“American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to the whims of a local government or its employees, just because they don’t think someone ‘needs’ a carry permit. Nobody advocates arming criminals or mental defectives, but honest citizens with clean records should not be denied out of hand.
Maybe the gun control side is guilty of this too, but I think Mr. Gottlieb would do better to tone down the rhetoric. Describing these cases as being "subject to the whim of a local government" is an example of exaggerated nonsense. So is the phrase, "should not be denied out of hand."
There's nothing "whimsical" or "out of hand" about these decisions except in the paranoid mind-reading of the gun advocates. Local police are in a particularly advantageous position to know who among their citizenry are fit to carry concealed weapons.
Investing local law enforcement with this power is a perfect example of reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Local police are in a particularly advantageous position to know who among their citizenry are fit to carry concealed weapons."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like in the recent case of the Iowa Sheriff that denied permits based upon someone's political beliefs?
Yep--"them niggers ought not to have no guns--they'll get all uppity." Locals know who should & should not be able to exercise Constitutional rights; just ask Bull Connor.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather have a nation of laws, not of men.
Hey, how about the LEOs can see the criminal records of applicants.
ReplyDeleteHave you heard something about plea bargaining? You know where the defendant pleads to some lesser charge rather than go to trial and face a felony conviction.
Also, the LEOs would be in a position to know about what applicant may have been charged, but the charges were dismissed or dropped for various reasons.
This is my business. I help these people reduce their charges and then go back on the street.
Then people like you help them acquire firearms.
Laci
That would be convicted felon Gottlieb.
ReplyDelete"Also, the LEOs would be in a position to know about what applicant may have been charged, but the charges were dismissed or dropped for various reasons."
ReplyDeleteVarious reasons like because there were mistakes or folks were actually not guilty so they were not prosecuted?
So now it is not enough to prohibit convicted felons, you want to also include anyone arrested?
"This is my business. I help these people reduce their charges and then go back on the street."
So under the MikeB shared responsibility theory, you are to blame when these nuts commit further crimes.
"Then people like you help them acquire firearms."
Feeling a little guilty for helping criminals so you blame it on the law abiding? You should be a New York politician.
Of course there's abuse of power, but what you're suggesting is to eliminate the law altogether as a result. That doesn't make sense. What we need are checks on the police who exercise that power.
ReplyDeleteI'm the first one to point out police abuse, but I don't think it represents the majority.
Police discretion in issuing concealed carry permist is simple common sense.
Or, we could just issue them to those that meet the qualifications without the need for any judgement by bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteOK, take this example:
ReplyDeleteO.J. Simpson.
He was found not guilty of murder.
Under shall issue, he MUST receive a permit to carry since he wasn't convicted.
Under permissive carry, he can be denied.
Of course, May I assume that you believe that O.J. Simpson is not guilty????
I trust you have no problems with O.J. Simpson carrying weapons.
Laci
Laci: “OK, take this example: O.J. Simpson.”
ReplyDeleteGreat example. Because guys like OJ Simpson exist- a law abiding citizen like me will be denied the right to bear arms. OJ Simpson, went and got a gun anyway and robbed a Las Vegas hotel room.
"There's nothing "whimsical" or "out of hand" about these decisions except in the paranoid mind-reading of the gun advocates."
ReplyDeleteTell that to the citizens of Chicago, who, after a Supreme Court decision, now have their government requiring them to jump through all sorts of hoops, including you can only have one available gun in your home, can only buy one a month, must take a firearms course even though gun ranges and stores are banned, etc. It's completely ridiculous.
And Chicago just released its list of banned handguns that are "too dangerous." Entire gun companies are on the list, and it's a long list. It would be much easier to tell people which guns Aren't banned.
And cops are good with guns? Since when? How many times a year does the typical cop even go to the range? We already know some have problems distinguishing their gun from their taser when a suspect is handcuffed face-down on the ground.
"This is my business. I help these people reduce their charges and then go back on the street."
ReplyDeleteThe next time one of those people you put back on the street gets ventilated during the commission of a crime, you should be sent the bill for the ammo and cleanup.
TS said, "a law abiding citizen like me will be denied"
ReplyDeleteYou can't say "will be." That would mean police abuse of power in deciding who gets guns is 100%? In that case no one would have them.
"You can't say "will be." That would mean police abuse of power in deciding who gets guns is 100%? In that case no one would have them."
ReplyDeleteYes, like in Orange County, Calf., where the sheriff decided that no one "needs" a permit so none will be issued. Except a handful for the very elite of course.
Yes MikeB, it is near 100% denial in my county. The only CCW I heard of being issued was to one of the mayor’s cronies (who also has a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse). And my city just laid off 80 police officers and won’t take 911 calls unless it is a violent crime in progress.
ReplyDelete