Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Tennessee) What if we had no gun permits?
Nashville City Paper ^ | 11/01/2010 | Nashville City Paper

Posted on 11/02/2010 2:55:59 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour

As Julie Tenpenny worked on her laptop last week in Nashville Sporting Arms, the small west Nashville gun shop she owns with her brother, Chris Tenpenny, you could actually watch as the question began to munch away at her brain.

When first asked whether eliminating handgun carry permits would be wise, she didn’t quite understand. It was clear that to Julie, a gun-store owner, the concepts “right to carry” and “permitted to carry” were so linked, such an unquestioned part of the life of a gun owner, that they meant the same thing. But when it became clear what we were really talking about, she briefly expressed support.

“So just eliminate it and just be able to do it like that? Well, yeah,” she said. Then, 18 seconds later: “Well, I don’t know, I actually do have a problem. You should responsibly go through a course that explains the law. You have to know the law and be able to show competency with using your firearm. So I do think the permit is necessary.”

Chris, a self-described pro-Second Amendment conservative, expressed similar dissonance at the proposition.

“There are definitely two trains of thought. There’s the train that says you have the right to bear arms, but with rights come responsibilities,” he said. When asked which one he fell into, he thought for a moment and paused as he gave his answer. “I understand both trains of thought, but I have no problem with requiring people to demonstrate at least real basic competency.”

Julie put it more strongly.

“You are putting other people in danger by ignorantly carrying a gun,” she said.

“Ignorance equates to danger and irresponsibility,” Chris added. But while that would seem to indicate that he had made up his mind, he took issue when Julie compared gun permit requirements with driver’s license requirements.

“But driving is a privilege, not a right, see. That’s where the debate comes in.”

That’s where it’s come in lately, at least, as the 2010 gubernatorial race staggers messily toward the finish line.

The birth of an issue

Bill Haslam, Tennessee’s next governor by predestination, likely didn’t damage his chances by taking one of very few firm policy positions on Oct. 18, when he told a meeting of the Tennessee Firearms Association that he would sign (if not actually campaign for) a bill to eliminate handgun carry permits if the legislature manages to pass one.

It’s a non-issue momentarily. And it’s been one pretty much since 1994, when the state legislature changed the word “may” to “shall” in the then-five-year-old handgun carry permit law. First county governments, then later the Tennessee Department of Safety, were compelled to issue a permit to anyone who passed a background check, paid a $115 fee and successfully completed an eight-hour safety course. It seemed clear-cut, constitutionally sound and most importantly, reasonable enough. An initial records search of the state attorney general’s office by its staff, requested by The City Paper, found no instance in which the office was requested to issue an opinion on a possible repeal of the law since 1989.

As for the why now, attorney and TFA’s executive director, John Harris, said it’s just the political climate.

Then again, like in many other debates this year, some say it’s not so grassroots.

“What I think has happened here is that a zealot group — the NRA and people who have a profoundly misguided view of the Second Amendment — have decided that they’re going to assert their constitutional right to carry, which they don’t understand is not an absolute right. They really start with the assumption that ‘I have a constitutional right to carry a gun everywhere, and now we’ll start talking,’ ” said attorney David Randolph Smith, a leading gun control advocate who successfully argued that the 2009 version of the so-called “guns-in-bars” law was too vague to be on the books. Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman overturned the law last year. The General Assembly later passed a version that has thus far remained in state code.

By taking this stand, Haslam may have rung a bell that can’t be unrung for the next governor. In the medium-to-long-run, beginning in January when the 107th General Assembly takes the Capitol, this might turn from one of those things that very few people used to think about into one of those things for which platitudinous yelling is the preferred mode of discussion.

“I thought that he gave an unfortunate response,” Smith said. “I am sure that if he had had time to reflect, he probably would have said that he hopes that the legislature would not pass such a law. As far as the concept of signing a bill that eliminated handgun carry permits, that would put Tennessee in an even more extreme position in allowing guns to permeate the society.”

Harris was also less than pleased with the comment, but for different reasons: He would have liked Haslam to actively support a repeal.

“I interpreted Mayor Haslam to say that he was content with the current system, that he will not be on the front of the line moving to adopt [a repeal],” Harris said. “I think that was as much as we could anticipate him saying at this point.”

And an actual end to required permits is more than Harris said his organization is likely to seek this legislative session.

“It’s doable if the stars align like they did a couple of years ago, when Jimmy Naifeh stopped being speaker,” Harris said. “I just don’t think it’s something that’s going to be — if you had to pick one off of our wish list, I don’t think it’s at the top of our list right now.”

