Gun owner licensing

[warpedskydiver 0]

You do not need to register to vote, you can show up present identification and have your vote counted, it is the law.

The registration part was to stop voter fraud.

[jaitken 0]

Quote

If you seek absolutes, yes. Nothing will absolutely stop everything, every time.

Every single licensing/registration scheme has lead to confiscation of legally-owned firearms. It's one of the few absolutes you can count on.

For those who mistakenly think that "it couldn't happen here", go talk to the folks in New Orleans.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
--Mario Andretti

[wmw999 2,122]

At least where I am in Texas, you most definitely do have to register to vote. At least a month before the election. And if you don't keep voting, you have to re-register after awhile, too.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Every single licensing/registration scheme has lead to confiscation of legally-owned firearms. It's one of the few absolutes you can count on.

You are absolutely incorrect. There are numerous concealed carry license programs in the US today that have not even remotely led to any kind of confiscation.

Remember that we're not talking about any registration or record of the actual weapons here. In fact, if a good license system was in use, it would reduce the paper trail for weapons transfers, making them harder for an ill-intentioned government to confiscate.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You do not need to register to vote, you can show up present identification and have your vote counted, it is the law.

Which law is that?

In California, you have to be registered to vote. Also, people who have felony convictions or who have been judged mentally incompetent are not allowed to vote.

[377 20]

Quote

We've had a couple of recent threads where licensing of owners has been brought up; the Pittsburgh Shooting and the Gun Range Mom.

To me it seems like licensing of owners IS the way to stop a number of things from falling through the cracks.

It also occurs to me that it would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals via the gun show loopholes.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745&page=1

I used to defend criminals. Before I became a lawyer I worked for two years as an intern in a Public Defender's office in a very tough town, the one where four cops were recently killed by one parolee. In my opinion NO laws, licensing, restrictions etc will keep criminals from getting guns.

You might make guns harder to get, but they will get them, just like they get illegal drugs. You can affect price but you will never extinguish the supply through laws.

I never met one felon who cared a bit about gun laws. If they wanted a gun they got a gun, one way or another. Just being a felon in possession of a firearm was enough to put them in prison for a long time, but they all thought they'd never get caught.

If criminals can't buy guns they will steal them. Making it harder for them to get guns is laudable, but often misguided. Too many of those laws impose burdens on law abiding gun owners that are not offset by any significant workable deterrent aginst criminals acquiring firearms.

Just to show you an extreme, I once represented a convict who managed to obtain a pistol and ammo INSIDE Folsom Prison. I hope that makes the point.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

We've had a couple of recent threads where licensing of owners has been brought up; the Pittsburgh Shooting and the Gun Range Mom.

To me it seems like licensing of owners IS the way to stop a number of things from falling through the cracks.

It also occurs to me that it would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals via the gun show loopholes.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745&page=1

I used to defend criminals. Before I became a lawyer I worked for two years as an intern in a Public Defender's office in a very tough town, the one where four cops were recently killed by one parolee. In my opinion NO laws, licensing, restrictions etc will keep criminals from getting guns.

You might make guns harder to get, but they will get them, just like they get illegal drugs. You can affect price but you will never extinguish the supply through laws.

I never met one felon who cared a bit about gun laws. If they wanted a gun they got a gun, one way or another. Just being a felon in possession of a firearm was enough to put them in prison for a long time, but they all thought they'd never get caught.

If criminals can't buy guns they will steal them. Making it harder for them to get guns is laudable, but often misguided. Too many of those laws impose burdens on law abiding gun owners that are not offset by any significant workable deterrent aginst criminals acquiring firearms.

Just to show you an extreme, I once represented a convict who managed to obtain a pistol and ammo INSIDE Folsom Prison. I hope that makes the point.

377

The exact same argument could be made about ANY law (that criminals don't care about them and will find a way to break them). I can only suppose that you oppose all laws.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

The exact same argument could be made about ANY law (that criminals don't care about them and will find a way to break them). I can only suppose that you oppose all laws.

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. Someone was murdered. Okay, so what is the problem? The problem is that murder is a violation of the rights of individuals. Put the guilty party in prison and throw away the key. Why do you wish to punish innocent parties using arbitrary laws and restricting liberty? Yes, gun licensing is an arbitrary law. There are no victims! The problem is that we have too many arbitrary laws on the books already that tie up the criminal justice system, exhausting funds and filling prisons. The solution is to do away with every victimless law so we can afford to keep the real criminals in prison. There are already so many laws on the books that the government can find something to arrest anybody and everybody.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

The exact same argument could be made about ANY law (that criminals don't care about them and will find a way to break them). I can only suppose that you oppose all laws.

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Quote

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

And which premise was that?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Quote

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

And which premise was that?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3538344#3538344

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Quote

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

And which premise was that?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3538344#3538344

I am duly noting that you are not to be taken seriously. I'll just add you to the list here.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Quote

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

And which premise was that?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3538344#3538344

I am duly noting that you are not to be taken seriously. I'll just add you to the list here.

i will add you to the list

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Quote

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

And which premise was that?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3538344#3538344

I am duly noting that you are not to be taken seriously. I'll just add you to the list here.

If you can't keep track of the thread, just say so and stop playing games.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your conclusion is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. .

Quote

Yes, it was meant to be.

The conclusion was ridiculous because 337's premise from which the conclusion followed was ridiculous.

And which premise was that?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3538344#3538344

I am duly noting that you are not to be taken seriously. I'll just add you to the list here.

If you can't keep track of the thread, just say so and stop playing games.

Is that a PA?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

At least where I am in Texas, you most definitely do have to register to vote. At least a month before the election. And if you don't keep voting, you have to re-register after awhile, too.

Wendy W.

No you don't. Show up and show identification, and you'll be given a provisional ballot that will allow you to vote. Once they verify that you haven't already voted by mail or in another precinct, they will count your vote.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

At least where I am in Texas, you most definitely do have to register to vote. At least a month before the election. And if you don't keep voting, you have to re-register after awhile, too.

Wendy W.

No you don't. Show up and show identification, and you'll be given a provisional ballot that will allow you to vote. Once they verify that you haven't already voted by mail or in another precinct, they will count your vote.

Are you saying that you don't have to register to vote in Texas? Or are you saying that you don't have to re-register if you haven't voted in a while?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

At least where I am in Texas, you most definitely do have to register to vote. At least a month before the election. And if you don't keep voting, you have to re-register after awhile, too.

Wendy W.

No you don't. Show up and show identification, and you'll be given a provisional ballot that will allow you to vote. Once they verify that you haven't already voted by mail or in another precinct, they will count your vote.

Are you saying that you don't have to register to vote in Texas? Or are you saying that you don't have to re-register if you haven't voted in a while?

Re-register. Sorry, I'm half asleep and should've been clearer. You do have to register, but if you're not on the list for any reason, you show ID, fill out a provisional ballot, and sign a form that serves as your registration.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Re-register. Sorry, I'm half asleep and should've been clearer. You do have to register, but if you're not on the list for any reason, you show ID, fill out a provisional ballot, and sign a form that serves as your registration.

That's OK. When I first read it I thought you meant that you didn't have to register, but then I realized that this was probably what you were talking about.

I think the only time you have to re-register is if you move to a different county.

[skypuppy 1]

For those of us not in the US can you tell us what these acronyms are.

chl
ccw
sbr/sbs
etc.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

For those of us not in the US can you tell us what these acronyms are.

chl Can Holder Location
ccw Concealed Can Webbing
sbr/sbs Short Beer Run, Sweet Beer Sale
etc.

Echo Tango Charlie.

Anything else?

CCC's are fun too, just don't be using a cell phone or forget ground it.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

chl
ccw
sbr/sbs

CHL: Concealed Handgun License
CCW: Concealed Carry Weapons

These are both terms used (in different jurisdictions) to describe the license issued to a private person to allow them to carry a handgun concealed on their person in public.


SBR: Short Barreled Rifle, a rifle with a barrel length shorter than 16"

SBS: Short Barreled Shotgun, a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than 18"

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[DrEco 0]

I have had a Florida Concealed Weapon License for about 25 years. It is a great personal identifier. I was coming back from the Middle East about 20 years ago and had mispaced my pastport. At the New York Port of Entry, they were not going to let me into the USA until I showed them my Florida Concealed Weapon License. The Port Authorty Agent told me that the Florida Concealed Weapon License was the best ID I could have. It was better than a pastport because it required a FBI background investigation for the holder. DrEco D115

[DrEco 0]

If a person is going to carry a handgun then they should select a gun that has sufficiency stopping power. In other words if you shoot someone in self-defense you want the person to stop attacking you. All handguns including a 22-caliber gun will kill someone. The problem is how long it takes the attacker to become disable and stop assaulting you. If you shoot someone attacking you with a knife and you shoot him in the body with a 22-caliber gun, they will most likely become disable after a while –10s of seconds to several minutes. During this interval the attacking gunman can do a lot of damage with his gun or knife. What you want in a hand gun is quick sure Attacker Stopping Power. The Book below as stated in the title is the Definitive Study on Handgun Stopping Power. I have a signed copy of their book thanking me for some data I contributed. Dr Eco aka DrEcon aka D115

Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study
Evan P. Marshall & Edwin J. Sanow

Dramatic first-hand accounts of the results of handgun rounds fired into criminals by cops, storeowners, housewives, soldiers, cab drivers, and a host of others are the heart and soul of this long-awaited book by firearms experts Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study presents their conclusions regarding which handgun bullets will and will not work effectively in a police-action or personal-defense shooting. The work has one goal: to provide accurate wound ballistics and ammunition information that police offices are civilians can use to survive lethal confrontations on the street.
What sets Handgun Stopping Power apart from all other studies is the inclusion of results from actual shooting incidents. The use of this data has spurred much controversy in the firearms field - prompting questions of whether it was gathered and analyzed in a scientific fashion. Yet by combining case studies of actual shootings with scientifically controlled test firings into 10-percent ordnance gelatin, Marshall and Sanow have developed what may prove to be the definitive methodology for predicting the stopping power of any given handgun load.
All other theories and formulas fade in comparison to this data what really happens when a bullet meets a man.

Quote

• Quote