Gresham, OR man fires off his CCW illegally!

[2zuks]

I absolutely do not believe in ANY requirements by the government for someone to exercise their RIGHTS!

I have no idea how many people in Oregon we have that are chl holders, but suffice it to say there are more than a few. How often do you see anything like this from a chl holder? Very rarely. What we have here is a oddity. A moron that happens to have his chl.

People say stupid stuff all the time. Because of that should everyone have to take classes and get a license to exercise freedom of speech? Nope.

 

[ZachS]

I absolutely do not believe in ANY requirements by the government for someone to exercise their RIGHTS!

Age? Whether someone's a convicted felon? Mental illness? You don't believe that the government can condition gun ownership/carry on these things?

 

[U201491]

I absolutely do not believe in ANY requirements by the government for someone to exercise their RIGHTS!

Best answer of the entire thread. It is just a form of registration that should not have to be.
The laws are already on the books. If someone has a criminal record they are not allowed to have a firearm in the first place and a person with a clean record should not have to conform to a registration process to carry.
Criminals are going to carry regardless and we have to jump through hoops to do it legitimately. The laws are backwards and there are so many duplications of all the laws, so some lawyer/politician can have job security writing more every day it is pathetic.
What is needed is a LAW REDUCTION policy to make the laws comply with the K.I.S.S. system. I mean there are laws that in some communities, women cannot drink coffee after 5 pm, still on the books from the 19th century. There should never be any requirement for a law abiding citizen to have to go through the registration process to carry concealed or open. That is the bottom line. If one breaks the law, that is already covered. Many times over. McCarthy was right on mark in the 50's. Too bad people didn't pay attention !

 

[2zuks]

Age? Whether someone's a convicted felon? Mental illness? You don't believe that the government can condition gun ownership/carry on these things?

Yep. I think that mentally ill people in the state hospital should have guns in order to protect themselves from the orderlies. I also believe prison inmates should be allowed to carry guns while incarcerated. You don't want prison guards flaunting their authority over the poor prisoners. Of course the prisoners have to be able to protect against people breaking in in the middle of the night too.

Of course I am not talking about those people. I am talking about restrictions on law abiding, sane citizens. Forfeiture of rights for felons is covered in the constitution, although I don't really agree with all cases of forfeiture of rights since many things can be felonies now. I think that is a slippery slope.

As far as age goes, I still believe that parents exist for a reason. I myself started shooting guns when I was a little kid. My kids are being raised the same way. By the time I was 11, I was more responsible with a gun, could handle it better, and shoot it better than most adults I know. Age is a number. We send 18 year old kids off to fight in Iraq, but they can't be trusted to buy a handgun when they get home? On the flipside, I know a lot of 40 year olds that can't be trusted with a pencil.

I am saying that there should be no firearms restrictions on people who are law abiding citizens. I would say that creating any hardship that would ommit certain people from exercising a right is unacceptable, and unconstitutional.

Follow me on this. What would happen if we put a mandatory two hour training class as a condition of firearms ownership that costs a couple of hundered dollars? It would probably be doable for most people. There would be some people that are dirt poor that would be left out of legally protecting themselves and their families because of economic standing and nothing else. Now say that the requirements raised to 20 hours of specialized classes for firearms ownership that costs a couple of thousand dollars, and the same would be required for yearly license requirements. That would weed out a lot more people based on economic standing. Again, they would be denied constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS becuase they couldn't afford it. Does that seem to be in the spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America to you?

 

[U201491]

Age? Whether someone's a convicted felon? Mental illness? You don't believe that the government can condition gun ownership/carry on these things?

The CHL is redundant. There are already a dozen laws on the books to cover everything mentioned.
We get the CHL because somewhere along the way some idiot thought a concealed weapon was more dangerous than a non concealed weapon, although the criminal does not give a damn either way, it made the law abiding jump through hoops to try and obtain a permit. The most were denied on the Sheriffs whim, so the CHL made it required that they could not deny without cause. None of it should have been that way in the first place. There should never have been a restriction on concealed carry except for felons and mentals and those not yet of age to understand the responsibility involved. The felon is already prohibited from owning, carrying and punished when caught based on existing laws. None of it has bearing on anyone carrying wth a clean record. That law is the second ammendment. The CHL ends up being a form of registration that we as "law abiding" people are made to comply with and it should not be that way. The K.I.S.S. system has been obliterated in the US legal system. All of it is just a backdoor registration system. Since no one is trying to institute a law reduction system we are forced to comply with laws we do not like while 10,000 new laws a day are being written accross the country, every day..365 a yr. All to not only put you under the thumb of the government, but also to make the lawyer/legislators jobs secure. An entire comedy series could be done just on the US legal systerm. The sad part is it is no longer humorous.

 

[Partsproduction]

My brother surprised me by telling me he used to have a permit, I asked why he doesn't now and he said "It's just another tax". Good point, but then there's the problem of carrying illegally or of being unarmed.

In short, I agree that a concealed carry permit represents an infringement of the second amendment.