quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

FR

I'm binge-watching Boston Legal, which has my all time favorite gun quote in one of the episodes.

"Damn liberals want to take all the guns. Nobody could shoot anybody. Then where the hell would we be?" -Denny Crane (Pro-gun and pro-shooting people attorney)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Since maybe they worked up the nerve to do something let's do this, add 5
(maybe 10 yr ) to the penalty if a gun is used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Since maybe they worked up the nerve to do something let's do this, add 5
(maybe 10 yr ) to the penalty if a gun is used.

Slamming the barn door shut with greater authority after the horses are miles gone . . .

The American way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

Having one 9 MM and one .357 in the same house for self protection is as far as most sane Americans want to go with the 'self protection' theme.

But I still wonder why anybody with 30 rounds at the ready considers himself any less a danger than others in the same neighborhood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.

A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.

A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.

Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

In reading, there are those who talk about felons getting guns but there is no talk about what that felony might be. If it was a violent felony, then I'd be okay if they never even got a chance to look at gun, let alone own one but if it is a nonviolent felony I don't see the problem of gun possession, especially after a 10 year waiting period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

That is one of the major reasons for this law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I find it amusing and sad that the most people of the people who oppose
reciprocal ccw permits some how believe that a person who has passed the
background checks and has never committed anything worse that a traffic
offense will suddenly become a mass murderer when the cross state lines.
It isn't like you can't get a permit in your home state but this will automatically
let you carry in the rest of the country regardless of your history.

The thing that bothers me is not so much that a person will be able to conceal carry in another state but that a person, who without thinking about it, crosses state lines and suddenly is facing three or more years in jail just for crossing that state line. So maybe not so much a reciprocal ccw law but at least a law that allows for better understanding of accidental ccw, perhaps a confiscation with no arrest law, a penalty without permanent life changing results.

That is one of the major reasons for this law.

I understand but I can also see the concerns of those who are against it and that is why I was wondering if maybe a confiscation with no arrest law might be a better solution all around, seeing as they did enter the state illegally and would cover all the inequalities of state to state requirements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would seem that recognizing all ccws would be simpler.
Your solution is still penalizing people for being from out of state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would seem that recognizing all ccws would be simpler.
Your solution is still penalizing people for being from out of state.

As one person pointed out the cc requirements are different from state to state so how is that to be fixed? And my solution is penaizing people for being stupid but without ruining their lives forever and not for just being out of state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.

A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.

Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.

In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution, considering the number of times as a cop I got called on domestic violence calls.

But it still requires a police or hospital report for the judge to sign the damn order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


I personally have objections to the 11.h restrictions because it is based on restricting rights based on an accusation with the accused not even being required to be informed instead of a conviction or judgement with legal representation present.

A judge will not enter a protective order without proof of necessity, usually after the police have responded to a domestic dispute/ violence call or called to a hospital in response to a person coming in who has clearly been battered and suffered injury.

Totally jurisdictional dependent. The low end is having one other person willing to day "Uhhuh, he sure did threaten 'em" and you have a court order.

In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution, considering the number of times as a cop I got called on domestic violence calls.

But it still requires a police or hospital report for the judge to sign the damn order.

It depends on where.
Abrogating civil rights just on an accusation with no allowed defense is something I still maintain as heinous and reprehensible.

Yes, a judge should be requiring some sort of proof that the accusation is supported by a preponderance of evidence. But, in actuality you can get a court order on domestic issues based on accusation and heresay alone.