The consequences

Even if Tennessee handgun owners might someday be allowed to carry without a permit, federally required background checks would still be in place. Beyond that, it depends on what type of law would be enacted and how it would fit into current state code.

If permits are revoked or simply made optional, prospective gun owners would no longer be required to get any training, police wouldn’t have access to the records of hundreds of thousands of gun owners and big chunks of state gun laws written after the establishment of the carry permit would have to be debated again and reworked.

There are two templates for handgun carry permit elimination bills: Arizona-style, enacted last year there, which does not require people to have permits but retains them as an option; and Vermont-style, which writes permits out of state law altogether. Harris said he’d prefer the former.

“The fact that a permit is issued in Tennessee allows Tennesseans to carry in more than 30 other states,” as opposed to Vermont, whose residents can only carry in their own state and Alaska. “And so Arizona, for example, when they adopted their system, put in place a provision that says that those who want permits can apply for them and they’ll be issued.”

Arizona, however, requires gun owners to have a permit to enter certain places, such as restaurants that serve alcohol, which Harris said he would not want to see in a Tennessee law. That, of course, brings the issue to existing, post-permit law, which includes a number of exceptions — carry allowed for permit holders, no carry allowed except for certain permit holders — that account for the existence of permits.

“The exceptions for, say, carrying a gun in a bar are that you have a permit, which carries with it this concept that you’ve been vetted and background-checked and had eight hours of instruction,” Smith said. “So yeah, if the law were changed overnight, you’d also have to change all the other laws. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have any right to carry in a bar, in a park, all these other laws that they’ve ginned up to create an exception.”

That could be taken care of on the front end, Harris said.

“I think it would all have to be looked at in one omnibus bill,” he said. “I think the whole system would have to be re-evaluated.”

And simplified, which to Harris would mean allowing people to carry most anywhere: parks, restaurants, perhaps even schools. Justifying that, Harris points to a relatively clean record on the part of permitted gun owners.

“I think that in general, the people who are going to commit crimes and are likely to commit crimes aren’t going to bother with getting permits,” rendering permits and bans on carrying largely meaningless. But Smith points to data from the Violence Policy Center, which recently released a report showing more than 200 murders committed by carry permit holders between 2007 and 2010.

“In Tennessee, there are handgun carry permit holders who have shot people and killed people and wounded people,” Smith said. “So the concept that a handgun carry permit holder is any more law-abiding than anyone else is ridiculous. They’re human beings.”

And, he said, for those cases, why take an investigative tool from law enforcement? Indeed, as was the case with the Association of Arizona Chiefs of Police during permit debates last year, law enforcement officials have shown a pattern of opposing legislation that expands handgun ownership and carry rights. Harris said he doesn’t think that should matter here.

“Back when our nation was founded and the constitution was debated, comments were made and well received that those who sacrifice liberty for personal safety deserve neither,” Harris said. “Law enforcement has done a good job in Tennessee over the past 50 years or so, advancing legislation which makes their job markedly easier but has done so, in many respects, without regard to fundamental constitutional rights.”

As for the training issue, Smith said that he would like to see more training, rather than less or none, for prospective handgun owners. When he was originally arguing the 2009 guns-in-bars bill, a frequent argument used by politicians supporting the law was rooted in what they characterized as a stringent permitting system. Smith said he anticipates that, should a debate on required permits come up, support for their elimination might, ironically, come from many of those same people.

“If you buy into what I would call the somewhat flawed logic that the handgun carry permit system allows some level of protection, that is completely inconsistent to the claim that we don’t need permits at all,” he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/02/2010 2:56:00 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training.
Voting can be far more dangerous to far more poeple then carrying a pistol! Just look at our current President...


2 posted on 11/02/2010 3:16:32 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

I’d prefer the Arizona/VT/AK model.

If you can’t have that model, then I’ll say a background check is all that is required. The cost of the permit is $500/5 years. If you pass a training course in laws and shooting proficiency then the cost is discounted to Administrative only. In this case $115. The point is that it will encourage people to get training but I don’t believe the 2nd amendment mentioned any training requirements so it doesn’t specifically require it.

All this is better than the “may issue” of NJ. We may issue carry permits but you may issue a $50000 donation to the democrat of our choice or you may not get it. This why there are 1200CCW in a state of 9 million people.


3 posted on 11/02/2010 3:18:33 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
It should be no permit required for any right and more specifically for the 2A due to the insidious nature of governments and their minions.

But, if person feels the need for some initial training or even more advanced training, then they can go out and get it... Just like they can do right now.

4 posted on 11/02/2010 3:20:48 AM PDT by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
which they don’t understand is not an absolute right

According to the wording of the Constitution which must inform all our laws, it is an absolute right.

