A little further digging shows how badly the reporter lied - oops, I mean "mislead" - in her story.
There are nearly 300,000 concealed weapons permit holders in the state. The 154 permit holders that the 'Memphis Commercial Appeal' supposedly investigated were selected because they had a record. They also included folks with arrest warrants which means anyone with a warrant due to something as simple as unpaid traffic tickets could be in that number.
It is already illegal for a felon to get a permit.
In my opinion, that is unConstitutional
It is the equivalent of requiring people who r released from prison
to play Russian Roulette.
For many years and decades, thru out the 1800s
and well into the 1900s, we got along well enuf without gun control.
The police handled it.
kajabla wrote:WELCOME to the forum, Kajabla!!!!!
If ever this happens it is a mistake on the part of the police department.
The rest of us gun owners are not guilty of anything as the morons writing this crap would like you to believe.
I am among the supporters of personal freedom in this forum.
This thread addresses what I call "the SAINTS & ANGELS"
of the Bill of Rights; i.e. that it was enacted ONLY
the most perfectly immaculate of American citizens; the highest elite
and that it was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to create,
in effect, an American SAMURAI society
, wherein ONLY
of the most perfect citizens had the right of self-defense.
The NRA is fond of calling for "law-abiding citizens"
to have the right
to keep and bear arms. I object to that, in that such a class does not exist,
except for children so young as seldom to have left their homes.
Their are multiple
invisible webs of laws: federal, state, county, city,
village, hamlet and sewer district that demand adherence.
These laws address many, many different, disparate aspects of human life.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
In some cases, compliance with one law entails violation
of OTHER laws
In retrospect, I know that when I had my own law firm,
we unknowingly violated laws of whose existence we were not aware.
On this point, allow me to cite an incident in my experience:
1OOs of lawyers attended a seminar on Employment Law in NYC.
This was their area of professional concern.
In positions of elevated respect up on the stage
were super-eminent experts, very senior in their profession.
Questions were taken from the assembled lawyers in the audience,
qua how to answer their clients' questions as to their practices.
After the experts discussed one question for about 25 minutes
considering federal and state statutory law, judicial cases in precedent
and administrative regulations, both federal and state,
thay reached a consensus of what to tell your client.
This was tacitly accepted without objection by the employment lawyers.
About 1O minutes later
, as an after-thought,
a young lady behind me asked them whether implementation
of their advice woud violate the NY Executive Law.
Upon deliberation, all of the super-expert legal scholars
agreed (however grudgingly) that it woud indeed violate that statute,
exposing the perpetrators
to civil liability.
My point is that the law is so hopelessly complex and vague
that even the most respected legal scholars cannot understand it
when thay consider and analyse it together, collectively.
Citizens who followed their advice woud no longer be abiding by the law;
i.e., the concept of "law abiding citizens" is a myth.
The Bill of Rights applies to EVERY
the authority to ISOLATE and confine
people who have proven by their histories of criminal violence
that thay are intolerably dangerous. Simply handle it as it was in the early 1900s.