California sheriff selling concealed carry permits...excercise of Rights withheld

[2aguy]

This is one reason we need constitutional carry for guns....the government and corrupt officials.

what happens when public officials get the authority to act capriciously and arbitrarily to determine whether citizens can exercise their rights? Eventually, some of them explore all of the wisdom contained in the axiom “power corrupts.” A civil grand jury indicted the sheriff of Santa Clara County, California yesterday on several counts of corruption, mainly involving the abuse of Laurie Smith’s may-issue authority for concealed carry permits.
--------
she leveraged her authority to issue concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits to illegally secure campaign contributions or favors from “VIP” applicants.

Concealed-carry corruption: California sheriff indicted for selling permits

hotair.com

Any permit system for the exercise of this Right needs to end

 

[pknopp]

Another corrupt cop. We could create a website on that alone............but no, no one should have to get the permission from anyone to exercise your rights.

 

[marvin martian]

This is one reason we need constitutional carry for guns....the government and corrupt officials.

what happens when public officials get the authority to act capriciously and arbitrarily to determine whether citizens can exercise their rights? Eventually, some of them explore all of the wisdom contained in the axiom “power corrupts.” A civil grand jury indicted the sheriff of Santa Clara County, California yesterday on several counts of corruption, mainly involving the abuse of Laurie Smith’s may-issue authority for concealed carry permits.
--------
she leveraged her authority to issue concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits to illegally secure campaign contributions or favors from “VIP” applicants.

Concealed-carry corruption: California sheriff indicted for selling permits

hotair.com

Any permit system for the exercise of this Right needs to end

May-issue rules are an invitation for corruption. We need national constitutional carry now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another corrupt cop. We could create a website on that alone............but no, no one should have to get the permission from anyone to exercise your rights.

Seling "rights" is the democrat way.

 

[pknopp]

Seling "rights" is the democrat way.

In Texas?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another corrupt cop. We could create a website on that alone............but no, no one should have to get the permission from anyone to exercise your rights.

Permit requirements are not unconstitutional, for the First or Second Amendment.

I know that's not what you posted, you're referring to should not, ought not, but it's important to note the fact that permits are not unlawful.

 

[pknopp]

Permit requirements are not unconstitutional, for the First or Second Amendment.

I know that's not what you posted, you're referring to should not, ought not, but it's important to note the fact that permits are not unlawful.

I believe it is 100% wrong to make people get anyone's permission to exercise their rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is one reason we need constitutional carry for guns....the government and corrupt officials.

what happens when public officials get the authority to act capriciously and arbitrarily to determine whether citizens can exercise their rights? Eventually, some of them explore all of the wisdom contained in the axiom “power corrupts.” A civil grand jury indicted the sheriff of Santa Clara County, California yesterday on several counts of corruption, mainly involving the abuse of Laurie Smith’s may-issue authority for concealed carry permits.
--------
she leveraged her authority to issue concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits to illegally secure campaign contributions or favors from “VIP” applicants.

Concealed-carry corruption: California sheriff indicted for selling permits

hotair.com

Any permit system for the exercise of this Right needs to end

This fails as a preach to the choir fallacy.

No one approves of this sort of criminality by law enforcement.

And when the Supreme Court invalidates the may issue provision of the New York permitting law, this issue will be moot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe it is 100% wrong to make people get anyone's permission to exercise their rights.

Wrong in your opinion, but not unconstitutional; permitting requirements are perfectly appropriate were warranted and lawful.

 

[pknopp]

Wrong in your opinion, but not unconstitutional; permitting requirements are perfectly appropriate were warranted and lawful.

If you have to get permission from the very entity that the right was gave to protect yourself from, you don't have that right.

 

[2aguy]

Permit requirements are not unconstitutional, for the First or Second Amendment.

I know that's not what you posted, you're referring to should not, ought not, but it's important to note the fact that permits are not unlawful.

