Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3114204" data-attributes="member: 13624">You really haven&#039;t read the bill, have you?In order: people with &quot;nefarious desires&quot; won&#039;t be affected.&nbsp; If they have disqualifying convictions, those convictions still disqualify them.&nbsp; If they don&#039;t, they&#039;re not affected.&nbsp; The permit doesn&#039;t require a brain scan, and we all know that laws don&#039;t constrain criminals anyway; that&#039;s kind of the definition of &quot;criminal.&quot;&nbsp; Point 1: fail.Loss of reciprocity: Constitutional carry doesn&#039;t end the permit system, it simply supplements it.&nbsp; I know this has been mentioned numerous times, including several by yours truly (one just this evening--or last evening, as it&#039;s a bit past midnight, count it as you please).&nbsp; Please go back and read the whole thread, paying close attention to such notes.So, your &quot;may be wrong&quot; is partially, technically, correct, but even the &quot;technically correct&quot; portion is meaningless, as the people &quot;without any convictions&quot; wouldn&#039;t be prevented from having a governmental permission slip...even if they cared in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3114204, member: 13624"] You really haven't read the bill, have you? In order: people with "nefarious desires" won't be affected. If they have disqualifying convictions, those convictions still disqualify them. If they don't, they're not affected. The permit doesn't require a brain scan, and we all know that laws don't constrain criminals anyway; that's kind of the definition of "criminal." Point 1: fail. Loss of reciprocity: Constitutional carry doesn't end the permit system, it simply supplements it. I know this has been mentioned [I]numerous[/I] times, including several by yours truly (one just this evening--or last evening, as it's a bit past midnight, count it as you please). Please go back and read the whole thread, paying close attention to such notes. So, your "may be wrong" is partially, technically, correct, but even the "technically correct" portion is meaningless, as the people "without any convictions" wouldn't be prevented from having a governmental permission slip...even if they cared in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification