Do you think you should need a permit to own/carry a pistol?

[armadasx]

Im pretty sure you can own a pistol with out a permit as long as your a homeowner and it stays in the house.(you cant carry it ever). I know we require permits to carry but there's way to many people that can get permits that should never be able to. That should probly be addressed first

[DrThunder]

Yes I think you should be required to have a permit to own and especially carry a pistol. I'm not saying that I think the current way you obtain a permit is ideal.

[BRock89GW]

I strongly feel that gun safety should be a class in schools around sixth grade. If parents don't want there kids to learn they can opt out. No ammunition in school but a field trip to the range to teach kids, I'm sure some people would think this is almost a new age hitler youth idea but people are entitled to there opinion. After the Newtown shooting thousands of people with no history of owning or firing guns are purchasing guns and are probably gonna hurt themselves. Our local gun range has an influx if new members but they just had to redo the floor because new gun owners don't know what they're doing and have been shooting the range floor.
I still feel there should be background checks for checking criminal and violent history In purchasing any firearm. But to carry, you already went through the background check once so depending on local and state laws, i do not think it should be necessary to acquire a second permit.

[Buffalo Phil]

I strongly feel that gun safety should be a class in schools around sixth grade. If parents don't want there kids to learn they can opt out. No ammunition in school but a field trip to the range to teach kids, I'm sure some people would think this is almost a new age hitler youth idea but people are entitled to there opinion. After the Newtown shooting thousands of people with no history of owning or firing guns are purchasing guns and are probably gonna hurt themselves. Our local gun range has an influx if new members but they just had to redo the floor because new gun owners don't know what they're doing and have been shooting the range floor.
I still feel there should be background checks for checking criminal and violent history In purchasing any firearm. But to carry, you already went through the background check once so depending on local and state laws, i do not think it should be necessary to acquire a second permit.

High schools used to have shooting teams and the students would keep their firearms in their lockers. Times have changed.

[ct67_72]

High schools used to have shooting teams and the students would keep their firearms in their lockers. Times have changed.

This. My first high school had a shooting team. I believe being informed on guns, and having a basic understanding of them from an early age plays a big role in safety down the road. I had no curiosity as a kid. If I saw a gun somewhere I knew what to do with it (or not to). I could go shoot whatever I wanted to any time. No big deal.

[Nick]

Didn't have time last night to write out my reasoning, here it goes:

Since this forum loves interpreting old legal documents, let's take that route.

In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to ensure the common good of the people, which can be taken to mean ensuring, to the best of their abilities, that every citizen's basic rights aren't violated by either the lawful or unlawful acts of others.

The Declaration says that everyone has 3 unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (for all intents and purposes read: property). One can take the pursuit of property to mean freely practicing a profession or trade to earn your living. Let's say that I am a surgeon. I have deemed myself competent in all areas of surgical medicine and feel that I am more than capable of carrying out my duty as a surgeon. Why then must I be certified by a state medical board and get licenses to practice my profession? The answer goes back to my original interpretation of the purpose of government. By certifying, to the best of their abilities, that I am competent as a surgeon, the government has attempted to protect the common good (people's right to life in this case) by minimizing the risk that I leave a scalpel in someones abdomen. Now, that isn't to say that I will someday misplace that scalpel and kill a patient, just like you can't say that someone with a pistol permit will never shoot someone without just cause.

Requiring a permit isn't an infringement on your Constitutional rights, its simply the government attempting to ensure people's unalienable rights will not be in turn violated at some point by your expression under the 2nd Amendment rights by negligence or stupidity.

Also, for everyone's information regarding this topic, a federal appeals court recently ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections"

[konastinky1234]

Didn't have time last night to write out my reasoning, here it goes:

Since this forum loves interpreting old legal documents, let's take that route.

In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to ensure the common good of the people, which can be taken to mean ensuring, to the best of their abilities, that every citizen's basic rights aren't violated by either the lawful or unlawful acts of others.

The Declaration says that everyone has 3 unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (for all intents and purposes read: property). One can take the pursuit of property to mean freely practicing a profession or trade to earn your living. Let's say that I am a surgeon. I have deemed myself competent in all areas of surgical medicine and feel that I am more than capable of carrying out my duty as a surgeon. Why then must I be certified by a state medical board and get licenses to practice my profession? The answer goes back to my original interpretation of the purpose of government. By certifying, to the best of their abilities, that I am competent as a surgeon, the government has attempted to protect the common good (people's right to life in this case) by minimizing the risk that I leave a scalpel in someones abdomen. Now, that isn't to say that I will someday misplace that scalpel and kill a patient, just like you can't say that someone with a pistol permit will never shoot someone without just cause.

Requiring a permit isn't an infringement on your Constitutional rights, its simply the government attempting to ensure people's unalienable rights will not be in turn violated at some point by your expression under the 2nd Amendment rights by negligence or stupidity.

Also, for everyone's information regarding this topic, a federal appeals court recently ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections"

so what you're saying is that you can carry openly anywhere anytime technically, minus the issue with the breach of peace thing?

[ct67_72]

Didn't have time last night to write out my reasoning, here it goes:

Since this forum loves interpreting old legal documents, let's take that route.

In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to ensure the common good of the people, which can be taken to mean ensuring, to the best of their abilities, that every citizen's basic rights aren't violated by either the lawful or unlawful acts of others.

The Declaration says that everyone has 3 unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (for all intents and purposes read: property). One can take the pursuit of property to mean freely practicing a profession or trade to earn your living. Let's say that I am a surgeon. I have deemed myself competent in all areas of surgical medicine and feel that I am more than capable of carrying out my duty as a surgeon. Why then must I be certified by a state medical board and get licenses to practice my profession? The answer goes back to my original interpretation of the purpose of government. By certifying, to the best of their abilities, that I am competent as a surgeon, the government has attempted to protect the common good (people's right to life in this case) by minimizing the risk that I leave a scalpel in someones abdomen. Now, that isn't to say that I will someday misplace that scalpel and kill a patient, just like you can't say that someone with a pistol permit will never shoot someone without just cause.

Requiring a permit isn't an infringement on your Constitutional rights, its simply the government attempting to ensure people's unalienable rights will not be in turn violated at some point by your expression under the 2nd Amendment rights by negligence or stupidity.

Also, for everyone's information regarding this topic, a federal appeals court recently ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections"

Well said. I just rear about the courts ruling on the concealed carry. I cant say that I agree, I believe my right to bear arms for my personal protection goes beyond my home. Unless the argument was concealed vs. open carry, where you were allowed to open carry and not concealed.

[Nick]

so what you're saying is that you can carry openly anywhere anytime technically, minus the issue with the breach of peace thing?

I didn't say anything that related to that at all

[Buffalo Phil]

A permit to carry a pistol? Sure. A permit to purchase a pistol before filling out a 4473 and a background check? That's infringement.

Permits don't save lives nor do they stop crime, all they do is give the government another source of income.

[Nick]

I'm stunned that Tommy Jeff hasn't posted yet.

[konastinky1234]

I didn't say anything that related to that at all

this shit is way too confusing for me.

[Kyle]

Dunno if i should need one but ive got one.

[TSISam]

You speak of people much like yourself who have blind eyes to the vast improvements in technology and culture that has flourished in the last 200 years.

The people because they vote in the current moronic incumbents, especially in this state.

and you want all of those blind morons wielding guns without any regulation? i sure don't.

[Buffalo Phil]

I'm stunned that Tommy Jeff hasn't posted yet.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand??

How's that for you?