LOGIC APPLIED TO RESTRICTIVE LICENSING OF CITIZENS

[leVieux]

Please fee free tl copy and re-post this elsewhere

>

Logic applied to a major problem.

“Gun Crime”, as the left likes to characterize it, is a serious problem in today’s urban America.

So, let’s take a moment to look at some FACTS:

Most crimes of violence are committed by KNOWN CRIMINALS.

CRIMINALS cannot legally buy, or even possess, firearms under our longstanding laws.

The overwhelming criminal gun of choice is the handgun.

Most “crime guns” are stolen from legal owners.

Most of those are stolen from private vehicles.

Why were unattended guns left in vehicles in the first place?

That is because our legislatures have passed laws giving authority to many to prohibit carry of guns on their premises. Those laws affect non-CRIMINALS equally. In public and private spaces !

Those “common sense laws” criminalize what many see as non-criminal behavior of non-criminal citizens. Because of recent & old SCOTUS rulings, the LICENSED persons are actually restricted much more than actual criminals are.

So, when a non criminal LEGAL gun owner seeks to enter one of those spaces, he or she must disarm to stay legal. Therefore, many of those guns are temporarily left in vehicles, unattended.

That, dear hearts, explains where CRIMINALS get their “crime guns”.

FACT: We now have over 40 years of records on these things. Fewer that one in 10,000 licensed gun owner/carriers will ever use their gun in a crime of violence.

Licensees do not participate in crime; they are not attacking innocent civilians or police.

See where this is going ?

Restricted zones are stopping licensed non criminals from carrying, annd do furnish guns to be stolen by criminals to use in their violent CRIMES.

If

Those zones were eliminated, most of the guns wouldn’t be available to be stolen; because the non-criminal owners would be carrying them !

So, if we quit restricting the WRONG Citizens, the crimes should go-down. We also would have the benefit of more armed non-criminal Citizens to protect us all from violent criminals.

LOGIC

Sorry, unavailable in government models. . . . . . .

LeVieux

p.s.
.Where else in public life are premises managers or landowners given authority to regulate or prevent CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ? Is this an abuse of longstanding “trespass laws” ? IANAL, But REAL, ACTUAL common sense and reason should prevail on basic PUBLIC SAFETY, shoudn’t it? How could authorities act to prevent anticipated criminal acts of estabished non-criminal specifically trained LICENSED Citizens ? I can understand and accept “DO NOT ENTER - PRIVATE PROPERTY”

There is no “sense” in punishing licensed, non-criminal Citizens, with no criminal intent, greater than actual criminals with criminal intent !.

 

[ronbwolf]

Facts are kryptonite to liberals, they "feel," diffently and will not tolerate the "hate speech," of differing opinions.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

Facts are kryptonite to liberals, they "feel," diffently and will not tolerate the "hate speech," of differing opinions.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

You are so correct.

Senator Schumer became the “poster boy” for that……… back when he screamed into the microphone: “We don’t want facts, we demand truth!”

Proving that their “truth” is independent of actual fact(s).

 

[Otto_Mation]

The libtard response will be to make it illegal to leave a gun in your vehicle. The real answer is to keep your criminals in prison instead of on the street and blaming us for their crime problem.

 

[Aus_Schwaben]

Please fee free tl copy and re-post this elsewhere

>

Logic applied to a major problem.

“Gun Crime”, as the left likes to characterize it, is a serious problem in today’s urban America.

So, let’s take a moment to look at some FACTS:

Most crimes of violence are committed by KNOWN CRIMINALS.

CRIMINALS cannot legally buy, or even possess, firearms under our longstanding laws.

The overwhelming criminal gun of choice is the handgun.

Most “crime guns” are stolen from legal owners.

Most of those are stolen from private vehicles.

Why were unattended guns left in vehicles in the first place?

That is because our legislatures have passed laws giving authority to many to prohibit carry of guns on their premises. Those laws affect non-CRIMINALS equally. In public and private spaces !

Those “common sense laws” criminalize what many see as non-criminal behavior of non-criminal citizens. Because of recent & old SCOTUS rulings, the LICENSED persons are actually restricted much more than actual criminals are.

So, when a non criminal LEGAL gun owner seeks to enter one of those spaces, he or she must disarm to stay legal. Therefore, many of those guns are temporarily left in vehicles, unattended.

That, dear hearts, explains where CRIMINALS get their “crime guns”.

FACT: We now have over 40 years of records on these things. Fewer that one in 10,000 licensed gun owner/carriers will ever use their gun in a crime of violence.

