“May Issue” is “Won’t Issue”

Found this interesting anti-freedom article through the channels that think such things are a good idea:

One in five people permitted to carry guns in Johnson County since a new shall carry law went into effect in January have criminal records, Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said Wednesday.

WOAH! That sounds like a REALLY SHITTY LAW! Just imagine, drug dealers, and car jackers, and wife beaters all carrying gun, 100% legally???????

Unless you are aware of how laws work:

One man approved in March was arrested for criminal mischief in 1994, drunken driving in 1998, unauthorized use of a vehicle in 2000, possession of controlled substance in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, possession of a stolen firearm in 2007 and telephone harassment in 2010, Pulkrabek said.

I’m actually reading that sentence differently after the first read. At first I thought this was lists of various convictions on various people’s records who have permits. Now that I read this it appears to be ONE guy. OK first let’s play devils advocate and assume the worst. This unnamed guy is shady and bad news, as well as having bad judgement. That’s the ONLY person of the claimed 250 they mention. “Conspicuous absence” comes to mind. What do the 249 other “criminal records” look like?

**UPDATE**Zercool notes it says “ARRESTED” not “CONVICTED” so this guy may not have done ANY of those things listed above.

Let’s assume that just because they didn’t mention them they didn’t simply make up the numbers. This unnamed fellow has a bunch of convictions, but all are minor. (furthermore they must all be misdemeanors because a felony would disqualify him from both a permit AND owning guns….btw that’s federal, even in the states that don’t require permits a felony conviction means you can’t possess a gun)

What this Sheriff is saying, that if you had a bit too much to drink after a holiday party and thought you could drive home, and got pinched with a DUI, you shouldn’t have rights…even if that was your only charge, and it was 20 years ago. Better yet, you were out drinking and decided to leave your car at the bar and walk 5 miles home. A cop decides he needs to flex his muscles and writes you a chickenshit ticket for “Public Intoxication”. No more rights for you, as far as the Sheriff and the anti-rights cult has decided.

Remember you wild college days? Remember that one night the neighbors called the cops and you got cited with a noise violation? Yep, NO RIGHT!

Remember when you were moving home from college and you got caught in a speed trap, and in all the hustle and bustle you lost the summons and forgot about it. Well you got that “Failure to appear” fixed….but now you can’t have rights.

Do you have loved ones who have minor convictions in their distant record? Do you trust them behind the wheel of a car? Do you trust them to watch your kids? Do you trust them to watch the register in the shop?

Of course you do, we’ve all done silly things, and we’ve all made some bad judgements. Some of us go caught, some didn’t, most of us went on to learn from our mistakes (the ones who didn’t often made BIGGER mistakes and got real convictions).

It isn’t about that. This is about taking away rights. In many towns in “May Issue” Massachusetts you can’t get a carry permit. Just can’t. None of this chickenshit minor conviction nonsense, just nobody is issued one because they chief has the right to say so.

Well not NOBODY, the Chief’s and other officers family and friends can get their permits OK, as the government officials and their family and friends, as well as those who work for the fire department. (When I hear somebody say they have a carry permit from such-and-such a town, I simply ask them “Police, or Firefighter”. I haven’t been wrong yet!)

These are bad laws, and they always lead to corruption and abuse. Furthermore the fear-mongering doesn’t seem to be all that realistic. The dude with all the minor convictions? He can legally drive a car. Buy Gasoline. Watch children in daycares or schools. Drive a public transit vehicle. Drive a heavy truck on the highway….hauling hazardous waste. This guy could be standing behind you in the elevator or in the parking garage. If he’s such a danger why would you let him walk free? If he’s not such a danger, what harm with letting him carry his gun be?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to “May Issue” is “Won’t Issue”

  1. ZerCool says:

    That first example, by the by, says “arrested for”, not “convicted of”.

    What a bitch semantics are.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Oh FUCK, see this is a badly written article. I read it three times (granted with only two cups of tea in me) and each time it read differently.

      Hell on that I’ve been ARRESTED for a criminal offense. It was a paperwork SNAFU and everything was dropped, no harm no foul.

      Doesn’t stop the the vast majority of the United Sates saying I’m fine to pack heat when I’m there, and the BATFE says its fine for people to ship old guns to my front door.

      Thanks for the Catch!

      • ZerCool says:

        Poorly written doesn’t begin to cover it. It’s slanted and questionable at best.

        I’m very much of two minds about this – if he was not convicted of those crimes, he’s not a criminal. Period. And as such, he should never have to worry about his rights being stepped on.

        That said – you don’t get arrested for that litany of charges over that kind of time span without being a dirtbag.

        But dirtbags have rights too.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          I agree, generally if you have an extensive arrest record, even without serious convictions it means you likely run with a bad crowd and make some bad choices.

          But it could be that, or it could be a PD with a bone to pick. Certainly in Small-town Maine you’d hear about the guy who broke up with the Police Chief or Captain’s daughter, suddenly finds himself getting pulled over for one chicken-shit traffic offense after another.

          I’m sure we all know polite professional people who might keep a bit of recreational marijuanna or other controlled substance as opposed to our evening beer or bottle. Everybody pushes the speed limit. Maybe somebody who might zap a coyote to protect their family and property despite a “No discharge of firearms” rules, or people who might cross state lines to get fireworks or dodge sales tax.

          There are all sorts of chicken-shit “Crimes” people do who never get bothered because overall police aren’t going to go out of their way to shake down somebody who isn’t rocking the boat. Suddenly add a small town and a grudge and one person can accumulate a LOT of records, tho maybe next to NO convictions.

          Oh and yeah its a biased piece, I grabbed it off the VPC twitter feed! What do you expect?

    • Jake says:

      That first example, by the by, says “arrested for”, not “convicted of”.

      That just means this Sheriff’s attitude is even worse than Weer’d originally thought.

      Arrested and then the charges were dropped because the cop realizes he got the wrong person? No rights for you!

      Victim of identity theft that results in you being arrested? No rights for you!

      “May issue” is “No issue” indeed. You also end up with situations like what happened in Kalifornia, where the new sheriff decided to revoke most of the CCW permits her predecessor had issued simply because she didn’t like how many permits he had approved. People lost their carry rights not because of their own actions, but simply at the whim of a politician.

      I’ll go further. “May issue” is unconstitutional. Period.

  2. Jennifer says:

    I was going to mention the whole arrested does not equal conviction thing, but I see that has been covered.
    Wrong place plus wrong time equals no rights? BS. All that example tells me is that guy should probably find a new social circle if he keeps getting arrested for that kind of thing. Either that, or it’s a big fail on the sheriff’s part that he hasn’t been able to gather enough evidence to make the charges stick. If dude really is a bad guy, catch him and charge him with something that will stick. Don’t bitch about him having rights if you haven’t been doing your job.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      In the end they want EVERYBODY to have no rights (and of course a ruling class that DOES have rights) but for the time being they’ll start with “Undesirables” by labeling innocent people as “Criminals” or “Terrorists” and depriving THEM of rights!

  3. Jack says:

    Just like those that want to close the “Terrorist Loophole”

    On a secret government watch list (of suspected people or even with a similar name)? No rights for you!

    Well, once you start embracing “holistic” government things like rights and due process become speed-bumps on the road towards the greater good.

  4. Reputo says:

    Johnson County is just south of me (Home of University of Iowa). The entire county government and most all of the city governments down there are certifiable anti-gun bigots. Several municipalities passed legislation to ban firearms on county/city property, including buses after shall issue passed.

    The DA in my county was smart enough to realize that this is a losing proposition with state pre-emption laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *