that stood out, among several, were studies by the CDC on gun violence. We all know about the biased studies done by the CDC that were based on cherry-picked data designed to skew the results so that the desired outcome was indicated. The studies were faulty from the start. Any branch of government cannot be trusted.

NRA Benefactor Golden Eagle
 
lovehappiness22 said:
I'm a moderate gun owner
Click to expand...

No, you're not.

lovehappiness22 said:
People need a permit to carry
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

lovehappiness22 said:
Wronghanded,

I believe universal Background checks. Mental health check when you buy a firearm including a mental health check up two more times in a year. I believe a written test should be manitory to use a firearm including firearms training.
Click to expand...

These are absolutely not "Moderate" positions.

And since I'm fairly certain they're going to ask, here are my positions:

If you can legally own a firearm you should be able to carry it at your discretion, respecting the rights of private property owners to regulate carry on their property.
 
lovehappiness22 said:
I do support the 2nd amendment and you have the right to conceal carry but I also believe universal Background checks. Mental health check when you buy a firearm including a mental health check up two more times in a year. I believe a written test should be manitory to use a firearm including firearms training. Don't accuse me of not being a 2nd amendment supporter.
Click to expand...

So what you're basically saying is "I believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for the infringements I approve of.
 
So a mental checkup when a permit is granted and once more upon renewal of a firearm, is not okay by you guys?
 
lovehappiness22 said:
No, it's all sincere

How do you know if the permitless carrier is not a prohibited person?
Click to expand...

How do you know ANYBODY is not a prohibited person?

Are you going to ask me for my CWP? You're not going to get it unless you're law enforcement.

Are you going to go around asking everybody you see carrying if they're a prohibited person or not?

There are far me people concealed carrying than open carrying. Are you going to go around questioning everybody in the event you may happen to run across someone who is carrying?


Know what's MORE important than this question? "How do you know if a person might be dangerous?"

Not "if a person might be carrying"...."if a person might be dangerous".

Doesn't matter if they have a gun or not...situational awareness and identifying people who might be dangerous is the key to avoiding most dangerous encounters.
 
Well, at least the OP popped his head in again this morning. He (she? they?) still cannot explain his (hers/their) position, merely repeating the same basic sentence over and over.

However (and I know some say, "Quit feeding the troll"), it's good exercise to engage in any dialogue concerning gun rights, and it's good to make sure one is on top of one's game when it comes to articulating our positions. Calmly explaining (sometimes over and over, as we might have to do with a young child) why, being able to put forth evidence-based counters to even the most preposterous arguments is good practice.
 
I did explain when background checks and psychiatric evaluation is approved and the person passed that and the written tests and everything is submitted for police approval, the police cannot deny you a conceal carry permit. Basically it is a shall issue regime.

Got that?!
 
lovehappiness22 said:
and absolutely scrap permitless carrying
Click to expand...
It may be pointless to point this out, but the United States managed to exist for 130 years before the blatantly racist Sullivan Law created the notion of "carry permits" (and then, only for NYC).
We tottered along for 70-80 years in a great blizzard of needing/not needing until Florida and some other States said "Enough! We will issue Permits!" The modern notion of "carry permits" is just that, something that has only occured in the last 30 years or so (barely half my lifetime, come to cases).

lovehappiness22 said:
Every firearms owner who has a gun needs a mental health evaluation twice a year as long as he holds that firearm for public safety
Click to expand...
Who by? What are the credentials of that Examiner.
Will they be held responsible for any errors or bias?
Will they be required to follow Due Process (that pesky Constitution, again, as if!)

You are aware that you are creating a huge burden on a huge number of people, yes?

Also, the Mental Health community is highly unlikely to agree with you as you have just given about 140 million people every reason to avoid getting mental health procedures of any kind lest they be disqualified circumstantially.

Also, a concealed carry permit is not a warrant to perform Public Safety. It is solely for personal safety of self, and those immediate to one's self. In the event of a Public Safety issue, a concealed carrier is subordinate to First Responders in every possible way. Please do not create requirement that do not exist (or are you implying that all LEO go through Mental Health evaluations twice yearly, too?)

lovehappiness22 said:
Why are you guys so bloody opposed to simple gun regulations like universal Background checks or a mental health check up?
Click to expand...
Please do not blaspheme, it does not help your case.

"Simple regulations" is a patent oxymoron.
Simple? A true background investigation (they way it is meant by those demanding it) takes from two to six weeks. That's a long time for a stalking victim to have to wait in the first place. But, it's also an impossible task.
Let's assume a tenth of the 140 firearms owners, 1.4 million need a BI. That's (using a low number) 1.4 x 80 hours is 112 million man hours. Fine. There are 2080 hours is a standard work year. So, 112 million MH is 54,000 man-years. Or 54,000 Investigators for a year each.

That twice yearly MHE you are keen on. At an hour each we get to staggering numbers again. 1.4 million x 2 hours per year is 2.8 million MH, or well over 1300 MY. There are only like 38,000 MD psychiatrists in the US (you have eliminated PhD psychotherapists above). They would spend entire years doing nothing but talking to gun owners (pointlessly)

And, this would only apply to the law abiding.

The lawless cannot be compelled to obey laws.
 
lovehappiness22 said:
when background checks and psychiatric evaluation is approved and the person passed that and the written tests and everything is submitted for police approval, the police cannot deny you a conceal carry permit.
Click to expand...
Sigh.
If they cannot deny, then why are they being required to examine the forms?
 
I'm starting to believe that @lovehappiness22 does not reside in our country, because he (she? they?) are displaying a serious lack of understanding with regard to mental health services in this country,

A majority of the persons in the U.S. who are in need of mental health services (i.e., evaluation, counseling, treatment, hospitalization) cannot at this time receive these services, mainly because the system is stretched so thin nationwide, there is a shortage of providers (extensive training required, not competitive pay), outpatient treatment centers and hospitals (expensive to operate, shortages of staff) continue to be closed or not available everywhere, and finally -- there is not much money that can be made providing these services (especially if one works for the government).

Yes -- the system is broken -- witness our exploding homeless problem nationwide, escalating drug use, and the occasional "mass shootings." We have much higher priority problems to deal with besides restricting rights of law abiding citizens.
 
There's a fundamental difference between governments that are forced by law not to overly burden the people's rights, and other governments that hold all legal power to enforce arbitrary rules as they see fit. The difference between self-government and government by royalty or modern equivalents. Long ago American colonists threw off the British Crown and established rules the new American government had to follow, the object being liberty for the people. This is a long way of saying that your proposed government-controlled standards the people must meet to exercise an enumerated right flies in the face of the core beliefs this country was founded upon. Liberty has it's dangers, yes, and it is not, nor should it be, a free-for-all without rules. But there are lines the government must not cross, and what you propose is exactly the kind of thing the founders worked hard to prevent. This is the difference between being a free people and subjects of a Crown.
 
CapnMac said:
Sigh.
If they cannot deny, then why are they being required to examine the forms?
Click to expand...

The forms will mostly weed out the bad people and the mentally ill, You would have to jump through a few more hoops, but it comes to final authorization, the police cannot deny. That's why.

I want to end mass shootings and I hate them but my proposals would solve the problem. One solution does not solve the problem and it would have to be a number of different proposals to solve the problem. Mass shootings keep happening and I want to end it, especially after the latest mass shootings in Uvalde Texas.





I didn't blaspheme.
 
lovehappiness22 said:
The forms will mostly weed out the bad people and the mentally ill, You would have to jump through a few more hoops, but it comes to final authorization, the police cannot deny. That's why.

I want to end mass shootings and I hate them but my proposals would solve the problem. One solution does not solve the problem and it would have to be a number of different proposals to solve the problem. Mass shootings keep happening and I want to end it, especially after the latest mass shootings in Uvalde Texas.





I didn't blaspheme.
Click to expand...
We all want to end "mass shootings" and certainly we all hate them.

However, there are multiple fatal disconnects between what you would require -- mandatory mental health examinations for firearms owners -- and the manner in which this country's mental health services currently operate. Secondly (and trust me on this one), many, many people are fully capable of passing -- and do pass -- mental health exams and being sent on their merry ways, deemed perfectly healthy in the mind, when in fact... they are not. And later, there is a mental health crisis, and sometimes, someone dies. Finally, you seem incapable of understanding the way rights work in the U.S.A. We already have a system wherein one cannot possess or carry firearms once adjudicated mentally ill. However, in a free country, we exercise our rights until we prove no longer worthy of them. We do not have to go through a process -- proving we are in full possession of our mental faculties -- before being allowed to exercise a right.

I suggest, @lovehappiness22, that you go back and study U.S. history, particularly from the 1740s through the 1960s. Read The Federalist Papers. Oh, and the U.S. Constitution.
 
lovehappiness22 said:
I want to end mass shootings and I hate them but my proposals would solve the problem.
Click to expand...

I’m glad you want to end mass shootings. We all do. You’re proposals will do nothing, and all of us on THR know this.

How so? You don’t even understand the problem, that’s how. Once you recognize it is a mental health problem you will be part way to solutions that work.

Digging a little deeper you will begin to understand that the mental health problem was orchestrated and not a random occurrence. World domination is pretty tough with that thorn-in-the-side-America standing in the way.
 
Last edited:
Then why are you so scared that solving mental health in this country is some form of socialism? Why are you not really wanting to solve mental health?
 
The OP has three similar threads going, this one, one on universal background checks and another on mandatory training, all with the same message promoting increased regulations. I'm wondering how many more ways he or she is going to ask the same basic question, whether we support additional gun laws or regulations. If the OP is serious I'd suggest that those questions have already been answered and asking them different ways won't change those answers.
 
"Once you recognize it is a mental health problem you will be part way to solutions that work."

DID I just say gun owners such undergo mental health checks?

I know that it's a mental health problem. You don't care about Mental health. If you cared about it, gun owners would propose to do something about mental health.
 
A substantial number of "mental health professionals" absolutely despise firearms and their mere existence.
To them, simply by expressing a desire to own/carry/shoot a firearm would be indicative of latent mental illness.
My preference is to keep my beloved Constitutional Rights precisely right where they are now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shanvanvocht
SC passes Constitutional Carry
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
AlexanderA
A
A
  • Locked
North Dakota to allow concealed carry without a permit.
Replies
6
Views
927
Shed
Shed
T
  • Locked
Idaho permitless carry law signed!
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Warp
Warp
C
  • Locked
Alabama 2nd Amendment Win!
Replies
6
Views
426
CherokeeGunslinger
CherokeeGunslinger
alsaqr
  • Locked
Oklahoma Constitutional Carry Passes Senate 40-6
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Sovblocgunfan
Sovblocgunfan
Back
Top