On the other hand, maybe people who don't have a criminal background and haven't been institutionalized but are absolutely loony tunes shouldn't really have a gun. And maybe a face to face discussion with the authority responsible for issuing the permit would ferret that out.
And who gets to make that decision? Because if it were me YOU fit that description and I would not give you a permit and would confiscate your current one.
There has to be some balance doesn't there?
And there is, but denying a right without due process and based upon one persons unprofessional medical opinion is asinine.
I carry and want to always be able to (I'm a liberal, I live in Kalifornia and I got a permit).
Well with all due respect NO FING $$$$HIT you are a liberal, the I got mine who cares about you attitude coupled with the I am the only one privileged to exercise my rights thinking gave it away.
But I don't mind if there are some limitations and controls in place to disallow freaks (like Jared Loughner who shot and killed people in Tucson for no good reason) from legally owning a firearm.
Again there are limitations, but the only constitutional ones have the little element of due process. Giving a Chief of police who has no medical degree will not be able to diagnose that Loughner or anyone like him was going to commit the crime he did. All it does is introduce the Chiefs ability to limit that right to people that are in his inner circle. But then again you are ok with that because you are liberal and in his inner circle.
Of course I realize there are many ways to illegally obtain a firearm. But this is my problem with having a one-sided view of things.
WOW you have a problem with "one-sided view of things" but a Chief denying a right to a citizen with no proof, accountability, or due process is not one-sided? But its ok because you got your permit.
Then there's the issue of the Constitution and states rights.
There's no issue here - one (Constitution) is law of the land and the other (states rights) is a myth made up by communist to try and deny rights to citizens saying the the rights actually belong to the state.
Massachusetts is simply exercising its Constitutional right to do things the way it wants to. (Of course different rules in different states makes traveling and carrying very complicated).
Please show me where in the constitution it says Massachusetts has the right to do what it wants regardless of citizen rights. The state doesn't have rights it has limited powers and people have rights to protect them from the States against overreach of those powers.
I guess I just don't get inflamed like you do that there are some steps you have to go through to get the permit to carry a weapon.
Because you have yours, I bet anything if you were denied you wouldn't be saying any of this crap. I bet you feel powerful when you walk around armed knowing that you are one of the chosen few who get to exercise that right.
Now that is all