Florida CCW · Page 2 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

MACS
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

3 years ago

#21

Help me out here cuz I don't see too good sometimes. Where does the 2nd amendment say anything about a permit?

deadeyedick wrote:

It does not... and AZ does it 100% right. Your permit IS the 2nd amendment.

burning_sticks
Connoisseur

3 years ago

#22

Az ftw. No permit needed to ccw.

Stogie1020 wrote:

Constitutional carry in Missouri or you can get a permit, if you think the government need records.

dkeage
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#23

It does not... and AZ does it 100% right. Your permit IS the 2nd amendment.

MACS wrote:

Texas too as of last year

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#24

Can we get nationwide reciprocity?

Run that down the SCOTUS!

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#25

Hang in there. Your new county has a different take on this issue

Sunoverbeach wrote:

Step 1: 11 page application

In accordance with law and the opinion of the Contra Costa County Counsel, applicants are not required to provide information justifying "good cause" for a permit application. (This was ruled unconstitutional in New York)

Step 2: fingerprints

Step 3: Background Investigation/Interview

The purpose of a background investigation is to determine an applicant’s qualification and establish some reasonable expectation of suitability for a CCW. In some cases psychological testing may be required.

Upon completion of the FBI, DOJ clearance, and background check all eligible applicants will be required to have a face to face interview to review and verify their signatures on the application.

Upon completion of the interview, the application package will be reviewed by the Sheriff for consideration for the issuance of a CCW.

Step 4: Step Four Weapons/Range Qualification and Training

This is how we infringe. Nobody makes it through the interview. If you think you need a CCW, you need a psych evaluation! Game over.

RiverRatRuss
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#26

Went to the Tax Collector's office October 27th to apply for my CCW. Had my Florida license, my DD-214 and that was it. Sat down at a computer to fill out, I think, 3 pages of questions and name/address/etc... electronically signed it, scanned the DD-214 and clicked submit. Sat down for a picture, paid the fee, and was out.

Got my CCW in the mail on the 1st. Literally less than a week from application to "Here's your CCW, welcome to Florida, enjoy your frankin' FREEDOM!"

MACS wrote:

Damn, here in Hellinois they take your blood, do a background check of your sphincter, Home inspection like an adoption agency then lose your paperwork just for a FOID card (only State in the Union requiring a FOID BTW... I was fortunate somehow they did not lose my paperwork and got my renewal in 3 weeks, I've got friends who had to pass up hunting seasons because their renewals were over 6 months wait. Same chit with the CCW here... now the State is talking about combining the two. 🤦

Gene363
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#27

Can we get nationwide reciprocity?

Run that down the SCOTUS!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

However, ONLY, if they use the Arizona criteria for a permit. Anything else allows Federal control over state permits, es no bueno.

The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#28

SCOTUS is only the ultimate arbiter when the results are acceptable.

Where is Robert?

ZRX1200 wrote:

Here, what do you want/need?. Don't you already know all this stuff?
I'll truly help you, if I can...

J&K11
Enthusiast

3 years ago

#29

In my state as soon as you step foot on our soil you automatically have the right to open or conceal carry whatever weapon you choose no paperwork involved.

tonygraz
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#30

See if your weak mind can follow along, Tony. I'll type r e a l s l o w.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There's the entire text. I highlighted the important part.

Now... do you think that requiring a permit is the same as "asking permission"? (This is a softball, pal... spoiler... it is!)

And if our right to own and carry shall not be infringed... don'tcha think making us ask permission to exercise a right is infringement? (another softball, buddy... you got this one!)

MACS wrote:

Do we need a well regulated militia ? We have an army, a navy, an air force and the national guard. The second amendment is obsolete.

8trackdisco
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#31

Do we need a well regulated militia ? We have an army, a navy, an air force and the national guard. The second amendment is obsolete.

tonygraz wrote:

There aren’t any well regulated militias.
A bunch unregulated- which is adding some angst.

If you want to start unraveling amendments, be careful.
All or nothing. You okay going back to slavery and women not voting?

It isn’t a buffet.

Imagine Trump becoming president again. You want him selecting which are obsolete?

Edited by user 3 years ago | Reason: Not specified

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#32

[frypan] [frypan] [frypan]

MACS
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

3 years ago

#33

Here's a democrat, Tony... saying the 2nd amendment is relevant and applicable TODAY.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#34

Do we need a well regulated militia ? We have an army, a navy, an air force and the national guard. The second amendment is obsolete.

tonygraz wrote:

I heard that it is Republicans that are a threat to democracy. Turns it’s Tony and the Democrats that are the threat.

Sunoverbeach
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#35

As I was getting at above, there's too much focus on the militia part. I have a right to defend my life should I have the need to do so. I have a right to use whatever gives me the best advantage in that situation. Nobody has the right to deny me that right.

"Right of the people" is also stated in the 1st and 4th amendments. Why is it nobody wants to infringe on those?

BuckyB93
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#36

Verbatim from the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people. This is a key point. You can massage it all you want with bull$hit like "they were talking about just muskets and stuff."

No they weren't. They wanted citizens to have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and personal harm. Throughout history governments have used soldiers to oppress people. This is what the 2nd Amendment tries to prevent.

The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is in place empower the people and to keep the government in check if it comes to an armed conflict. It also makes a foreign country that might want to invade the US, think twice.

Here's a cut and past from an article published last year after deer hunting season that makes some great points.

"There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .... Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

(That’s more men under arms than in Iran .. More than France and Germany combined.)

These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, And NO ONE WAS KILLED.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the Hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower! Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer.

It's a matter of national security.

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought, when next we consider gun control. Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens??? For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

(If you agree, as I do, pass it on, I feel good that I have an army of millions who would protect our land and I sure don't want the government taking control of the possession of firearms)

AMERICA! Designed by geniuses, Run by idiots!"

http://www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com/Firearms/AMERICAS-HUNTERS--Pretty-Amazing

Edited by user 3 years ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

3 years ago

#37

IN took about two weeks to receive, but otherwise similar process. I wasn't displeased.

Frankie, let's break down that sentence real quick here. What you have is a prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia....," and an operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that the preface can't stand on its own as a statement, whereas the subject portion of the statement very much can. So it's a really an example of what an armed individual can do as opposed to a restriction against why they should be armed. Without the armed individual, there is no ability to raise a militia, should it be needed.

Not my work, for the record. Simply paraphrased SC interpretation. Makes sense to me though.

Sunoverbeach wrote:

wasn't ignoring ya, just didn't want to lead the thread down that path...but your interpretation is more than reasonable and sensible.

I think the unsaid clause..."being necessary to the security of a free State"...makes all opinions plausible and I actually appreciate that it seems to deny absolute original word interpretations.

As it happens, though, I come out of all that believing in the right to bear arms.