IGX

Gene wrote: Weren't for the NRA we would be paying a $200 transfer tax to purchase a bolt action rifle. We'd be awash in illegal guns with the same stupid shit that the War on Drugs is costing us today.

I recently got what's called a "sportsman" handgun permit in NY. It's for the home, the range, and when in the woods only; no concealed carry other than under those circumstances.

Getting the permit involved a state sanctioned class, extensive NYS and county forms that included references from non-family members that live in my county, a criminal background check, finger printing, and had to be signed off by a county judge. It took a few hundred dollars and at least 4 visits to schools, finger printers, and the county sheriff. In fact, the sheriff across the street, who wasn't on my reference list, was asked by the investigators if I was an OK guy so the investigation was the real deal.

To get a legitimate concealed carry you need to prove a special need beyond simple self defense. What it really boils down to in my county is bringing the right attorney aboard to maneuver your application through the system. It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

DrDonkeyLove wrote: It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

Practical pistol training is time consuming and not cheap. What do you think annual training and ammo costs for somebody who thinks they need a carry gun should be?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

Practical pistol training is time consuming and not cheap. What do you think annual training and ammo costs for somebody who thinks they need a carry gun should be?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb1WzTkki58[/youtube]

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

Practical pistol training is time consuming and not cheap. What do you think annual training and ammo costs for somebody who thinks they need a carry gun should be?

Hmm... an interesting turn in the conversation. No, it is NOT cheap.

I've met more than a few at the range and at stores with extensive collections and pretty pricey taste in firearms. I don't know because I didn't ask, but guessing by their choice of professions and my own bias, many of them didn't seem to have huge incomes. I know I'm an asshole for saying so, but it reminds me of seeing someone loading up on junk and booze at the supermarket and then using food stamps to cover some of the expense.

Maybe there should be government grants and loans for people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Boris wrote:
Maybe there should be government grants and loans for people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

This would be consistent with the original meaning of "well regulated Militia."

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

Practical pistol training is time consuming and not cheap. What do you think annual training and ammo costs for somebody who thinks they need a carry gun should be?

I still suspect the law in my state may be needlessly complicated to discriminate against the poor, but I do think that if you're going to be publically carrying a concealed weapon that a requirement for some baseline level of competence is necessary.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OhBBC_Cyeo[/youtube]

I'm buying an AR-15 TOMORROW!

DrDonkeyLove wrote:To get a legitimate concealed carry you need to prove a special need beyond simple self defense. What it really boils down to in my county is bringing the right attorney aboard to maneuver your application through the system. It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

I've read in NYC that the freight is higher, around $10,000. Trump boasted of his NYC carry permit, but he's a billionaire. Average New Yorker? Fergetaboutit.


Definitely a form of apartheid for gun control. Lots of urban blacks are disenfranchised. Original Sullivan Act was meant to disarm Italian immigrants who were shooting Tammany Hall thugs in the streets.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: It's essentially a $5K investment with no guarantee of success.

What bothers me is the suspicion that the law was set up to make things so expensive and complicated that it essentially disenfranchises lower income citizens who don't live in the heart of Whitelandia from the right to possess a handgun; kind of a Progressive version of Jim Crow type of thing.

Practical pistol training is time consuming and not cheap. What do you think annual training and ammo costs for somebody who thinks they need a carry gun should be?

Excellent question. I don't have an answer, but a guess. The Texas CCW requires the following on a B27 target (human silhouette)

Number of Rounds Fired

The shooting test requires 50 rounds of ammunition
CHL Shooting Distances

The CHL Shooting test is fired at three distances:

3 yards – 20 rounds fired
7 yards – 20 rounds fired
15 yards – 10 rounds fired

The majority of students pass the proficiency test when they have completed shooting at 3 and 7 yards.
CHL Shooting Proficiency Test Scoring

5 points – shots fired in the X, 10, 9, & 8 rings
4 points – shots fired in the 7 ring
3 points – shots fired outside the 7 ring but on the silhouette
0 points – shots fired outside the silhouette or off the target paper
Shots that hit just outside the ring but break the line count as the higher score

The Texas CHL shooting test passing score is 175 points out of 250 points or a score of 70%. The state allows for three chances to pass the shooting test.

http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/chl-shooting-test/

How many rounds a week would you need to remain this proficient, Steve?

