This woman should have the charges dropped for not having a concealed carry permit.

[pinqy]

If you did not pay the tax, you could not vote. This woman could still legally keep and bear arms without a concealed carry permit. So not the same.

Are you claiming the training classes are rigged like the literacy tests were? And again, in Ohio, there is no requirement for training for open carry.

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Open carry fulfills that.

Yes. And they practiced civil disobedience to protest the laws and went to jail and went through the courts and congress to change the laws.

Yes....and it was found that any tax on voting was unConstitutional....so the democrats were forced to stop doing it.

And in Europe, they use training requirements to keep the poor from owning guns...only the rich and well connected have the time and money to pass the tests to own the limited hunting weapons they are allowed.....to hunt on their estates.

You completely missed my point.
Does Ohio require a fee or training to own or open carry? Yes or no?
The answer is no.
So she could still exercise her 2nd amendment right without any fee or training.

Sorry...... any fee for to carry concealed or open is unConstitutional....

That opinion is not supported by any precedent.

True. But he’s an NRA shill so he doesn’t know abt better. Or if he does that is it what he’s supposed to post.

The NRA has no problems with concealed carry permits and does not consider them unconstitutional nor wants them eliminated.
NRA-ILA | Mainstream Media Misrepresents NRA's Position on Right-to-Carry Permits

 

[Vastator]

“Requiring” a permit is both dangerous, and unconstitutional. It infringes on a persons right to bear arms.

Who are little NRA shills to decide that?

Pretty sure there is no mention of a NRA in the constitution...

 

[Vastator]

Yes....and it was found that any tax on voting was unConstitutional....so the democrats were forced to stop doing it.

And in Europe, they use training requirements to keep the poor from owning guns...only the rich and well connected have the time and money to pass the tests to own the limited hunting weapons they are allowed.....to hunt on their estates.

You completely missed my point.
Does Ohio require a fee or training to own or open carry? Yes or no?
The answer is no.
So she could still exercise her 2nd amendment right without any fee or training.

Sorry...... any fee for to carry concealed or open is unConstitutional....

That opinion is not supported by any precedent.

True. But he’s an NRA shill so he doesn’t know abt better. Or if he does that is it what he’s supposed to post.

The NRA has no problems with concealed carry permits and does not consider them unconstitutional nor wants them eliminated.
NRA-ILA | Mainstream Media Misrepresents NRA's Position on Right-to-Carry Permits

The NRA has been instrumental in helping the government craft legislation that limits gun owners rights. Suffice it to say; I don't look to the NRA for guidance regarding the constitution...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Umm if the law requires a concealed carry license then a gun owner who carries concealed without a license is not law abiding, by definition. And she did not need a license to carry a weapon openly. And Ohio is a will-issue state.

This happened in Portland, Oregon not Ohio and while Oregon is an open carry state the city of Portland is not so no that was not an option in this case.

 

[Missourian]

She pled guilty.

 

[JoeB131]

A permit to carry a gun is nothing more than a chance for gun grabbers to punish a law abiding gun owner who fails to jump through the paper work hoops created for no other reason than to jam them up...

This should not be a crime.

Woman sentenced to 100 days for no gun license after killing woman

The gun was legally purchased, but Adler did not have a concealed carry license.

2TinyGuy, do you even read your own articles?

Sophia Adler pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm, the Multnomah County DA's office said in a release. Adler, 33, was also ordered to undergo drug, alcohol and mental health evaluations and take part in any treatment, as ordered....

“For Sophia, we ask that you turn your life around -- that you get the help for your addiction that you have struggled with -- that you get the mental health treatment that you truly need and that you try with everything in the future...to be productive in society, to be clean and sober and to find a home and better yourself."

You really want drug addicts and mentally ill people walking around with guns?

 

[pinqy]

Umm if the law requires a concealed carry license then a gun owner who carries concealed without a license is not law abiding, by definition. And she did not need a license to carry a weapon openly. And Ohio is a will-issue state.

This happened in Portland, Oregon not Ohio and while Oregon is an open carry state the city of Portland is not so no that was not an option in this case.

Dammit, why did I think Ohio? I must have misread something.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Dammit, why did I think Ohio? I must have misread something.

It happens to the best of us, not a problem

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You really want drug addicts and mentally ill people walking around with guns?

Interesting, you think maybe that's why she wasn't licensed? I mean aside from not having a license, maybe she's a prohibited person as well?

 

[JoeB131]

Interesting, you think maybe that's why she wasn't licensed? I mean aside from not having a license, maybe she's a prohibited person as well?

Probably... but 2TinyGuy lives in mortal fear that we might hold gun owners to account when they shoot people.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....and it was found that any tax on voting was unConstitutional....so the democrats were forced to stop doing it.

And in Europe, they use training requirements to keep the poor from owning guns...only the rich and well connected have the time and money to pass the tests to own the limited hunting weapons they are allowed.....to hunt on their estates.

You completely missed my point.
Does Ohio require a fee or training to own or open carry? Yes or no?
The answer is no.
So she could still exercise her 2nd amendment right without any fee or training.

Sorry...... any fee for to carry concealed or open is unConstitutional....

That opinion is not supported by any precedent.

True. But he’s an NRA shill so he doesn’t know abt better. Or if he does that is it what he’s supposed to post.

The NRA has no problems with concealed carry permits and does not consider them unconstitutional nor wants them eliminated.
NRA-ILA | Mainstream Media Misrepresents NRA's Position on Right-to-Carry Permits

The issue has already been decided...


So..... the NRA isn't the sole arbiter of the 2nd Amendment..... any tax, fee or test for the Right to own or carry a gun is unConstitutional.... The democrats showed us this when they tried to put Poll Taxes and Literacy tests on the Right to vote.....

and Murdock v Pennsylvania....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:

...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so.

But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....


... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...

 

[2aguy]

A permit to carry a gun is nothing more than a chance for gun grabbers to punish a law abiding gun owner who fails to jump through the paper work hoops created for no other reason than to jam them up...

This should not be a crime.

Woman sentenced to 100 days for no gun license after killing woman

The gun was legally purchased, but Adler did not have a concealed carry license.

2TinyGuy, do you even read your own articles?

Sophia Adler pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm, the Multnomah County DA's office said in a release. Adler, 33, was also ordered to undergo drug, alcohol and mental health evaluations and take part in any treatment, as ordered....

“For Sophia, we ask that you turn your life around -- that you get the help for your addiction that you have struggled with -- that you get the mental health treatment that you truly need and that you try with everything in the future...to be productive in society, to be clean and sober and to find a home and better yourself."

You really want drug addicts and mentally ill people walking around with guns?

I want the Rights of drug addicts and mentally ill people protected......unlike you fascists....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Umm if the law requires a concealed carry license then a gun owner who carries concealed without a license is not law abiding, by definition. And she did not need a license to carry a weapon openly. And Ohio is a will-issue state.

The Second Amendment, as part of the Constitution, is the highest law in this nation; and it absolutely affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and forbids government from infringing this right.

Any corrupt government official who has any part of enacting, upholding, or enforcing any law that violates this right is a criminal, and cannot honestly be characterized as “law-abiding”.

I find it amusing when LIbEral filth speak of the rule of law, in defense of violating the rule of law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your opinion is completely irrelevant until/unless the Supreme Court agrees with you. Otherwise, it’s still the law and must be obeyed or face the consequences

And it’s exactly that thinking that will ensure the continuation of the erosion of American freedoms...

The thinking of rule of law? Is it really your claim that no law that anyone believes is unconstitutional should be enforced?

The Constitution is the highest law. If you will defend open violations of this law on the part of government, then you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming to support the rule of law.

 

[pinqy]

Your opinion is completely irrelevant until/unless the Supreme Court agrees with you. Otherwise, it’s still the law and must be obeyed or face the consequences

And it’s exactly that thinking that will ensure the continuation of the erosion of American freedoms...

The thinking of rule of law? Is it really your claim that no law that anyone believes is unconstitutional should be enforced?

The Constitution is the highest law. If you will defend open violations of this law on the part of government, then you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming to support the rule of law.

I do not defend violations of the constitution. So that’s settled.

 

[JoeB131]

I want the Rights of drug addicts and mentally ill people protected......unlike you fascists....

Thanks, buddy. You just admitted your goal is to keep guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Thank you for your refreshing honesty.

I'd prefer they didn't have them, because they are more likely to go around killing people with them like this lady did.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'd prefer they didn't have them, because they are more likely to go around killing people with them like this lady did.

You'd prefer that the shooter in this case be stabbed to death because she didn't have a license or is it because she is alledged to be a drug addict?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution is the highest law. If you will defend open violations of this law on the part of government, then you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming to support the rule of law.

I do not defend violations of the constitution. So that’s settled.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Here, in this very thread, you are openly, blatantly, defending violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

You'd prefer that the shooter in this case be stabbed to death because she didn't have a license or is it because she is alledged to be a drug addict?

The thing is, she could have jsut as easily shot someone else with that gun, that's the point. It's why you don't let the mentally ill have them.

 

[pinqy]

The Constitution is the highest law. If you will defend open violations of this law on the part of government, then you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming to support the rule of law.

I do not defend violations of the constitution. So that’s settled.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Here, in this very thread, you are openly, blatantly, defending violation of the Second Amendment.

I have not. And unless you believe that people in prison should be able to have guns, even you don’t actually believe that any regulation at all is unconstitutional.
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”. District of Columbia v Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570

So now either you think Justice Scalia was corrupt and/or a lying liberal or you think your knowledge of constitutional law is better than his. Either of which is absurd.

And of course, the second amendment inarguably did not apply to the states until passage of the 14th amendment.