If Machine Guns are illegal

You're asking me to turn a right into a privilege.

Listen closely: No.

 

What you propose already exists.
Example:

C&R license, $25 for 5 years
Issued by B.A.T.F.E. formerly known as A.T.F.
The Federal Government.

You apply online for an application, get fingerprints, fill out the forms, have your local C.L.E.O. (Sheriff) sign off, once you receive your license.

You can now purchase C&R eligible firearms from any F.F.L. dealer, delivered directly to your door, saving much money.

Key phrases, purchasing firearms to enhance a personal collection, not to operate a gun store.

This license could be amended to include all firearms for a personal collection.

As well as a concealed carry endorsement.

To include a nice photo credential that would allow purchases in person at any gun store Nationwide including all Territories and Commonwealth's.

Disarming the bad guys ?
Whenever Police do so, they are instantly accused of Racial Profiling.

 

It's not a right. You just think it is.

Well, then come up with something better, otherwise I think it should be imposed on you. Average folks who don't own firearms (two-thirds of Americans) shouldn't have to wonder if the people they see carrying firearms are the "good guys."

 

I keep saying what I propose is mostly just more efficient. It's very much like the Nexus Pass. In fact, we could have one card that would serve as a driver's license, firearms license, and working permit.

Well, the people who want the extra certainty around who has weapons can adjust.

 

Do you know how long it takes a LEO / Police Officer, to know exactly, if a Person is carrying legally ?
No time at all.

Many Criminals are not carrying firearms as a normal part of their activities due to a fear of getting caught, and not being comfortable with firearms in general, it takes quite a bit of adjusting to carry a firearm constantly, I learned this as a LEO, firearms can be a bit uncomfortable, especially if you are trying to relax and still be ready to respond quickly.

One important point, many jurisdictions have concealed carry information associated with the Driver's license, this is available as soon as the license is entered into the LE computer.

During a routine traffic stop or any other encounter, a LEO does determine;

1. The identity and status of the person stopped,
Is that person a LEO, a law abiding citizen, or a prohibited person, LEOs must identify right off, either current or retired, credentials presented.

People with concealed carry, and are carrying will find it better to present their licenses together, rather than simply say they are carrying.
Some jurisdictions have obligatory disclosure of concealed carry, others may not.

A criminal or other prohibited person is at many disadvantages by illegally carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, they will be nervous, and not able to answer the questions presented adequately nor able to present credentials or a concealed carry document.

Currently there are enough safeguards in place, however, when people start calling 911, because they observe someone carrying a firearm, whether it is open or concealed, since the average person does not know if that person is authorized or not.

 

Answer the question as it was presented to yourself, rather than making excuses about the proposed legislation being held up.

Exactly what does the legislation in question do, that would actually keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited individuals, that currently existing legislation is incapable of doing? Explain such. Demonstrate what the meaningful difference is.

 

Such is nothing more than the opinion of yourself, with no basis in the actual history of the united states.

 

Its number 2 in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Get an amendment! This is not 'Nam Smokey, there are rules.

 

A national firearms permit wouldn't have to be physically carried. What it would do is deal with vetting persons before they carry--gang members, senile old folks, mentally ill, etc. wouldn't qualify. Persons would have to demonstrate some competence with firearms to have the permit.

The firearms permit is about as far as we can go without limiting gun rights. It would provide as much assurance as possible that people openly carrying firearms are "good guys." (As you point out, the "bad guys" will avoid calling attention to themselves by carrying unless they're doing their business.)

This is a compromise the anti-gun folks aren't likely to accept as a final step. But it could be that enough Americans would say, "Okay, we'll go with this."

BTW, I have a "if I was King..." opinion. My particular peeve would be to raise the competence level of people authorized to open carry. It's not too much, IMO, to ask that people have firearms training and training in threat assessment. I'm not pushing for it, however.

 

SCOTUS says what the 2nd means and so far they've limited firearms possession in public by subjecting it to state and federal statutes.

 

I can back up my opinions his history, law, and court decisions.

BTW, I haven't said what i would do if I could. I'm just trying to come up with a compromise that most Americans would accept.

 

The point remains he's blocking a vote. I don't know what's being proposed in more than general terms. Ae had been duscussing Republicans blocking action.

 

And which SCOTUS case are you quoting there dear?

 

I spoke of a circuit court ruling that forced the state of IL to completely re-work its ban on carrying firearms because the people have a right to do so.
Your response only indicates you have no effective response.

 

Please cite the specific state and local statutes limiting the firearms possession in public upheld by the SCotUS
Name of the case and text to that effect will do.

 

I've spent a lot of time in this thread talking about cases, notably District of Columbia v. Heller, where the gummit thought they would make it virtually impossible for a person to use a firearm to defend their home. SCOTUS blew the whistle on that one. But in deciding the case, SCOTUS went to great lengths to leave the government with the option to regulate carry weapons in public.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller. I've cited parts of the case.

 

As I thought: You cannot cite such a case.
Thank you.

 

DC v Heller was the most unconstitutional over-reach in American history. They completely screwed the Constitution not just the Second Amendment, but the whole freaking thing.

 

Reworking is not saying they can't legislate.

 

You missed the important part, which must have been deliberate, as it was in bold.

 

Marbury v. Madison established SCOTUS says what the Constitution means. It's been that way for 215 years.

 

I don't know why you don't "get it." SCOTUS has said legislators can limit open and/or concealed carry.

 

You are clearly unwilling to discuss the issue honestly.
Thank you for making it plain I need waste no more time on you.

 

Sorry, but you speak of our laws and the rule of law, but when you dismiss what the Founders intended you dismiss the Constitution itself, which IS the law of our land. It's been corrupted and abused by the government without the people doing anything about it, and I think that needs to change. I care what the Founders intended, and recognize that their intent is codified in the Constitution and needs to be acknowledged. THAT is what needs to change; not my approach to the issue. As a law enforcement officer I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I take that oath very seriously.

Not at all. YOU seem to confuse what our rights actually are and what the government has chosen to improperly infringe upon.

I'm at the point where I don't give a flying fornication what certain people think. And the problem is that it's people like you who are in the greatest danger of being put "in your place." Our rights under the Constitution have been under focused attack for years, and too many Americans have shown a shocking and disgusting lack of backbone in response... and they make the mistake of belittling and denigrating those who seek to defend the Constitution from further attack.

I know my history very well, and have been a student of history my entire life. Your ignorance of reality isn't my problem.