Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: NYS Permit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hartford, New York, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    I recently applied for a pistol permit in June 07 in three months to the day I received my permit.As thepic indicates,I havent waisted any time exercising my right! I have noproblem with the permit aspect, but the unable to open carry , I feel against the 2nd admendment. "the right to keep and bear arms" not keep and hide.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Whether having a gun is a right or privelage is before the Supreme Court now. Personally, I would rather see it as a privelage granted after a permit is issued, rather than a right every person just gets one if they have the cash.Even people who want to drive a car need to obtain the privelage of a license before they can drive.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hartford, New York, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    The last time I looked at the US Constitution, I don't remember seeing anything about Dept. of Motor Vehicles. You are right that driving is a privilege

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    Why should I have to ask for permission (as in having a permit)to defend myself. If I am a law abiding citizen, and can legally purchase a firearm, which currently requires a background check that is all the permission I am willing to give to the local, state or federal government. That permission is to check my background to make sure I am not a convicted felon or have mental health issues.

    Allowing the government thepower to tell me when I can or can not defend myself is just plain crazy. We have already lost some of our rights in this area and we need to fight harder to get them back.

    If you plan on taking that line of reasoning in this forumn then your in for a rough time here.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    You need to re-read my post, as having a permit to defend yourself is not what I said. What I said was you should need to get a permit first to get a firearm. You need to understand the difference between those ideas, which you clearly don't. I have no problem with people possessing guns, I just want someone to make sure the person who gets one isn't a non-deserving one and that peridodic checks are done to make sure they haven't lost the privelage to own one.

    The Constitutition enumerates many powers to the federal government and leaves the States to do as theyfeel prudent in other areas, hence gun laws and motor vehicle departments. Just becuase something isn't specifically mentioned in the Consititution doens't mean it can't exist or can't be enacted.

    Does the Constitution mention the FAA, FBI, DEA, or IRS? I guess they don't exist either then according to your logic and should be done away with. Well, at least the IRS.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hartford, New York, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    One of the federal gov. mandates is to protect the U.S. citizens. So is the FBI, NSA, CIA, ect. necessary? Or in some cases a necessary evil? I would say so.My point is that the 2nd. amendment is in the US Constitution and it give the right, unlike the DMV which is a privilege. I really don't have any issues with being licensed for a handgun. I can just as easily walk into Gander Mt. and purchase a Mini14 or a Bushmaster.

    Yes states can come up with there own laws. They still can't violate your constitutional rights.

    And you mistaken about the issue before the Court, they will be ruling upon whether its an individual right. And I don't have to have a license to drive a car / tracker / motorcycle on my private property.







  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    See thebelow post. Your opinion is NOT supported by the Court's on this issue. One of the problems that I have with this site is that people lack the knowledge to understand why they are wrong. Instead, they rely on urban myth and rumor to suport their opinions on legal issues, which you just can't do.

    A prime example of this is people's take of the Bernie Goetz case in NYC. Pure and simple, he is a criminal and shot AFTER the threat to his safety was over. Please READ the transcript of his case BEFORE you try to defend him. Yes, he had the right to defend himself at first, but after the threat was over, he stated, "You don't look so bad, here's another" and shot one of his attackers afterwards who was NOT a threat to him out of anger. Whether or not he legally or illegally possessed a gun is a moot point when he fired in anger or revenge the second time, which is the issue here. Luckily for him the Jury decided to give hima free pass on this and only convicted him on the weapons possession charge. The civil jury was not so forgiving and slammed him with a civil judgement he will never be able to pay.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:


    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

    The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, nearly seventy years later, remains clearly the law of this country -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

    Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

    Until recently the lower federal courts had uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds. However, two recent federal court of appeals rulings have found an individual right in the Second Amendment.

    One of these cases, District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor v. Heller has been accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court in its current term. The Heller case is a review of Parker et. al. v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, held that the appellants have an individual right to bear arms that was violated by the District of Columbia's law banning registration of handguns.The Heller decision will be the first district consideration of the question of whether the Second Amendmendment grants an individual right to bear arms in nearly 70 years.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    And rather than correct you with my opinion as to what federal question is before the Court on this issue, I have posted it below. The Court stated,

    "it would determine whether provisions of the District's law "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.""

    The Court was presented withseperate federal questions from each side on this issue and rejected them both. Instead, they drafted their own question and will decide it shortly.





  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hartford, New York, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    I agree that they are going to determine if it is an individual right, not individual privilege.

    On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    The outcome is going to rather interesting, especially because DC is a commonwealth and not a state per se. Many decisions rendered in DC do not carry across into the rest of the world and I hope the Court addresses this issue as well. Luckily I fall under H.R. 218 and this issue has very little effect on whether or not I can carry a gun.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Well lets see....
    You do not need a drivers license to drive on your own property.
    any state, or international licence is recognized by all the states.
    No, this is from Alaska, you can't drive in NYC bull from leo's.
    Your car isn't confiscated if an leo sees you driving it in the open.
    Just driving a car doesn't give leo right to harrass.
    Is there any state that has a can issue drivers license?


    I would support a license only if the lowest citizen can have the same
    rights to the license as the cronies in the government. Any restriction
    that lets one group have more rights is illegal.
    After all the gun is to protect us from the government first and formost.

    If police feel unsafe when off duty, then redress thier government officials who
    keep letting dangerous criminals back out on the street.
    Had an idiot down here with the argument, how do you keep murderers
    from getting guns, I called up and told him, " You don't let them out of prison."
    He couldn't grasp the concept of leaving violent people locked up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •