Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Which is why a) the statute in its entirety was quoted and b) the link to the codes themselves were included.

My 8 yr old nephew-in-law can deflect more adroitly than you.

 

But 8 year olds are rather smart when compared with anti-gun idiots.

That's not an insult about your nephew-in-law but a reality of the state of the intelligence of todays anti-gunners

 

It took you a while. What’s the problem ?

 

“May issue” when moral character is involved, is appropriate. You think a child molester or one involved in domestic abuse should be issued a permit ?
Besides, are you saying now it’s unconstitutional for states to qualify permit holders as they see fit ? You now want the feds to do it ?
Just move to Vermont where you can carry without a permit.

 

Its been here since 730 am this morning and you've just gotten through bitching that it wasn't there starting 30 minutes ago.

 

You're not getting it. The MAY issue overrules all. Even if you MEET 1 2 3 and 4 they can STILL deny you. May issue means any issuance is entirely discretionary and doesn't have to be granted even if you hit all the right notes under the statute.

Child molester = felony to possess firearms applying for a permit would be self incrimination
domestic abuse = see above.

Again: I've had trickier arguments with an 8 yr old.

 

Ha ha. I have places to go and people to meet. I’m not a hermit with a gun hiding in a closet waiting for the feds to attack me.
Besides, I had a long golf match today. I didn’t need to carry a gun or even think about it. Excuse me for not caring about your fears.

 

Buddy: Its got nothing to do with that. You were given a statute to examine. You were quoted so you had a little icon pop up that you could've followed to find the statute and read it. At least 3 times.
And yet you complained so bitterly that none of us had shown the statute, that we were cherry picking etc. When we'd SHOWN YOU the statute with clean link more than once.

The issue is that you don't read the posts before you respond and none of us here think you come for discussion in good faith.

 

So, you don’t like the way this county/state issues permits ? They have the right to make “moral character” an issue. Move if you don’t like it......to Vermont.

 

Again you're not understanding: They can find you have good moral character, and good cause AND STILL DENY YOU.

I repeat: They can deny you exercise of a right on an arbitrary and capricious basis, even though you qualify under the statute, that is incredibly difficult to challenge because of its administrative, rather than judicial.

 

Your dealing with a paid troll.

They cannot go outside of the line or they will not paid per post.

 

Argument is a spectator's sport

 

do guns save lives or do people with guns save lives?
do guns kill people or do people with guns kill people?

 

the latter on both counts. Guns are inanimate objects.

 

So now you can either refute it or address it. (Or dodge it again!)

 

Why hasn’t California been challenged ? I’ll tell you why. They are the 5 th biggest economy in the world and they rank 6th from the top in fewest gun crimes per capita. Making permit requirements a moral issue seems to be working along with other laws. They are a state. Are you denying they can’t do this, or just complaining for the NRA.

 

I am denying that they can have an arbitrary and capricious standard for the denial of a constitutional right, yes.

And the NRA are a bunch of limp wristed, gun control asking for, milquetoast moderates.

 

Well, they’ve managed to allow criminals access to guns without having to do a background check in private sakes.

 

Criminals are not allowed to purchase firearms.

 

Prove such as being the case.

Once that is actually done, it will be demonstrated how the firearms licensing board in the state of New York has been taking bribes from criminal individuals for issuing permits to individuals who cannot legally possess firearms to begin with.

 

Criminals are allowed to purchase or procure guns in any manner they see fit other then retail from an FFL dealer with no obligation to have a bgc. Only in retail sales must they prove they are eligible for their second amendment rights as prescribed by the Heller decision.

 

It’s a state law. So you’re in favor of states deciding the issue of requiring bgc in private sales. Good , California will lead the way.

 

Other then in retail sales, of course they are. They are ALLOWED to violate the law without requirements to report and record sales or have a Bgc as in retail sales. You’ve been living in a cave.

 

Simply because one can commit a physical activity, does not mean that physical activity is actually legal. There is nothing within the law to physically prevent one person from murdering another, yet murder is a felony act to commit regardless.

Simply because prohibited individuals are physically acquiring firearms, does not mean they are not committing felony offenses in the process. If they are found in possession of a firearm, no matter what method was utilized in acquiring it, it is still punishable by law.

 

Except for the fact that such was not and has not been stated on the part of myself. Rather it is being pointed out that no system, absolutely none in existence, regardless of how strict it may be, can physically prevent a prohibited individual from getting access to a firearm.