This is a John Stossel special on tonite (8 central time) on Fox news. Here's a trailer for it: Looks pretty good. http://video.foxnews.com/v/284278033200 ... at-on-fnc/
War on the little guy
- Thread starter GunnyGene
- Start date
Don't hold your breath on them getting back to you...$430 application fee, non-refundable I would assume...that is nuts.
Remember, any money the government collects is a tax...fees, licenses, parking meter, fines, whatever.OhioArcher said:
They have a war on the little guy. Those cities mentioned (NY, Chicago, DC etc) are horrible to the little guy for gun ownership. High crime rate and won't let you protect yourself. I know Philadelphia is jealous of them. They would love draconian gun restrictions. They keep making anti gun laws and then the state sues them in court over preemption and they lose every time. Of course that doesn't mean that the police won't harass a concealed carrier.
Big cities have gun violence problems. Why don't they go after the guns used by criminals instead of the law abiding that wants to defend their family? The nearest city to me, where I grew up, has a drug and drug crime problem. The democrat mayor is a member of MAIG. He has come out publicly against "assault rifles". In all of my years I have never heard of a crime there being committed by one. I have also never heard of them using a sting operation to go after illegal guns. Since they don't go after the guns the bad guys have but want to remove them from the law abiding, I can only conclude they are at war with the little guy.
They target but can't hit the bad guys with guns. So they go after the law abiding ones who will follow the laws as set forth. Hard to guess who is or isn't carrying legally (unless you are in your car and your CCW/CHL is tied to your license plates via driver's license as here in OH). Many of the PDs are afraid to take on the criminal element on their turf because they are outnumbered, i.e. Detroit. Basically, they have given up on parts of the city. There are areas in Cincinnati that the PD fears to tread after dark...they will be shot at. It is a moral decay that is spreading and much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the ACLU and lawyers...you can't profile people, the same people that are committing most of the crimes, because of their skin color or where they live. So they multiply and infest our cities, then start spreading out.
As a side note, the government needs the bad guys so the little guys feel insecure and in need of government help. Although the government is very low and slow in actually helping...
As a side note, the government needs the bad guys so the little guys feel insecure and in need of government help. Although the government is very low and slow in actually helping...
Don't know if y'all watched the show, but there was more to it than just getting a carry permit. Although towards the end of that segment, one of people Stossel talked to said the right way to get a carry permit in NYC was to know someone who is politically connected. :x
It always helps to be an elitist.GunnyGene said:
No, I didn't notice your post until Sunday morning so I did not see the show. Maybe it will be on rerun today.
So Stossel showing them internet postings that he should be killed wasn't enough to prove to them that he had reason to carry a gun?...I can't stand may issue states.
Maryland is a may issue state and were sued by a little guy (Woolard) when he was denied. He initially won with the judge ruling that individuals don't have to prove to the state a reason why they wan to exercise their Constitutional rights. The state appealed and won. Their desire to reduce gun violence trumped his 2A rights. SCOTUS would not hear the case.
The Court found that, while the "good cause" requirement does indeed infringe upon Woollard's Second Amendment rights, the requirement nevertheless passes intermediate scrutiny (the standard previously determined applicable in Masciandaro and Chester, heard by the same Circuit), by holding that Maryland's desire to reduce handgun violence is a "substantial government interest", and that the "good cause" requirement is "reasonably fitted" to this interest in several ways, primarily by reducing the number of guns on the street, which the Court agreed with the Appellants provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence and increase the ability of the police to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens.
Governments have always at war with the little guy. Always have been, always will be.
Maryland is a may issue state and were sued by a little guy (Woolard) when he was denied. He initially won with the judge ruling that individuals don't have to prove to the state a reason why they wan to exercise their Constitutional rights. The state appealed and won. Their desire to reduce gun violence trumped his 2A rights. SCOTUS would not hear the case.
The Court found that, while the "good cause" requirement does indeed infringe upon Woollard's Second Amendment rights, the requirement nevertheless passes intermediate scrutiny (the standard previously determined applicable in Masciandaro and Chester, heard by the same Circuit), by holding that Maryland's desire to reduce handgun violence is a "substantial government interest", and that the "good cause" requirement is "reasonably fitted" to this interest in several ways, primarily by reducing the number of guns on the street, which the Court agreed with the Appellants provides several secondary effects that significantly reduce handgun violence and increase the ability of the police to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens.
Governments have always at war with the little guy. Always have been, always will be.