5 posted on 11/02/2010 3:33:57 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
“You are putting other people in danger by ignorantly carrying a gun,” she said.

Yep, like your average gang banger.

6 posted on 11/02/2010 3:53:16 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
"Permits", a word offensive in its use here implying that the government is granting citizens permission" serve one purpose...allowing the government to know where the guns are.

This is none of their business. Guns are private property.

7 posted on 11/02/2010 3:55:25 AM PDT by n230099 ("When no one knows who is armed...everyone is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

‘We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training.’

You have no federal right to vote, see Bush v. Gore.

Voting is a state right.


8 posted on 11/02/2010 3:59:58 AM PDT by Palter (If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training. Voting can be far more dangerous to far more poeple then carrying a pistol! Just look at our current President...

Repeated over and over and over again, until people get it. Get it? I know you do!


9 posted on 11/02/2010 4:09:33 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
I am absolutely disgusted with these people who believe in the second amendment right and then backtrack to make it conditional.

The Constitution does not create a clause "if you know how to safely and properly carry a firearm."

We have a right to keep and BEAR arms.

These nitwits have it completely backwards.

We have a RIGHT to carry firearms unless we prove ourselves reckless and irresponsible by harming others or their property.

This nonsense is being spewed by those who have gone through the process of obtaining a permit and resent others not having to do that, which the Constitution says THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO. It's that simple.

10 posted on 11/02/2010 4:21:31 AM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority (What this country needs is an enema.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Surprising that TN is leading the way here. Constitutional carry makes sense. While I personally think that training is a good thing, I don’t think it should be a requirement for exercise of a basic right. I think John Lott looked at the question and came to the conclusion that the required training didn’t make much of a difference from a macro perspective.

The big question is Arizona. VT has had Constitutional carry since the early 20th century and AK has had it for I guess about 5 years. Both states are thinly populated without any really large metropolitan areas. When AZ goes on it’s merry way without “blood running in the streets” for a couple of years, you’ll see other states adopt Constitutional carry.


11 posted on 11/02/2010 4:31:08 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
We need permits?

Naaaaah!

12 posted on 11/02/2010 4:31:21 AM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
It will be wonderful if we can see another constitutional carry state, joining Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona.

It's truly heartening to see the debate now shifting to eliminating all unconstitutional abridgements of the right to keep and bear arms. We have come a long ways from the darkest days of the 1970s!

13 posted on 11/02/2010 4:47:51 AM PDT by snowsislander (In this election year, please ask your candidates if they support repeal of the 1968 GCA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

> The cost of the permit is $500/5 years.
That’s a lot of money. It would be enough to keep me from having a gun.
Paying even one cent is the same as paying a poll tax for the right to vote. I don’t see a difference.


14 posted on 11/02/2010 4:48:42 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (The Recession is officially over. We are now into Obama's Depression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
Surprising that TN is leading the way here.

Why? The TN that I have lived in all my life is very pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment. Not as much as Vermont maybe but we would like to be.

15 posted on 11/02/2010 4:53:44 AM PDT by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

“The cost of the permit is $500/5 years.”

I think it is terrible to place a $500 “poll tax” on carrying a piece of private property.

If they are forcing people to have “permits” to partake of what is admitted to be a right from God, and is supposedly acknowledged by America’s government of men, then charging for them is adding insult to injury.

I can’t wait to line up for the $500 permit on free speech.


16 posted on 11/02/2010 4:53:56 AM PDT by Outership (Looking for a line by line Book of Revelation Bible study? http://tiny.cc/rPSQc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority

I agree with you, FRiend. I do, however, agree with the young lady in the article concerning training. It should absolutely not be an impediment to carrying, but like driving a car, a boat, a motorcycle, or raising a child, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.

Besides, putting the burden on the carrier is garbage. The old meme of “when guns are outlawed...” goes the same for training. Gangbangers are still going to carry without training, but the people are required to go through it?


17 posted on 11/02/2010 4:59:52 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN

“Why?”

TN has a rotten set of carry laws. Those laws are usually reflective of the underlying political reality. In TN you need a permit for OC, you need to be fingerprinted, the handgun permit is expensive, and you still have a lot of places where carry is not permitted. Such as parks, municipal buildings, etc. And there is no provision for nonresidents to obtain a permit.

“The TN that I have lived in all my life is very pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment.”

Don’t get me wrong, I love TN. TN is better than some, but not as good as others on gun rights. I’d give TN a C+/B- on gun rights. Orders of magnitude better than CA, NJ, NY and IL. But not as good as AZ, AK, VT, VA or KY.

