It’s insane that shall-issue is not the defacto standard. If you meet the requirements (not a felon etc) for exercising what is unarguably a constitutional right your participation in said right should not be at the gov’s leisure.
There is an argument to be made that licensing in general is a poll tax. There is an equal protection argument against not recognizing permits issued to out of State residents who meet the same standards except for residency. Sadly, I am not holding my breath to see either come to the test.
Can you please make the argument that licensing in general is a poll tax? This statement seems very outlandish to me and I cannot find any papers or articles to support it.
The equal protection argument also seems incorrect to me. If this were the case, states would be under scrutiny for basically any discrepancy between their laws. Why should voters in Texas be required to show IDs when those in California aren't? Why should drivers in Wisconsin keep getting their license back after their 5th DUI when people in another state lose it after 2?
Here is a simple argument to support that stance. Under the 2nd amendment I have the constitutional right to bear arms. If I want to purchase a suppressor to limit hearing damage while firing my weapons I have to pay a $200 tax, send my fingerprints to the FBI and wait 6 months to a year and sometimes longer before I can take possession of my suppressor. There are no similar restrictions on the right to vote or speak freely. The same rules apply if I wanted to add a stock to my AR 'pistol' which currently has a pistol brace or if I wanted to add a small piece of metal to make it fully automatic.
I still do not see how any of these things are a poll tax. A poll tax is something that inhibits your right to vote by charging you money. For example, requiring a government-issued ID may be construed as a poll tax.
Are you arguing that regulations and taxes on guns and accessories are LIKE a poll tax because they inhibit exercising your interpretation of the 2nd amendment? If that is the case, I would argue that it is different as the 24th amendment specifically outlaws poll taxes and there is no similar law or amendment around firearm accessories.
Yes, I was arguing that they are like a poll tax. The 24th is a very good point. Is the right to vote even explicitly stated in the constitution? Is that why the 24th was required to prevent poll taxes?
And if Apple Security wasn't qualified in the eyes of this Sheriff's office then what chance does a person of regular means or small business owner have!? None, nothing!
You are putting everyone else in danger when you start carrying weapons, as an ex-resident of the bay I'm really happy that the rules are against weapons in general
How exactly? IMHO, sf would be a lot safer if the criminals would have at least the concept that someone could respond to their violence with equal violence.
Today, aside from the slim chance of being caught by an unengaged police force, the cost is zero.
But hey, if you live in an ivory tower, why let the common folk have a right to bear arms? Doesn't that sound elitist to you?
A certain someone by the name of Ronald Reagan (yeah... that guy... the one worshiped by conservatives) signed the Mulford Act into law to keep Black Panthers from open carrying guns. California's history on gun control seems oddly classist and racist when you think about it.
Wait, what chaos are you referring to? I'm simply stating that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution and it's wrong that the Sheriff is acting as some kind of gatekeeper on who should be allowed to exercise their rights, beyond what is codified in law. That's all I'm really pointing out here, in line with the article posted here.
Frankly, we could definitely go into comparing other countries and how they handle this compared to the US, but this is an entirely different can of worms I can't really do justice here in an HN comments section.
I may suggest checking out /r/gunpolitics on reddit, or if you're aligned with liberal or leftist ideology, I strongly recommend /r/liberalgunowners and /r/SocialistRA for more information. I frequent those spaces often.
Finally, for all the news does to point out violent crimes committed with firearms, there are numerous defensive uses of guns that occur nearly every single day that slip under the radar. /r/dgu on reddit can show you some examples there.
I was referring to your 'well-armed society is a polite society'.
All this energy put into trying to say that "increasing gun ownership will somehow decrease crime" is frustrating because it clearly is missing the forest for the trees. None of the explanations seem to apply when looking at other countries in the world.
And.... like.... nobody's wallet is worth another person's life.
As a quick note, I appreciate the candor of your responses. And, I understand the sentiment you point out about a wallet not being worth another person's life. But sadly, not everyone necessarily will take your cash and dash. I'm really mostly focused on someone who is determined to leave you dead for one reason or another.
And of course, use of a gun, even defensively, should only be a last resort. I'm not advocating that everyone become Rambo and shoot their way through problems. Every action has a consequence, and whether you were justified in your shooting or not, the jury will decide that in their deliberation of the evidence.
I can't agree more. Simply put, even if you do manage to get a thumb up from the Sheriff in California for a permit, the fees really are a tax on the poor as well.
That depends on what you define as a "mass shooting". Some of the statistics turn out to be playing a game of sleight of hand, defining events that really shouldn't be classified as a mass shooting as a mass shooting. Most of that talk is to get the peanut gallery up in a tizzy about a problem that is far less dire than suggested.
Here's a link to some data being combed from 2019.
Frankly, I think we could stand to increase education around the issue of guns, mental health, and personal responsibility, rather than trying to reflexively legislate away access to firearms, which primarily affects law abiding citizens and not criminals.
I asked my grandfather about that. He came back with a story how one time he and his dad went into town and found out that the Pharmacist shot the Postman and killed him. said there was blood in the street. That was outside of Memphis in 1910.
So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.
>So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.
And your point? Murder is illegal and punishable if it's not considered "justified homicide" under a court of law. But murder being illegal never stopped some folks from committing the act anyway.
Personally, I'd rather have an insurance policy on hand if needed in case a nut decides to want to attempt to cause me undue harm. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Guns are easy to get for criminals, in SF they are hard to get for law abiding citizens.
So yes, if people who follow the law can equalize force with criminals, the criminals would consider more careful applying their force indiscriminately.
