they were identical to the checks now performed for issuance of CCW permits

Those vary from are you breathing to the same as getting a Federal tax stamp depending upon which jurisdiction is doing the checking.

So what CCW check standard are you advocating?


Frankly I think the person buying the firearm should pay for the background check, hence the tax stamp.

they were identical to the checks now performed for issuance of CCW permits

Those vary from are you breathing to the same as getting a Federal tax stamp depending upon which jurisdiction is doing the checking.

So what CCW check standard are you advocating?


Frankly I think the person buying the firearm should pay for the background check, hence the tax stamp.

It sounds like you have never purchased a firearm and you have obviously never applied for a CCW. The processes and background checks are worlds different.

The applicant DOES pay for the check. It cost me $75 to APPLY for the permit. That covered the cost of the FBI/BATFE and the CBI background investigation. This is the recognized 'gold standard' of background checks. In addition the local Sheriff issues CCW permits which is another layer of inspection that must be cleared as they are the most likely to have first hand knowledge of any past behavioral problems with the applicant.

If the HIPPA and other restrictions on mental health information can be resolved and included or a basic mental health 'questionnaire' included to asses stability of the applicant, a lot of the requirements voiced here would be served.

The current CCW law here requires the holder to renew the permit every 5 years(with the payment of another $45). It is not a permanent license once issued. Again any mental health concerns or changes could be addressed during the renewal process once implemented.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

they were identical to the checks now performed for issuance of CCW permits

Those vary from are you breathing to the same as getting a Federal tax stamp depending upon which jurisdiction is doing the checking.

So what CCW check standard are you advocating?


Frankly I think the person buying the firearm should pay for the background check, hence the tax stamp.

It sounds like you have never purchased a firearm and you have obviously never applied for a CCW. The processes and background checks are worlds different.

The applicant DOES pay for the check. It cost me $75 to APPLY for the permit. That covered the cost of the FBI/BATFE and the CBI background investigation. This is the recognized 'gold standard' of background checks. In addition the local Sheriff issues CCW permits which is another layer of inspection that must be cleared as they are the most likely to have first hand knowledge of any past behavioral problems with the applicant.

If the HIPPA and other restrictions on mental health information can be resolved and included or a basic mental health 'questionnaire' included to asses stability of the applicant, a lot of the requirements voiced here would be served.

The current CCW law here requires the holder to renew the permit every 5 years(with the payment of another $45). It is not a permanent license once issued. Again any mental health concerns or changes could be addressed during the renewal process once implemented.

That's in your county. Other places have other standards. Ask yourself how many counties there are in the USA.

That's in your county. Other places have other standards. Ask yourself how many counties there are in the USA.

Why are there other standards between counties in the US to get a CCW permit?

As of 2018, there are currently 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the 50 states and District of Columbia.[4] If the 100 county equivalents in the U.S. territories are counted, then the total is 3,242 counties and county-equivalents in the United States.[5][6]

Perhaps to get a hunting license it seems appropriate but otherwise?
Makes no sense to me.

That's in your county. Other places have other standards. Ask yourself how many counties there are in the USA.

Why are there other standards between counties in the US to get a CCW permit?

As of 2018, there are currently 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the 50 states and District of Columbia.[4] If the 100 county equivalents in the U.S. territories are counted, then the total is 3,242 counties and county-equivalents in the United States.[5][6]

Perhaps to get a hunting license it seems appropriate but otherwise?
Makes no sense to me.

9th and 10th amendments + old west the Sheriff of the county was the lawman and he decides + a modern NRA making it utterly impossible to make sensible changes to gun laws at state or federal levels.

Still won't make sense, but it explains why it is.

That's in your county. Other places have other standards. Ask yourself how many counties there are in the USA.

Why are there other standards between counties in the US to get a CCW permit?

As of 2018, there are currently 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the 50 states and District of Columbia.[4] If the 100 county equivalents in the U.S. territories are counted, then the total is 3,242 counties and county-equivalents in the United States.[5][6]

Perhaps to get a hunting license it seems appropriate but otherwise?
Makes no sense to me.

9th and 10th amendments + old west the Sheriff of the county was the lawman and he decides + a modern NRA making it utterly impossible to make sensible changes to gun laws at state or federal levels.
Still won't make sense, but it explains why it is.

Does this include driver licences?

9th and 10th amendments + old west the Sheriff of the county was the lawman and he decides + a modern NRA making it utterly impossible to make sensible changes to gun laws at state or federal levels.
Still won't make sense, but it explains why it is.

Does this include driver licences?

To some extent yes, but only down to the state level in that case. Voter registration is a county level function as is birth, death and marriage records, which in some places is even city level.

9th and 10th amendments + old west the Sheriff of the county was the lawman and he decides + a modern NRA making it utterly impossible to make sensible changes to gun laws at state or federal levels.
Still won't make sense, but it explains why it is.

Does this include driver licences?

To some extent yes, but only down to the state level in that case. Voter registration is a county level function as is birth, death and marriage records, which in some places is even city level.

That voter registration is down to a county level is understandable.
Same here but we the people are already eligible to vote without voter registration.
But the gun laws are the same in all our counties and also the procedures to get a licence.
That basically means to a State level.
So why is it different in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Sweden
Oops. This is news to me:)

A concealed carry permit can be obtained under very special circumstances, such as a proven threat to life.

Again this discussion points out a fundamental difference in the Government of the USA compared to other countries, and the fundamental difference in thinking about the purpose of Government.

The County/Parish or whatever it's called is the smallest and the base unit of Government make up. This is from a basic belief in our system that the power flows from the People(who make up the County, Parish, etc.), upward to the highest level. Local control rather than centralized has long been a debated point in America going back to Jefferson vs. Hamilton.

It is reasoned that local voices should decide local issues. And that National or State issues be decided by a consensus of those local voices. It works for us and has for nearly a quarter millennium now. Trump's Campaign understood this and it's relationship to the Electoral College, Hill-Liar-y's did not.

Despite your disdain of the NRA-ILA they have been working for years to enact homogeneous regulation so that gun ownership and laws are the same anywhere in the US. This has been fought on every level by well funded groups who would like to see the 2nd abolished(along with the rest of the Constitution). They DO know that disarming the citizenry is the first step to controlling them(the same thing King George thought in the 1770's).

Until sensible (and open) minds can come to agreement there will be no solution.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

They DO know that disarming the citizenry is the first step to controlling them(the same thing King George thought in the 1770's).

This argument worked in the 1770s, because then everyone had the right to own the same weaponry, and military tactics were laughable... ie lines of soldiers dressed in unnatural, highly visible colours walking slowly in a row with their one-shot-a-minute-muzzle-loaders, easily picked off like tin ducks in a shooting gallery. Then, the citizens had a chance to fight back against tyranny.

Now, the U.S. has probably the best-equipped and arguably the best-trained military on Earth. A citizen may own, say, a Bushmaster or an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The government owns Apache helicopters, with armor that won't even dent from AR-15 rounds, with infrared cameras that can see people in pitch darkness from miles away and then blow them into tiny bits with 30mm rounds at the push of a button. This is but one example... there are of course also the usual gamut of APCs and tanks that any weapons a citizen may possess are useless against, and now pilotless drones that can destroy buildings full of people while the operator sits in comfort half a world away.

If this military were turned against the citizenry, it's laughable that they could be opposed. Yet, this has not happened, and doesn't seem likely to. This indicates that the nation is healthy, and that the checks and balances, separation of powers and other safeguards that were put into place work properly.

So, what use is personal firearm ownership? Simply, to protect against other citizens (or, of course... non citizens)... criminals. If there are no or very few guns in a country (for example Japan) and it has a benevolent government, it may be a benefit to keep firearms out entirely (note that Japan's murder rate is about one-fifteenth of the United States... per capita of course.) However, if the guns are already out there, in the hands of criminals, then it is unconscionable to prevent good, law-abiding people from defending themselves, especially those who live in remote areas where the police may be too far away to respond in time. No one should have to live in permanent fear or die at criminal hands without the right of self-defense.

As always, this is a complex issue too often prone to oversimplification. :^)

---

No one should have to live in permanent fear.

Such as the fear of where you next meal is coming from? Or the fear of knowing where you will sleep tonight? Which fear is far more real and more immediate and should be addressed first? Might start asking the people evacuated for Florence.

Again this discussion points out a fundamental difference in the Government of the USA compared to other countries, and the fundamental difference in thinking about the purpose of Government.

A fundamental difference?
We in the other countries have very much the same government structure as you have, and almost about the same gun laws,
Why do we see all this mass shootings in the US but not elsewere?
Mass shooting with four or more people killed in an incident.
Often a loner that also kill himself after the killings!
And many other shootings not related to gang criminals.

Point of FACT............MANY more people die each year in the USA from over prescribed opiates than gunfire.........

Mr Kevvy..........the US and France BOTH had massive military infrastructure and equipment and troops in Viet Nam..........outcome?

DO NOT discount the effects of insurgency..........

And the gaudy colored coats and lining up for slaughter was a distinctly European tactic of battle..........the American combatants had to good sense to use cover and 'pick off the peacocks'.

You make a valid point regarding personal defense but it's not just the rural communities who 'wait for the cops to arrive'. The average response time is well over 5 minutes in most cities, and longer in most instances.

My SECOND worst fear is that I may be placed in a situation where I must choose to discharge my firearm at another human being in order to protect myself or my loved ones.............

My WORST fear is that I would be placed in that situation and due to Government interference, not be allowed to possess or employ that means of defense.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Again this discussion points out a fundamental difference in the Government of the USA compared to other countries, and the fundamental difference in thinking about the purpose of Government.

A fundamental difference?
We in the other countries have very much the same government structure as you have, and almost about the same gun laws,
Why do we see all this mass shootings in the US but not elsewere?
Mass shooting with four or more people killed in an incident.
Often a loner that also kill himself after the killings!
And many other shootings not related to gang criminals.

So, it is neither about guns or gun laws.

Eh?
The difference between the US and other countries is that you have by far more easy access to get a gun.
Guns in the US are also not registrered in a central (federal) database like it is here so the police can track them better.
Does it require a special amendment to the 2'nd amendment to regulate this?

Again this discussion points out a fundamental difference in the Government of the USA compared to other countries, and the fundamental difference in thinking about the purpose of Government.

A fundamental difference?
We in the other countries have very much the same government structure as you have, and almost about the same gun laws,
Why do we see all this mass shootings in the US but not elsewere?
Mass shooting with four or more people killed in an incident.
Often a loner that also kill himself after the killings!
And many other shootings not related to gang criminals.

So, it is neither about guns or gun laws.

Eh?
The difference between the US and other countries is that you have by far more easy access to get a gun.
Guns in the US are also not registrered in a central (federal) database like it is here so the police can track them better.
Does it require a special amendment to the 2'nd amendment to regulate this?

I would suggest you explore extensively the meaning of 'shall not be infringed'. That will give you the answer.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Again this discussion points out a fundamental difference in the Government of the USA compared to other countries, and the fundamental difference in thinking about the purpose of Government.

A fundamental difference?
We in the other countries have very much the same government structure as you have, and almost about the same gun laws,
Why do we see all this mass shootings in the US but not elsewere?
Mass shooting with four or more people killed in an incident.
Often a loner that also kill himself after the killings!
And many other shootings not related to gang criminals.

So, it is neither about guns or gun laws.

Eh?
The difference between the US and other countries is that you have by far more easy access to get a gun.
Guns in the US are also not registrered in a central (federal) database like it is here so the police can track them better.
Does it require a special amendment to the 2'nd amendment to regulate this?

The difference is the USA has a "War on Drugs" Made the price rise and attract the criminal element who need guns to protect themselves just like Eye feels the need to protect himself.

I would suggest you explore extensively the meaning of 'shall not be infringed'. That will give you the answer.

I would suggest you read this.https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

Hope I got the commas right:)
Is it the well regulated Militia or the people that have the right to keep and bear Arms?

We made a different choice than others.

And have been ridiculed for that choice by societies and countries claiming a concern for American lives lost due to 'gun violence'.

Is the real reason(on the part of individuals in countries who've had their freedoms 'infringed' in the American point of view) instead envy that their Governments don't have that inconvenient piece of 231 year old parchment prohibiting the 'infringement' on their 'inalienable rights'.........

Something to consider.

The foundation of our Government can be changed...........but not easily ............Thank the Founders.........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Yep, plenty of school kids over there to use as targets, hey?

moomin...
Since out of our population of over 300 million. Only and handful will ever engage in non terrorist related mass shootings. And ordinary' criminals do not obey the law.

Europe has a population over 750 million.
The EU has about 512 million.
Still no mass shootings like in the US.
Anders Breivik in Norway is of course an exception and it was a terrorist action.