I’d be delighted to see TN jump to the head of the pack with Constitutional carry.


18 posted on 11/02/2010 5:09:00 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
What if we had no gun permits?

Like Vermont?

19 posted on 11/02/2010 5:09:40 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

So, what is the overall experience in those states that have instituted “Vermont-style” carry. Accidents/crime up?? I seriously doubt it. I haven’t seen any studies on the point.


20 posted on 11/02/2010 5:26:01 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
I live in a rural area where guns are a part of life. I agree that our permits system leaves a lot to be desired but I think if it were put to a vote it would easily pass to eliminate the permit process.

When I got my permit several years ago the State Trooper that did my fingerprints got angry. I thought he was angry because I was getting a permit. He said “this infuriates me!” I asked him if he thought citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry and he said “quite the opposite. I don't think they should be required to go through this nonsense to carry because it's a Constitutional right”. A lot of Tennesseans feel the same way but at least we can carry and guns are not taboo here. A lot of law enforcement feels the same way as that State Trooper. I used to ride my horse in the mountains in the State Park and I always strapped a handgun to my saddle. The fact that I had it kept a car load of drunks from bothering me. Right after the drunks left a park officer pulled up and told me to be careful back there by myself. He saw the gun on my saddle and never said a word. He just smiled and told me to have a nice ride. LOL

I'm hoping that people of TN get out and vote today to boot out the politicians that oppose our gun freedoms. I plan to!

21 posted on 11/02/2010 5:28:39 AM PDT by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Down here it is a bit simpler. Walk into a store, pick out the gun of your choice, give them your address.

Check, check and check. You are out the door in 10 minutes. Takes a couple of minutes more if you want to also get a deer tag.


22 posted on 11/02/2010 5:29:46 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Remember March 23, 1775. Remember March 23, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
I like the Arizona model.

Prefer some training requirements, as I have seen some scary new gun owners on the range. But with rights comes risks.

23 posted on 11/02/2010 5:32:08 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

“Shall Issue” is a fair enough compromise. Knowing that a person can safely carry and maintain, and ultimately use a firearm is a minimum standard of safety where the public is concerned.


24 posted on 11/02/2010 5:37:17 AM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Or Arizona, I want Open Carry.
25 posted on 11/02/2010 5:46:58 AM PDT by 2001convSVT ("Repeal ObamaCare")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Outership
I think it is terrible to place a $500 “poll tax” on carrying a piece of private property.

I don't think there should be any permit. Just like AZ. If you can't get that, the $500 is only if you don't get some fundamental training. I grew up in a family with guns all over the place. I shot my first at at 6. I am an active shooter locally. Have you ever handed a gun to a first timer? I have. What's the first thing they do with it? Finger goes onto the trigger. What's the second? It ends up getting pointed at you...your feet, your arms, whatever. Maybe not leveled at your chest, but you're getting swept, it's a certainty. This is where I encourage people to get legal and proficiency training. If you don't want to bother? Pay more money, simple as that. If you're already a shooter, you've probably got certs anyway.

26 posted on 11/02/2010 5:51:31 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
That’s a lot of money. It would be enough to keep me from having a gun.

Fine, go to a hunter's Safety course. They're free in my State. You will get the basics on safe handling of a firearm. Then the cost is administrative only. You are ENCOURAGED to get training, but not required. If you are dead set against getting training go deliver some pizzas for a month to get the extra cash. The point is that people that have never held a gun _NEED_ someone to give them the basics. I feel it is important. If you don't want to, you're choice, pay more.

I'd prefer the AZ method. No government intrusion in our lives. That just isn't possible everywhere.

27 posted on 11/02/2010 5:55:17 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

The right to bear arms, as described in the Constitution is unconditional.

What you think is ‘reasonable’ is irrelevant.


28 posted on 11/02/2010 5:56:12 AM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: domenad
“Shall Issue” allow speech is a fair enough compromise. Knowing that a person can safely carry speak and maintain, and ultimately use a firearm is a minimum standard of safety where the public is concerned.

How does that sound when applied to the 1st? Kinda stupid - RIGHTS should NEVER be compromised.

29 posted on 11/02/2010 6:03:31 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
What you think is ‘reasonable’ is irrelevant.

Lack of reading comprehension today.

I prefer no government intrusion in our lives. I stated it in my original post, just like AZ, VT, AK.

That is not possible everywhere. If we must have the intrusion, then encourage people to get education. How you got "against the constitution" from my post is beyond me.

30 posted on 11/02/2010 6:18:25 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

How would you like it if you had to pay for freedom of press, assembly, religion etc. Paying for your seconedment right is wrong, why would you think it is ok.


