Do you think this will inhibit someone from getting a permit to CC?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by pex

We can either endeavor to create a totalitarian state where we can track and predict all the harm that might ever effect the people or the state, or we can create a limited government where we just have to WAIT for bad people to do something heinous because we believe in liberty to that point.

If that isn't "reductio ad absurdum", then I don't know what is.

We can either have everyone drive at 1 MPH, or I can drive as fast as I want. Convenient, huh?

Originally Posted by pex

It's kind of tiring reading about the supposed anarchy that society would be forced to break down into because we failed to criminalize intermediates to harmful acts. If we don't license concealed carry, we're going to have to hide in our homes? Wouldn't murder still be illegal? Assault, too? Robbery? Rape?

Would you allow pedophiles to adopt children? If so, would we have to wait until they molested every one of them, or could we take all of them away after the first incident?

Originally Posted by pex

The US recognizes 192 experiments that are much better suited for people who want to see how restricted liberty works. It doesn't seem to suit the community very well to have 192 experiments that test some-liberty to no-liberty when we could also test lots-of-liberty, right here, where we said we would.

What's the difference between "restricted liberty" and "lots of liberty"? I'm picturing the "glass not full" and the "glass partially empty" sort of analogy. Anarchy is bad; but any government at all will "restrict" liberties, I guess it's just a question of whose ox is being gored. If you have no interest in building bombs, then you won't mind restrictions on your ability to store tons of seeping dynamite in your apartment, a regulation which would be imposed even before it all blew up and leveled the building (which would be unfair, because no harm was done until everyone was killed and the property destroyed. Franklin would be aghast, I suppose.)
Allowing a hot-tempered punk to carry a concealed weapon 24/7 just seems like a bad idea, once we've established that he's a hot-tempered punk. I would agree that we can't ASSUME that EVERYONE is a hot-tempered punk; but as long as the default is "every adult can carry", then specific bad deeds can be used to prevent certain people with dangerous propensities from carrying.
I would agree that this can be taken too far if we aren't vigilant, there are far too many laws on the books to allow ANY infraction to be a bar to firearms ownership or carry, but as long as parking tickets and speeding and building an addition without the proper permits aren't used as disqualifiers, as long as only violent propensities or habitual lawbreaking or serious willful crimes are used, then I'm OK with it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[widearea]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If that isn't "reductio ad absurdum", then I don't know what is.

We can either have everyone drive at 1 MPH, or I can drive as fast as I want. Convenient, huh?

Would you allow pedophiles to adopt children? If so, would we have to wait until they molested every one of them, or could we take all of them away after the first incident?

I am not sure I agree with your logic...the main issue here is a person feels the character of a relative is questionable and therefore takes it upon herself to prevent his ability to exercise his rights. In your pedophile example it would be necessary to establish proof of abuse and a conviction..then of course they shouldn't be around kids. The only logical analogy would be a character witness saying.."that guy is creepy..hes prob a pedo" And that statement alone would bar him from being around kids. We are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[mjfletcher]

Someone already covered it.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by widearea

I am not sure I agree with your logic...the main issue here is a person feels the character of a relative is questionable and therefore takes it upon herself to prevent his ability to exercise his rights. In your pedophile example it would be necessary to establish proof of abuse and a conviction..then of course they shouldn't be around kids. The only logical analogy would be a character witness saying.."that guy is creepy..hes prob a pedo" And that statement alone would bar him from being around kids. We are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The OP can't stop him from getting his LTCF, she can only offer evidence of his character and reputation. The sheriff makes the call, then his decision is subject to review by the CCP.

Your hypothetical is flawed, because in this case it's not just a "well he seems creepy" sort of testimony, it's of the "he harasses people for fun" variety.

The closer analogy is a cop following a drunk driver who hasn't hit anybody yet. He swerves, he stops for no reason, he almost sideswipes a few cars within inches, he looks like he MIGHT cause an accident, but he hasn't hit anyone yet. Do we want the cop to stop him before his drunkenness results in an innocent death, or do we want to maximize his liberty and only punish the killing if/after it happens? Replace "drunk" with "subject to uncontrolled acts of random violence" and what do we think?

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by pex

I think I've heard some anti-gunners say this about all firearms owners.

Supposing you're not suggesting the same type of gun-grabbing and right-usurping that they do, I can't understand what separates your 'concern' from theirs...we can all generate something to call a concern, and say it, but I'd call it wasted breath if it wasn't pursuant to your ends.

So what are your ends? Is Utopia included?

When safety wins, we all lose.

Cause we don't need a bunch of people who are out running around with guns just looking for an altercation. That is like giving a drunk a car, it is just bad idea is all I am saying. I could be wrong but I could not be wrong.

[widearea]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

The OP can't stop him from getting his LTCF, she can only offer evidence of his character and reputation. The sheriff makes the call, then his decision is subject to review by the CCP.

Your hypothetical is flawed, because in this case it's not just a "well he seems creepy" sort of testimony, it's of the "he harasses people for fun" variety.

The closer analogy is a cop following a drunk driver who hasn't hit anybody yet. He swerves, he stops for no reason, he almost sideswipes a few cars within inches, he looks like he MIGHT cause an accident, but he hasn't hit anyone yet. Do we want the cop to stop him before his drunkenness results in an innocent death, or do we want to maximize his liberty and only punish the killing if/after it happens? Replace "drunk" with "subject to uncontrolled acts of random violence" and what do we think?

It is also important to note that he would then have to have a certain blood alcohol level to have his license revoked for dui. The officer wouldn't have the right to tell a judge..I have a feeling he is going to hit someone eventually so lets take his license before that happens. The point is..if there is no disqualifying mark on his record..give him the ltc...References shouldn't even be on the application form..they go against the whole concept of shall issue.