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

Can such an individual be prosecuted for firearms possession if they are apprehended during an arrest? Or are law enforcement officers required to let the prohibited individual go and not pursue charges for illegal firearms possession?

 

The state provides that counties ‘may” issue permits.
The basic regs are state regs. The entire state is a “ may issue state” .
So, you’re wrong again. Nearly every state that I’m aware of provides basic guild lines for issuance of permits whether by the city or county. Towns, cities or counties maybe “more strict.” Our state does both at the discretion of the town or county. . You’re under informed as usual. How many times have you been wrong...more then Trump.

 

There is no federal requirement for private sales to initiate a bgc. 17 states do. They do better with less gun violence . It’s called a correlation. It’s consistent throughout the country with states, and throughout the world with countries.

 

Why don’t you tell us, you’re the faux par legal expert.

 

This is a free country, where people are innocent until proven guilty. One cannot be required to "show cause" to exercise a Constitutional Right.

To make such a requirement is to hold the Constitution in contempt.

 

Such pertains exclusively to the legal carrying of a concealed firearm in a public venue, and does not affect overall possession.

During the decades in which they maintained their total prohibition on all handguns, the city of Chicago and the district of columbia has exceedingly high rares of firearm-related homicides, all committed almost exclusively with handguns that absolutely no one could legally possess or carry under any circumstances.

Explain why exactly such actually occurred. Why did these total prohibitions on handguns not serve to prevent so many handgun-related homicides from occurring?

 

Correlation is not causation, however. The member Bowerbird is quite fond of claiming such. There is no evidence that it is these firearm-related restrictions, and only these firearm-related restrictions exclusively, that have supposedly achieved such results.

That matter aside, explain why the ATF has found more firearms found in the possession of prohibited individuals in the state of California, were originally sold in the state of California to begin with, as opposed to any other state where trafficked firearms have been successfully traced.

 

Those who are prohibited individuals possess a disqualifying criminal record, which precludes them from legal firearms ownership or possession under any circumstances, no matter what venue is utilized for acquiring such. It does not matter if the firearm was acquired via a proxy through a legitimate sale with a background check, or if it was acquired in a private transaction, of if it was found lying on the ground somewhere, or even if it was stolen. No matter the method utilized, no matter the circumstances, the acquisition and possession of a firearm by a prohibited individual is a felony offense under all circumstances. If they are found in possession of firearm by a law enforcement officer, they can indeed be prosecuted for such, even if no other crime was committed with the firearm.

 

Of course, you’re now changing the topic as we were only talking about concealed weapons permits. I’ll explain nothing. Do some research instead spending you’re time trying to play gotcha....your wrong. You need to find another vocation.
Moving on.

 

One cannot do what ? You live in OZ don’t you ? Why do you guys faint ignorance of reality so much ?

 

Most of those who slander or hate the NRA, do so for reasons that have nothing to do with guns: rather they dislike the fact that the NRA has helped elect politicians many left-wingers despise

 

It is already illegal under federal law for either to possess guns. What we are against are stupid laws that are designed to set the stage for really pernicious intrusions, and which won't do squat to stop gun violence.

 

Sorry you can’t read “ you’re against requiring felons to have a bgc in private sales . “ aren’t you.

Are you against them having a bgc in retail sakes too ? Then either way, you and the nra support felons getting guns.

 

More hyperbole masquerading as argument and unworthy of further acknowledgement.

And the word you're looking for is "feign", not "faint". Do you have ANY education whatsoever??

 

Its ineffective, a waste of time, and cannot be enforced. So you are not telling the truth in claiming the NRA supports felons having guns. the NRA was the biggest supporter of "project Exile" which encouraged local authorities to send felons caught with guns, to the US Attorneys for federal charges. Anti gun groups like the NAACP opposed that. I guess using your silly logic-if I support the FOURTH AMENDMENT it means we support kiddie porn or if we support the concept of innocent until proven guilty, we are anti law enforcement.

 

Yeah, you lose. Have a nice day, fatuus.

 

Cheap shots: The preferred choice of those who cannot defend their position. Here in my cave, (Los Angeles) politicians who enjoy the luxury of armed security have made it a crime for regular citizens to carry a gun. Can you tell us how this makes the 98 Lb female safer from the 200 lb rapist/murderer?

 

Pray tell, precisely how is one allowed to violate the law? Explain such. How is one allowed to commit a crime and face no legal repercussions for their actions?

 

You have your own dictionary somewhere ?
Of course they are. They do it regularly. Criminals have no requirements to have a background check in private sales like they do from an FFL dealer . True or false. If no person, law or regulation requires ANYONE to hold a criminal accountable by requiring them to report, record or demonstrate , they have deemed the activity permissible. Look up the legal definition of “ allowed.”

It’s the same for any violation of any law. It doesn’t matter what the law is. If there is NO enforcement or threat of, you’re allowed. Speeders left unchecked, are allowed to speed regardless of the ordinance. Most states actually have provisions to enforce speed limits. There NO FEDERAL PROVISIONS TO REQUIRE CRIMINALS TO HAVE A BGC of unregulated firearms.
Some states do. In those states, criminals are not allowed to buy guns in private sales. They are everyone else.

 

It’s been done. Read it.

 

And you have now totally admitted gun control laws are useless to prevent gun related crimes and just blown all of the needs you have previously requested for additional gun laws out of the water.

Good job of destroying your own argument and losing the debate in the process.

You have truly exposed yourself as a person who admits gun laws only effect the law abiding, yet you still push for more guns control laws, which seems to be an admission your true goal is to disarm the law abiding, making them into victims.

That is really sick.

 

Following the supposed "logic" in the above statement, any random individual is allowed to commit murder and face no legal repercussions for their actions, simply because there is no way to physically prevent an individual from engaging in such an act.

 

Don’t talk ridiculous. The act of murder requires investigation.
The act of any private purchase BY A CRIMINAL, requires NOTHING .

 

An absolute fallacy......

 

Tell us why-I have only spent 35 years as a constitutional scholar and licensed attorney, I'd love to examine your argument.