Licensees do not participate in crime; they are not attacking innocent civilians or police.

See where this is going ?

Restricted zones are stopping licensed non criminals from carrying, annd do furnish guns to be stolen by criminals to use in their violent CRIMES.

If

Those zones were eliminated, most of the guns wouldn’t be available to be stolen; because the non-criminal owners would be carrying them !

So, if we quit restricting the WRONG Citizens, the crimes should go-down. We also would have the benefit of more armed non-criminal Citizens to protect us all from violent criminals.

LOGIC

Sorry, unavailable in government models. . . . . . .

LeVieux

p.s.
.Where else in public life are premises managers or landowners given authority to regulate or prevent CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ? Is this an abuse of longstanding “trespass laws” ? IANAL, But REAL, ACTUAL common sense and reason should prevail on basic PUBLIC SAFETY, shoudn’t it? How could authorities act to prevent anticipated criminal acts of estabished non-criminal specifically trained LICENSED Citizens ? I can understand and accept “DO NOT ENTER - PRIVATE PROPERTY”

There is no “sense” in punishing licensed, non-criminal Citizens, with no criminal intent, greater than actual criminals with criminal intent !.

Did you see the NY state response to the SCOTUS ruling? One part is to become a "will issue" state but ban firearms in shops unless they (the shops) post a sign allowing firearms - in other the words the opposite of the rest of the country!

 

[toddnjoyce]

… ban firearms in shops unless they (the shops) post a sign allowing firearms…

Oh, following Texas’ foot steps, just with a twist.

I don’t think that gets past Bruen though. Given that ruling, I’m don’t think think the state can delegate to the general public a power to limit a person’s right to self defense. That was the core of NY’s sensitive places argument.

 

[BigTexasOne]

There you go, trying to use logic and common sense again! You know that doesn't work here!

 

[leVieux]

Oh, following Texas’ foot steps, just with a twist.

I don’t think that gets past Bruen though. Given that ruling, I’m don’t think think the state can delegate to the general public a power to limit a person’s right to self defense. That was the core of NY’s sensitive places argument.

Then “we” must do a better job of informing owners that they are excluding their BEST class of customers! And keep pummeling our “legislators” !

 

[Axxe55]

Then “we” must do a better job of informing owners that they are excluding their BEST class of customers! And keep pummeling our “legislators” !

So your answer is more laws, that are at the expense of "property owners" to restrict their rights to do as they wish with their own property!

I don't agree with any business having signs that prohibit the carrying of firearms, but making laws that restrict their rights to do so is just wrong, and there are other means than passing a law forcing them to allow the carrying of guns on their own property. The power of the wallet comes to mind.

p.s.
.Where else in public life are premises managers or landowners given authority to regulate or prevent CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ? Is this an abuse of longstanding “trespass laws” ? IANAL, But REAL, ACTUAL common sense and reason should prevail on basic PUBLIC SAFETY, shoudn’t it? How could authorities act to prevent anticipated criminal acts of estabished non-criminal specifically trained LICENSED Citizens ? I can understand and accept “DO NOT ENTER - PRIVATE PROPERTY”

Sorry Mr. @leVieux your rights end at the property line.

 

[seeker_two]

So your answer is more laws, that are at the expense of "property owners" to restrict their rights to do as they wish with their own property!

I don't agree with any business having signs that prohibit the carrying of firearms, but making laws that restrict their rights to do so is just wrong, and there are other means than passing a law forcing them to allow the carrying of guns on their own property. The power of the wallet comes to mind.

p.s.
.Where else in public life are premises managers or landowners given authority to regulate or prevent CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ? Is this an abuse of longstanding “trespass laws” ? IANAL, But REAL, ACTUAL common sense and reason should prevail on basic PUBLIC SAFETY, shoudn’t it? How could authorities act to prevent anticipated criminal acts of estabished non-criminal specifically trained LICENSED Citizens ? I can understand and accept “DO NOT ENTER - PRIVATE PROPERTY”

Sorry Mr. @leVieux your rights end at the property line.

Good point. But, there are ways to use legislation to encourage property owners that open their property to public use to allow carry. One good piece of legislation would protect property owners from any liability when a carrier uses their firearm on the property.

 

[Axxe55]

Good point. But, there are ways to use legislation to encourage property owners that open their property to public use to allow carry. One good piece of legislation would protect property owners from any liability when a carrier uses their firearm on the property.

I believe that already exists, if I'm not mistaken.

My point is, we don't need laws "forcing" a property owner to allow the carrying of firearms.

Kind of like how an HOA can decide for you what colors are acceptable to paint your own house!