Gene wrote: The CHL Shooting test is fired at three distances:

3 yards – 20 rounds fired
7 yards – 20 rounds fired
15 yards – 10 rounds fired

This is what happens when you put a Dumb Fuck (probably a cop) in charge of standards. A civilian will rarely need to shoot at 7 yards. And 15 yards...INSANE.

Here's a sane test: 25 rounds at point blank range; 10 rounds at 2 yards; then 5 rounds at 5 yards. Operate your shit safely and be aware of your backstop - End of story. That's how it goes in 90% of civilian shootings. It mostly happens in the space of a 12 X 12 room.

johno wrote:

Gene wrote: The CHL Shooting test is fired at three distances:

3 yards – 20 rounds fired
7 yards – 20 rounds fired
15 yards – 10 rounds fired

This is what happens when you put a Dumb Fuck (probably a cop) in charge of standards. A civilian will rarely need to shoot at 7 yards. And 15 yards...INSANE.

Here's a sane test: 25 rounds at point blank range; 10 rounds at 2 yards; then 5 rounds at 5 yards. Operate your shit safely and be aware of your backstop - End of story. That's how it goes in 90% of civilian shootings. It mostly happens in the space of a 12 X 12 room.

The course in my state requires about 6 hours of instruction on the law, mostly focused on telling people when they aren't allowed to pull the trigger, followed by a shooting test that the instructors referred to as the "Ray Charles Invitational".

Boris wrote:

Herv100 wrote:NRA said they were in support of a terror watch list, so do you mean they should instead support an assault weapons ban? If so, do you support an assault weapons ban? If you do, comrade, why didn't you speak up when johno repeatedly asked? You can't come right out and say it?

Relax there buddy, read to me like Nafod was just supporting the idea of better screening...

Nevermind - after rereading, I don't know. (edit)

Right on the "better screening" idea. It is pretty rare that the lone wolf nutcase comes completely out of the blue. But it sure sounds intrusive too.

Completely apart from how I might feel one way or the other, I think the body politic will move to demand *something* be done - something significant. That is my point. BD better start coming up with that 4th or 5th way pronto.

The polls currently show over 50% support on assault weapon bans (feel free to argue to details) and way over that for closing gun show holes and universal background checks, etc. The NRA is doing yeoman's duty fighting off the masses, but the steady stream of highest viz mass killings is doing them no favors. Now they have the optic of supporting terrorist access to weapons, thanks to the terrorists being born in the USA citizens.

nafod wrote:The polls currently show over 50% support on assault weapon bans (feel free to argue to details) and way over that for closing gun show holes and universal background checks, etc. The NRA is doing yeoman's duty fighting off the masses, but the steady stream of highest viz mass killings is doing them no favors. Now they have the optic of supporting terrorist access to weapons, thanks to the terrorists being born in the USA citizens.

One of the biggest problem with banning assault weapons is that there is still no definition of assault weapon-- after 20 or so years. It's almost like nobody is actually serious about banning them.

i call bullshit on you turd

ct has banned them. thus has defined them.

the supreme court just said it won't hear a challenge to the ct law,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

dead man walking wrote:i call bullshit on you turd

ct has banned them. thus has defined them.

the supreme court just said it won't hear a challenge to the ct law,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

From the article:

Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used the assault-style rifle Sig Sauer MCX to kill at least 49 people, authorities say.

From a rhetorical standpoint, 'assault style' and 'assault weapon' are not the same. I'm assuming that there are significant legal differences as well. From the viewpoint of trying to stop mass shootings by banning certain types of weapons, this is a big issue.

