• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stuff Republicans say.

esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Does carrying a concealed weapon constitute a greater threat to a person more than not having the weapon concealed? In other words does a concealed weapon pose a greater threat than an non-concealed weapon? Just because a PPO has been ordered against someone does not necessarily mean that the person can not have a firearm.
WomensLaw.org | Federal Gun Laws
WomensLaw.org | Federal Gun Laws

In addition various other stipulations could be invoked by individual states.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
esmith said:
Does carrying a concealed weapon constitute a greater threat to a person more than not having the weapon concealed? In other words does a concealed weapon pose a greater threat than an non-concealed weapon? Just because a PPO has been ordered against someone does not necessarily mean that the person can not have a firearm.
WomensLaw.org | Federal Gun Laws
WomensLaw.org | Federal Gun Laws

In addition various other stipulations could be invoked by individual states.
Click to expand...
It very well may, especially if there's a confrontation that might be more likely avoided if one knows the other is armed.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
metis said:
It very well may, especially if there's a confrontation that might be more likely avoided if one knows the other is armed.
Click to expand...
The idea that not allowing a person to have a concealed weapon permit if a judge made the decision that they can keep their firearms is nothing more than hysteria by those persons who are anti-gun. The judge has made the decision that the person does not pose a viable physical threat.....the judge let them keep their firearms.
 
Last edited:
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
esmith said:
The idea that not allowing a person to have a concealed weapon permit if a judge made the decision that they can keep their firearms is nothing more than hysteria by those persons who are anti-gun. The judge has made the decision that the person is not pose a viable physical threat.....the judge let them keep their firearms.
Click to expand...
I never said or implied anything about people not being able to have concealed gun permits, nor am I opposed to it per se. Plus the above really doesn't relate to what I had posted.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
metis said:
I never said or implied anything about people not being able to have concealed gun permits, nor am I opposed to it per se. Plus the above really doesn't relate to what I had posted.
Click to expand...
I think the discussion was about a person who had a PPO filed against them having a concealed weapons permit. What I was attempting to say is that if a PPO order was issued and the judge did not confiscate the firearms why should they not be allowed to have a CCA
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
tytlyf said:
You made it sound like there shouldn't be any restrictions on gun ownership due to civil liberties.

On a side note, republicans in congress have moved to destroy SS
Click to expand...
Guns are a distraction to the dismantling of America that is being proposed including destroying science in the name of (right wing) political correctness.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
esmith said:
I think the discussion was about a person who had a PPO filed against them having a concealed weapons permit. What I was attempting to say is that if a PPO order was issued and the judge did not confiscate the firearms why should they not be allowed to have a CCA
Click to expand...
As a protection to those who ordered the PPO. Often times these involve stalkers, abusive exes, and others who have caused a person to go through the courts, plead a case that someone poses a significant threat to them (or others, such as children), and establish a just cause for legal restrictions against that someone. However, even court orders often go ignored, and even some people get worked up and want revenge over even having it issues against them. Having a PPO issued against you should be reason enough to be evaluated on your suitability to own a gun, because it usually means you are acting in a violent way, and lo and behold, this behavior was cause enough for a judge to legal require you to stay away from someone.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
As a protection to those who ordered the PPO. Often times these involve stalkers, abusive exes, and others who have caused a person to go through the courts, plead a case that someone poses a significant threat to them (or others, such as children), and establish a just cause for legal restrictions against that someone. However, even court orders often go ignored, and even some people get worked up and want revenge over even having it issues against them. Having a PPO issued against you should be reason enough to be evaluated on your suitability to own a gun, because it usually means you are acting in a violent way, and lo and behold, this behavior was cause enough for a judge to legal require you to stay away from someone.
Click to expand...
Then go to court and have a ruling that the person loses possession of their firearms. Simple, no?
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
esmith said:
Then go to court and have a ruling that the person loses possession of their firearms. Simple, no?
Click to expand...
As I said, having a PPO issued against you should be grounds for being evaluated on if you're fit for owning a gun. A PPO means that someone has went to court and has demonstrated you pose a significant risk to that someone. Violent people should not be allowed to own guns.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
As I said, having a PPO issued against you should be grounds for being evaluated on if you're fit for owning a gun. A PPO means that someone has went to court and has demonstrated you pose a significant risk to that someone. Violent people should not be allowed to own guns.
Click to expand...
Maybe those that have been victims of violent abuse would press charges against the assailant vice refusing to do so and start the entire cycle over again. You will note that I said violent abuse as per your reference in the above.
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
esmith said:
Then go to court and have a ruling that the person loses possession of their firearms. Simple, no?
Click to expand...

There have been a few cases where that has happened. It is the court's discretion whether or not to issue ones guns taken.

Gun 'hero' George Zimmerman ordered to surrender arms after assault (+video) - CSMonitor.com
ATLANTA — George Zimmerman, who became a folk hero to some after he beat a murder rap in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, has been ordered to surrender his weapons after being arrested for a third time for domestic violence.
Click to expand...
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Shadow Wolf said:
Yeah, he's actually been in trouble two or three times since his murder trial. He's clearly a violent person, and hopefully the next jury realizes it.
Click to expand...
I wonder if all those people who contributed to Zimmerman because of his support from Fox want their money back?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top