Yes, actually, they are......you can't be forced to get a permit before you write a book, or to write a newspaper column, or to blob....you only need a permit if you are going to use a public space, because, doofus......many groups may want to use the same space at the same time, and you also have to allow the government to arrange for police, and trash removal....

You idiot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder what the left would do if a state like UT or TX or whatnot required a permit to have an abortion, with the isuance of said permit resting on the applicant's demonstration of "good cause" for same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Permit requirements are not unconstitutional, for the First or Second Amendment.
I know that's not what you posted, you're referring to should not, ought not, but it's important to note the fact that permits are not unlawful.

Just like the TX abortion ban.
Right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong in your opinion, but not unconstitutional; permitting requirements are perfectly appropriate were warranted and lawful.

As is the TX abortion ban.
Right?

 

[marvin martian]

In Texas?

This happened in California. Of course.

 

[pknopp]

This happened in California. Of course.

RIght, sorry, I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you have to get permission from the very entity that the right was gave to protect yourself from, you don't have that right.

Nonsense.

With regard to the First Amendment, permit requirements and associated fees for various public gatherings and events have been long upheld as Constitutional.

Likewise, concerning permit and licensing requirements to purchase, possess, or carry a concealed firearm, the courts have consistently upheld such requirement as Constitutional, in no manner violating or infringing upon the Second Amendment:

“Parade organizers may be required to get permits. Ballot signature gatherers may be required to register with the government, and so may fundraisers for charitable causes, though such fundraising is constitutionally protected. Likewise, the Constitution has been interpreted to secure a right to marry, but the government may require that people get a marriage license. (This was so even when a marriage was required in order to legally have sex.) The Takings Clause bars the government from requiring people to leave their land unimproved and thus valueless, but the government may require a building permit before improvements are made.”

Licenses to exercise constitutional rights

A commenter on a recent thread suggested that, if the government can require licenses or permits to possess a gun - even licenses that are available to

reason.com

The notion that licensing and permit requirements take from citizens their rights is as childish as it is ridiculous and wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Nonsense.

With regard to the First Amendment, permit requirements and associated fees for various public gatherings and events have been long upheld as Constitutional.

Likewise, concerning permit and licensing requirements to purchase, possess, or carry a concealed firearm, the courts have consistently upheld such requirement as Constitutional, in no manner violating or infringing upon the Second Amendment:

“Parade organizers may be required to get permits. Ballot signature gatherers may be required to register with the government, and so may fundraisers for charitable causes, though such fundraising is constitutionally protected. Likewise, the Constitution has been interpreted to secure a right to marry, but the government may require that people get a marriage license. (This was so even when a marriage was required in order to legally have sex.) The Takings Clause bars the government from requiring people to leave their land unimproved and thus valueless, but the government may require a building permit before improvements are made.”

Licenses to exercise constitutional rights

A commenter on a recent thread suggested that, if the government can require licenses or permits to possess a gun - even licenses that are available to

reason.com

The notion that licensing and permit requirements take from citizens their rights is as childish as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Moron………permits are for location access not permission to exercise the 1st Amendment….

They can’t require a permit before you write a book or publish an article you dunce

 

[Uncensored2008]

In Texas?

California. When I was young, New Jersey and New York were famous for corrupt cops, but California was pure and clean, Dragnet, Adam 12, ChiPs. But is was also Reagan country, pure GOP.

Now we are by far the corrupt state in the union, at every level - openly rigged elections, openly corrupt polices. And we are ruled by the Marxists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Permit requirements are not unconstitutional, for the First or Second Amendment.

I know that's not what you posted, you're referring to should not, ought not, but it's important to note the fact that permits are not unlawful.

Need a permit to criticize our rulers?

It's the democrat dream.

It's patently unconstitutional, but you openly despise the constitution - as all democrats do.

To regain liberty, it is necessary to defeat you degenerate Marxists, you Nazi democrat, using force of arm, once again.