Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All the states agreed to the Second Amendment in the Constitution when they agreed to become states. This is not a state's rights issue. Any law a state passes violates the Second Amendment. This is one of the few rights guaranteed by the Constitution not to be taken away.So much for conservatives' advocacy of "states' rights."
i CARRY a shotgun or rifle when i hunt, as i can't afford a bearer.
the nra likes to say that it's a mental health problem and not a gun problem, but they don't want to do anything constructive about the mental health part.
it's $100 for 6 years with no limit on the number of firearms you can purchase.
a license to carry costs $140 in texas.
far as i can tell, you're getting hysterical over nothing.
I still have enough to be hysterical about. I mistook the 10 day Waiting Period for the duration of card. But even so -- it must be renewed every 6 years and their not gonna inform you like the DMV does. They may confiscate all weapons if you're card is more than 90 days expired. And if your card has expired, the fine is $100 to $5000. So it effectively adds a "10 day waiting period" and confiscation to the mix.
This is NOT "a carry license". this is simply to possess. And it really does nothing beyond the Federal system that is currently totally mismanaged and notoriously ineffective because the Feds can't handle it simply as it is now.
It's a money making scheme with little additional protection over the existed background check system.
there's no doubt that you always have plenty to be hysterical about.
ltc and fid both cost the same, so i don't know where you get the idea that a carry license isn't a carry license.
a license to carry in texas is good for four years, and then renews in 5 year chunks.
the horror
Who "CARRIES" a shotgun or a rifle? Don't you fear that 4 days of "sponge bob" safety training might NOT be enough for "carrying" a pistol?? Making the requirements the SAME makes no sense. If anything, a CARRY license should be WAY more difficult to prove proficiency and safety. It's just fund raising...
There's no brains to this. No common sense to make the State Application for "ownership" and "carry" the same.
Four days? Don't you mean four hours?
Yeah I did. 4 HOURS is meaningless as "common sense" anything. It's equivalent to claiming that all licensed drivers or florists or hair braiders are "SAFE" by the fact that they PAID the state $100 on a renewable license.
And for PEPPER SPRAY to cost you ANY TAX from a State? That's insane. You really don't like poor people to have ANY ability to defend themselves --- do you? BTW -- the "restricted" FID card for mace/sprays is only $25 --- but STILL --- it makes criminals out of folks who are just using the least lethal force you can buy..
I still have enough to be hysterical about. I mistook the 10 day Waiting Period for the duration of card. But even so -- it must be renewed every 6 years and their not gonna inform you like the DMV does. They may confiscate all weapons if you're card is more than 90 days expired. And if your card has expired, the fine is $100 to $5000. So it effectively adds a "10 day waiting period" and confiscation to the mix.
This is NOT "a carry license". this is simply to possess. And it really does nothing beyond the Federal system that is currently totally mismanaged and notoriously ineffective because the Feds can't handle it simply as it is now.
It's a money making scheme with little additional protection over the existed background check system.
there's no doubt that you always have plenty to be hysterical about.
ltc and fid both cost the same, so i don't know where you get the idea that a carry license isn't a carry license.
a license to carry in texas is good for four years, and then renews in 5 year chunks.
the horror
Who "CARRIES" a shotgun or a rifle? Don't you fear that 4 days of "sponge bob" safety training might NOT be enough for "carrying" a pistol?? Making the requirements the SAME makes no sense. If anything, a CARRY license should be WAY more difficult to prove proficiency and safety. It's just fund raising...
There's no brains to this. No common sense to make the State Application for "ownership" and "carry" the same.
Four days? Don't you mean four hours?
Yeah I did. 4 HOURS is meaningless as "common sense" anything. It's equivalent to claiming that all licensed drivers or florists or hair braiders are "SAFE" by the fact that they PAID the state $100 on a renewable license.
And for PEPPER SPRAY to cost you ANY TAX from a State? That's insane. You really don't like poor people to have ANY ability to defend themselves --- do you? BTW -- the "restricted" FID card for mace/sprays is only $25 --- but STILL --- it makes criminals out of folks who are just using the least lethal force you can buy..
Why don't you take a break from this thread until you can get your facts straight.
So, what other restrictions should we place on our rights?NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law
I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
there's no doubt that you always have plenty to be hysterical about.
ltc and fid both cost the same, so i don't know where you get the idea that a carry license isn't a carry license.
a license to carry in texas is good for four years, and then renews in 5 year chunks.
the horror
Who "CARRIES" a shotgun or a rifle? Don't you fear that 4 days of "sponge bob" safety training might NOT be enough for "carrying" a pistol?? Making the requirements the SAME makes no sense. If anything, a CARRY license should be WAY more difficult to prove proficiency and safety. It's just fund raising...
There's no brains to this. No common sense to make the State Application for "ownership" and "carry" the same.
Four days? Don't you mean four hours?
Yeah I did. 4 HOURS is meaningless as "common sense" anything. It's equivalent to claiming that all licensed drivers or florists or hair braiders are "SAFE" by the fact that they PAID the state $100 on a renewable license.
And for PEPPER SPRAY to cost you ANY TAX from a State? That's insane. You really don't like poor people to have ANY ability to defend themselves --- do you? BTW -- the "restricted" FID card for mace/sprays is only $25 --- but STILL --- it makes criminals out of folks who are just using the least lethal force you can buy..
Why don't you take a break from this thread until you can get your facts straight.
Why don't you correct me if I'm wrong. I guarantee I now know more about these laws than you do.
Section 129B
So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.
Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law
I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
4th lowest murder rate too.
What a surprise
With the toughest gun laws, they should be the lowest murder rate, that honor goes to a state with the most lax gun laws. I’m not seeing a correlation, there seems to be some other factor or factors missing.
massachusetts has the second lowest rate of firearm related deaths in the us.
hawaii has the lowest and its law are as strict or stricter
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia
murder rate is a red herring
So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.
Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
70% of all murders take place in a very small number of ultra-violent urban shit holesIn rural America where they have the most firearms... Violent crime is almost nonexistent because of the lax gun control laws… Progressive controlled areas is where all the violent crime is...NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law
I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
4th lowest murder rate too.
What a surprise
With the toughest gun laws, they should be the lowest murder rate, that honor goes to a state with the most lax gun laws. I’m not seeing a correlation, there seems to be some other factor or factors missing.
massachusetts has the second lowest rate of firearm related deaths in the us.
hawaii has the lowest and its law are as strict or stricter
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia
murder rate is a red herring
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.
Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.
Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.
Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?
Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.
NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law
I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?
Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.
You have a right to own a musket.
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?
Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.
I'm aware of them. I'm also aware of the fact that it's far easier (and thus less restricted) to drive a car on a public road than it is to carry an assault rifle on a public sidewalk. Don't believe me? OK. The last time you went outside, how many people did you see driving cars and how many people did you see open carrying an assault rifle?Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.So you're not being consistent. You said "all gun owners." When asked about cars, you limited it to those wanting to drive it in public.Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.
Sure - if they want to drive it in public.
Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?
NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law
I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
Yep. And that’s why we have low gun crime.
Funny thing is, once you go thru the process , Mass carry gun laws are pretty liberal .
Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.
Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?
Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.
You have a right to own a musket.
yes, and nearly every firearm invented since the 2nd was written.
(and even those, if you want to wade through the red tape.)