31 posted on 11/02/2010 6:25:23 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

VOTE YES on the hunting & fishing amendment! Don’t let the chip away at our gun rights!


32 posted on 11/02/2010 6:34:34 AM PDT by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, retired Military, disabled & Seniors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
Paying for your seconedment right is wrong, why would you think it is ok.

Again, what part of "I prefer the AK, AZ, VT method? No restrictions." did you not get from my post?

My point was, if we're going to have permitting, which I'm against in the first place, but it's unavoidable in most states for the next 10+ years, then we need to encourage training. You encourage training by offering a significant discount for it.

Sheesh. Don't want to get some safe handling and legal training? Fine, pay more.

We do pay for freedom of Assembly, freedom of Religion and press. There are costs involved in each. There are permits and paperwork for all of the above. There are rules and regulations like the "lose your non profit status if you endorse a candidate" rules. I'm against all that as well. While we work back towards the original freedoms, we have to deal with the mess we have today, it's simply unavoidable.

33 posted on 11/02/2010 6:36:50 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785]


34 posted on 11/02/2010 6:40:20 AM PDT by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malsua
but I don’t believe the 2nd amendment mentioned any training requirements

Actually the first part that says 'well regulated militia' applies there. Back then 'well regulated' when applied to an armed force meant they were properly equipped and trained. So at least in theory it could be read into the 2nd A that there is a training requirement.
35 posted on 11/02/2010 6:50:54 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

No paying for your right is wrong period, but you think it is OK. We should no have permitting it is wrong to pay for your right. If you think it is ok then have fun paying for any and all rights because that is where the libs want to take us.


36 posted on 11/02/2010 6:59:52 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

“The cost of the permit is $500/5 years. If you pass a training course in laws and shooting proficiency then the cost is discounted to Administrative only. In this case $115.”

Why is the Administrative fee $115?

In South Dakota the fee is only $10 for a concealed carry permit.


37 posted on 11/02/2010 7:34:31 AM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent
Why is the Administrative fee $115?

Probably because some liberal figured it was a way to fleece the public. My Florida carry permit was $117 for 7 years, and my Virginia carry permit was $100/5. There probably is some cost above $10 and below $115 that represents the true cost.

38 posted on 11/02/2010 7:56:27 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Malsua
If we must have the intrusion

Fail.

39 posted on 11/02/2010 8:08:05 AM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
But Smith points to data from the Violence Policy Center, which recently released a report showing more than 200 murders committed by carry permit holders between 2007 and 2010.

Would any one else like to bet that the vast majority of those 200 were justifiable homicides?

40 posted on 11/02/2010 8:10:48 AM PDT by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Actually the first part that says 'well regulated militia' applies there. Back then 'well regulated' when applied to an armed force meant they were properly equipped and trained. So at least in theory it could be read into the 2nd A that there is a training requirement.

The supreme court has ruled that the 'militia clause' is a dependant clause. It in no way restricts the 2nd amendment.

41 posted on 11/02/2010 8:22:27 AM PDT by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

I don’t think the handoff procedure of a firearm should be a consideration in whether a poll tax should be applied to a constitutional right.

If you are worried about handing off a firearm to a first timer, don’t hand off to them. The new shooters I would have a reason to hand off to easily understand, and are immediately obedient to, a quick rundown of the rules for firearm safety. How is hearing it from a state approved instructor any different? When somebody buys a firearm it is unloaded. The store can put up a sign that says to load it at home if they are worried about first timers.

This poll tax only inhibits poor first timers. It also enables the state to make finding an approved instructor as hard as they want to. And what about people that have been shooting their whole life but never took a state approved “formal” class? They now have to waste their time for the pleasure of the state. Is learning firearm safety on your own or from your father somehow invalid because a state approved instructor wasn’t around?

Not to beat a dead horse, but why isn’t this required for buying power tools?

I totally agree that there should be no permit at all. Since there is, it should be absolutely free. In fact, they should pay us to get it. Perhaps a tax break for those who own and carry firearms.

A permit to conceal carry is a great way to entrap. Someone just has to *say* they saw the weapon “peak out” or “imprint” and it’s over. This is why being against open carry is ridiculous, but that is an argument for another time.


42 posted on 11/02/2010 11:52:09 AM PDT by Outership (Looking for a line by line Book of Revelation Bible study? http://tiny.cc/rPSQc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
"Down here it is a bit simpler. Walk into a store, pick out the gun of your choice, give them your address."

Well, that's not "too" surpising. You "are" in Texas, after all. Actually, it's not too bad in Louisiana (where I'm from, though currently residing in Washington state), either.

43 posted on 11/02/2010 12:43:58 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson