A Model for Effective Gun Control: The CHL

[scott]

i only brought up fists and feet murders to show they've done more harm than the rifle you deemed so dangerous. I really don't mind the registration thing, I live in California and am used to getting anally raped every time I purchase a new firearm. It would be nothing new to me.

Basically my stance on it is this, I'll never give up my guns. They can pry them from my dead hand. I have a feeling there are millions more who feel the same way.

And the original point of my thread was to make it clear that there was no intent to make you give up your guns. Again, there is the false equivalence.

[scott]

That's a pretty specious analogy. le to property (whether its a car or land) helps determine who has an ownership interest. I don't think anyone believes registering a car makes people driver safer.

You're arguing for licensing as a way to control who has and ultimately can use guns. That goal (restrictions on use) is way harder to accomplish with licensing. Registration makes sense when you want to know who has a lien on my car or whether there's an easement on land I want to buy. It doesn't make sense when you want to restrict people's use of a thing.

The point with the licensing is less about controlling, and more about educating. We don't let just anyone drive a car - they have to take classes and pass tests to prove they are not endangering others. Do people still drive cars illegally? Yes, but is anyone willing to argue that we are not safer in having the driver's license system we have?

[scott]

Not at all. CHL is a VOLUNTARY registration in exchange for broader legal rights to carry a weapon.

Why not just let you carry a weapon without the CHL?

[Wild Cobra]

Why not just let you carry a weapon without the CHL?

You can. The CHL allows you to conceal it.

Are you familiar with the first second amendment by chance? Open carry is legal without a CHL.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why not just let you carry a weapon without the CHL?

I would prefer that.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can. The CHL allows you to conceal it.

Are you familiar with the first amendment by chance? Open carry is legal without a CHL.

LMAO

If you think open carry is legal then strap on your six gun and go to the grocery store and see what happens.

[scott]

I would prefer that.

So the CHL process is an onerous burden to your gun rights?

[vy65]

The point with the licensing is less about controlling, and more about educating. We don't let just anyone drive a car - they have to take classes and pass tests to prove they are not endangering others. Do people still drive cars illegally? Yes, but is anyone willing to argue that we are not safer in having the driver's license system we have?

No offense, but I really don't see gun education as accomplishing much.

I disagree with the whole premise of this conversation - I think we need to have a serious conversation about outright bans; licensing just rearrange's the anic's deck chairs. I don't find the argument that people won't agree to them to be compelling (people made the same sort of claims regarding segregation). But I don't want to derail the thread

[scott]

You can. The CHL allows you to conceal it.

Are you familiar with the first amendment by chance? Open carry is legal without a CHL.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Not even legal in Texas.

Thanks for your contributions, Wild Cobra.

[Wild Cobra]

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Not even legal in Texas.

Thanks for your contributions, Wild Cobra.

Then the Texas law is uncons utional. Also, I meant 2nd amendment.

[scott]

No offense, but I really don't see gun education as accomplishing much.

I disagree with the whole premise of this conversation - I think we need to have a serious conversation about outright bans; licensing just rearrange's the anic's deck chairs. I don't find the argument that people won't agree to them to be compelling (people made the same sort of claims regarding segregation). But I don't want to derail the thread

Not trying to be a here when I say this: I suggest a thread on an outright ban. The discussion would be interesting.

[CosmicCowboy]

So the CHL process is an onerous burden to your gun rights?

Don't try to chump on me, Scott. Onerous is a little dramatic. As a general rule I resent any governmental interference that I consider is an infringement on me as a law abiding citizen.

[vy65]

Then the Texas law is uncons utional.

Oliver W. Holmes. The W stands for "Wild Cobra"

[scott]

Then the Texas law is uncons utional.

District of Columbia v. er (2008):

"We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." -Justice Antoine Scalia

Wherever you got your ConLaw degree from, Wild Cobra, you should ask for a refund.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then the Texas law is uncons utional. Also, I meant 2nd amendment.

WC, open carry is not legal. Really.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Wait, if he's less why would he be happy to meet a giant pussy? Isn't that one of those ironic tragedies like Burgess Meredith breaking his glasses on The Twilight Zone?

[scott]

Don't try to chump on me, Scott. Onerous is a little dramatic. As a general rule I resent any governmental interference that I consider is an infringement on me as a law abiding citizen.

But you do acknowledge that there exists non-law abiding citizens, and that there exists a governmental interest to regulate certain activities, right?

[Wild Cobra]

District of Columbia v. er (2008):

"We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." -Justice Antoine Scalia

Wherever you got your ConLaw degree from, Wild Cobra, you should ask for a refund.

Yes...

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

And an honest question from someone with no real knowledge of the gun licensing process, CHL or otherwise, do they have questions regarding the applicant's medical (physical and mental) history? Family's medical history? How deep do they really go?

[CosmicCowboy]

But you do acknowledge that there exists non-law abiding citizens, and that there exists a governmental interest to regulate certain activities, right?

I fully understand that there are non-law abiding citizens that do not honor existing gun regulations and use guns to commit crimes. That being said, the only good justification for the gun law is to give law enforcement something to bust bad guys on if they can't prove the larger crime...kind of like convicting Al Capone on tax evasion.

[scott]

And an honest question from someone with no real knowledge of the gun licensing process, CHL or otherwise, do they have questions regarding the applicant's medical (physical and mental) history? Family's medical history? How deep do they really go?

Generally speaking, background checks do not involve mental health investigations, and there is some debate over whether including mental heath databases would be a violation of HIPAA.

[scott]

Yes...

Just when I think you couldn't possibly get any more ing stupid...

[Wild Cobra]

Just when I think you couldn't possibly get any more ing stupid...

Please stop looking in that mirror.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, I am correcting myself. Open carry is legal in some states.




(yellow) Permissive Open Carry State
(green) Licensed Open Carry State
(orange) Anomalous Open Carry State
(red) Non-permissive Open Carry State

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Generally speaking, background checks do not involve mental health investigations, and there is some debate over whether including mental heath databases would be a violation of HIPAA.

More or less what I thought. Thanks, scott.