Pinky wrote:

johno wrote:
This is what happens when you put a Dumb Fuck (probably a cop) in charge of standards. A civilian will rarely need to shoot at 7 yards. And 15 yards...INSANE.

Here's a sane test: 25 rounds at point blank range; 10 rounds at 2 yards; then 5 rounds at 5 yards. Operate your shit safely and be aware of your backstop - End of story. That's how it goes in 90% of civilian shootings. It mostly happens in the space of a 12 X 12 room.

The course in my state requires about 6 hours of instruction on the law, mostly focused on telling people when they aren't allowed to pull the trigger, followed by a shooting test that the instructors referred to as the "Ray Charles Invitational".

Taking civilians through Basic Firearms Safety, then the legalities of Shoot/Don't Shoot makes great sense.
Then again, in the great state of Washington, you can carry concealed simply by not being a felon or DV'er. And we don't seem to be awash in the blood of innocents.

It's all about "Good Enough" vs. "Great." It would be OK if every civilian could shoot like Annie Oakley or Jerry Miculek, but they can't and don't need to.

IMO, 95% of civilians have no business shooting beyond 7 yards. Instead, drill on finding & taking cover.
When at the range, my handgun targets go out to 3-7 yards. Except for fun.

My wife got me another AR for Fathers Day

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

nafod wrote:Now they have the optic of supporting terrorist access to weapons, thanks to the terrorists being born in the USA citizens.

The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights isn't convenient sometimes...

If the "body politic" cannot see the necessity of a trial before being denied a right then they deserve the fucking they're gonna get in the future. One would think after Civil Forfeiture that they'd get the point.

johno wrote:Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

Two passed by a majority. Funding the Background checks better and a compromise No Fly list that allowed a Judge to delay a sale.

The Universal Background check from Schumer et all and the Feinstein's No Fly List didn't get all Democrats. Almost as bad as Feinstein's putting "assault weapons" on the Any Other Weapon registry which got just forty votes. Stupid cow must thing we're too stupid to see that she's trying to create a Federal registry for handguns under the AOW category in the future.

Gene wrote:if the "body politic" cannot see the necessity of a trial before being denied a right then they deserve the fucking they're gonna get in the future.

does one always get a trial before a right is denied? sometimes the trial determines that right was denied inappropriately, doesn't it? search and seizure, for ex.

everyone is all exercised about 2d-amendment rights, but some of the same people who you guys are saying should have full rights to own weapons are the same ones donnie hairpiece wants to profile. he seems keen to discriminate on the basis of religion, thereby infringing on their 1st-amendment rights.

the pumpkin-colored doughboy has said playing fast and loose with the first amendment is "common sense."

dead man walking wrote:

Gene wrote:if the "body politic" cannot see the necessity of a trial before being denied a right then they deserve the fucking they're gonna get in the future.

does one always get a trial before a right is denied? sometimes the trial determines that right was denied inappropriately, doesn't it? search and seizure, for ex.

Civil Forfeiture? The idiotic bipartisan idea of charging property with a crime. Last year Police took more property than burglars, and that should bother everyone including Police.

So you're comfortable with denying people rights based upon expediency? Let's put our cards on the table, DMW. You're already comfortable with regimenting us to save the planet from CO2. Why not take that zeal to new venues?

dead man walking wrote:everyone is all exercised about 2d-amendment rights, but some of the same people who you guys are saying should have full rights to own weapons are the same ones donnie hairpiece wants to profile. he seems keen to discriminate on the basis of religion, thereby infringing on their 1st-amendment rights.

the pumpkin-colored doughboy has said playing fast and loose with the first amendment is "common sense."

More or less than the Hillary!?

Some of us are backing Johnson. Others don't see anyone worth supporting this year.

Gene wrote: So you're comfortable with denying people rights based upon expediency? Let's put our cards on the table, DMW. You're already comfortable with regimenting us to save the planet from CO2.

expediency? or the public good?
yes, i support anti-pollution laws.

johno wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.