Sunday, June 10, 2012

Fuck you and your gun permits, pal.

PACKING HEAT: Stanislaus gun permits rise sharply after 2010 pledge by sheriff


gstapley@modbee.com

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/06/09/2235065/stanislaus-gun-permits-rise-sharply.html#storylink=cpy

When Ollie Usher heard Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson publicly pledge to be more generous with gun permits two years ago, he wasn't sure whether the election-season promise was a campaign stunt or a significant policy shift.
Scores in the pro-gun audience that night probably wondered the same thing. More than a thousand people, including Usher, apparently decided to try their luck.
And nearly all won the right to legally carry concealed firearms, turning Stanislaus County into the region's latest gun-friendly place to be.
"He was good to his word," said Usher, among 1,250 people who sought gun permits since Christianson stunned the audience that April night in 2010.
Of those, 1,170 two-year permits were approved — an amazing jump compared with Christianson's previous term. For example, he approved 166 new applicants in 2009 and 446 in 2011 — an increase of 169 percent.
More of this bullshit HERE

*****

See, I'm still not getting this gun permit deal.
The High Sheriff doesn't have the authority to grant me my Rights, nor can he take them away. Neither does the State of Kalifornia or the federal government.
Yet these bureaucrats think they can hand out or deny permission to carry firearms and weapons to whoever they see fit and the worst part about is 1170 so called Conservatives in my county agree with them.
1170 people are now clapping their hands and cheering because they were given permission to exercise their Inalienable Rights. 1170 people suddenly feel more powerful than the rest of us. 1170 are officially Good Citizens and they even have a piece of paper to prove it.
1170 Good Citizens also are now in LEO databases on several levels even if they've never had contact with them before. 1170 Good Citizens also now risk a felony charge and losing their precious permits if they accidentally display their firearms in public.  1170 Good Citizens also just poured several hundred dollars each into the pockets of the Enemies of Liberty.
1170 Good Citizens sold me out.




Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/06/09/2235065/stanislaus-gun-permits-rise-sharply.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/06/09/2235065/stanislaus-gun-permits-rise-sharply.html#storylink=cpy

18 comments:

Stephen said...

I've always said any gun law is unconstitutional. I agree with you. You can give some people the book and all they'll do is eat the cover.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that because I have a CCW permit, I sold you out?

wirecutter said...

Yes I am.

Craig Cavanaugh said...

That last sentence summed things up perfectly.

drjim said...

Our rights are not granted by any government. Our basic rights, as enumerated in our Constitution, were granted by our Creator.
I'm with you 100% on this one, Ken!

Skip said...

Sorry Kenny, sold you out a long time ago.
Got better things to do than spend time in jail and lose a $1,100 pistol.

Glenn B said...

The state does not have the authority to strip you of your rights however the state can strip you of, or limit, your liberties. For example, someone found guilty of a violent felony who goes to jail is not permitted to have weapons within the jail. He may have a right to own weapons but he certainly is not at liberty to do so in jail. When it comes to government limiting your liberties, I think they have gone way overboard with respect to free speech (not freedom of expression as the courts seem to see it in recent decades but what the founding fathers meant - freedom of speech), the right to keep and bear arms,the right for a religion to be unencumbered by Congress (note, by Congress as it was believed that states would be able to make laws controlling religions) and so forth. It sucks that the government has decided it has the right to restrict law abiding citizens liberies to enjoy their rights.

I have to say though, that I see what the sheriff did as a small step in the right direction. Hopefully things will keep moving in that same direction until it reaches the point where once again Americans realize that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and that any liberty to exercise that right should be restricted to violent criminals (up to the point where they have completed their full sentences and so long as not repeat offenders), crazy people (while crazy not once cured) and young chidren (who should be able to exercise it uder parental supervision).

As for those folks selling anyone out, think of it this way, they would not likely have guns otherwise such being the overly restrictive laws in CA. Now they have them. Yes they paid a price for them in money and in liberty but they are moving things in the right direction by arming themselves. The more it again becomes 'normal' for folks to be armed again, across the country, the more likely are those restrictions on our liberties, to vanish. Hopefully that sheriff's actions may also influence others in law enforcement to come out of the closet on easing up on and eventually eliminating gun control.

All the best,
Glenn B

angrymike said...

Well I took the class in Ohio, but it seemed to me that I would have to be more law abiding then I have ever been in my life....Bullshit, if I feel I'm going to be under a microscope at all times just because I have a permit, they can kiss my Obama........ So like you Wire I do what I gotta do without the government knowing........ Your right again Wire.........

Erinyes said...

I was going to get mine down here because, well I can without any trouble. But you've inspired me to say "FUCK THAT".

Ken Hayes said...

I think that you misunderstand the scope of your constitutional rights, which are not unlimited.

State and local authorities may attach reasonable resrictions to them. The problems arise over determining what's "reasonable."

The easiest example concerns your freedom of speech and the often cited fact that you are not free to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Your freedom of religion does not entitle you to found and practice a religion which requires worshipers to sacrifice their firstborn children.

Jared Loughner's right to bear arms is now curtailed, and that is as it should be. Once you agree that the state is free to prohibit the sale of firearms to Jared Loughner you have conceded the power of authorities to put restraints on constitutional rights.

Again, the problem is the definition of "reasonable." Politicians and bureaucrats *always* go too far. That's what the Supreme Court is for.

Ken

wirecutter said...

Nice try but I'm not buying it. I'm a Free adult, not imprisoned, am law abiding, yet I have to have somebody's permission to excercise my Constitutional Rights?
No. That's wrong.

Erinyes said...

We're not free to yell fire in a crowded theater, and we're not free to discharge a firearm in a public place for no reason. But since we are allowed the unalienable right to free speech used lawfully, why should we law-abiding citizens not be allowed to carry a weapon to be used lawfully if need be?

Ken Hayes said...

OK, let's try this:

If you claim you are entitled to the right to bear arms because you are a "free adult," what about those who are *not* "free adults?"

What about Jared Loughner now? What about Jared Loughner in a few years, if he is paroled or whatever and becomes a free adult once more? Does the state not have the right to deny him the purchase of a firearm?

If you agree that the state should be free to prevent him from owning firearms, then you are agreeing that in that case, at least, the state has the authority to add a restraint to that constitutional right.

Do children have the right to bear arms or do states have the right to set a minimum age limit? If you agree that the state can enact a law saying that a four year old may not own a firearm, then you are agreeing that the state has the authority to add a restraint to the constitutional right to bear arms.

If you agree that the state may make it illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, then you are agreeing that the state has the authority to add that restraint to the constitutional right of free speech.

And so it goes.

Some restraints are in fact necessary, because we have to live in *this* world, which contains a lot of assholes, some of whom would for their own amusement shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, and some of whom would fire indiscriminately on a crowd of people in Tucson.

There's no getting around it. Our constitutional rights do not come to us entirely unrestrained.

Ken

wirecutter said...

I appreciate your civility Ken, and I do concede that you make some very valid points, but man, this isn't a forum. Seriously.
I'm not going to change my views because of a debate we had online and it's an issue that 100% of gun owners have an opinion on. Neither of us are going to change any of their minds.
I freely admit that my views are hard to the right of Right. I dream of a time that will never happen again.
You have your views and I respect you for that. You've obviously done your research considered the pros and cons and formed an intelligent opinion.
So have I. We can be diffferent. It's cool.
Again, I do appreciate you setting out your points in a civil manner and using your name. That's a rare thing nowadays.

Kerodin said...

Ken Hayes: Constitutional Rights are not Rights granted by the Constitution - they are instead Rights acknowledged by the Constitution as innate, granted by the Creator, and in the case of 2A, "...shall not be infringed..."

If a Citizen is not fit to bear arms, he is not fit to be in society. Kill him or keep him locked up.

More to the point: 2A is not limited to firearms. Should the State have the power to limit my access to a hammer? I can do a lot of damage with a claw hammer. How about a chair? Ever seen what happens to a man when he catches a chair in the teeth?

Restraints are not necessary.

We should not have to live our lives to suit the most stupid and dangerous among us.

Common Sense is necessary, and those who refuse to exercise Common Sense too often should be removed from the gene pool.

Kerodin
III

Sandman369 said...

The quicksand of tyranny. The sweet smelling pitcher plant of totalitarianism.

Let me spell it out, NONE of my rights are dependent, removable, or adjustable based on the actions of OTHERS.

A criminal runs over a grandma, you have no right to restrict MY driving habits.

A drunk doesn't wear his seat belt a dies. You have no right to ORDER me to wear one.

A welfare queen uses the ER as her personal physician. You have NO right to order me to purchase insurance or pay for her care.

A crack head dies of an overdose. You do NOT have the right to tell me what I can or cannot put in MY body.

A maniac guns down ten school children. You do NOT have the right to restrict my right of self defense.

The pussified abdication of our rights is EXACTLY what has brought us to the brink of collapse.

drjim said...

Thank you, Sandman!

Ken Hayes said...

Wirecutter,

I find that provided only that people are civil to you, you're pretty civil yourself, which is as it should be.

Best,

Ken