The Socialistic Nine


tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a thread on America's most gun friendly states. Today, I decided that I wanted to post a thread on America's most gun unfriendly places. A wide variety of factors went into my choices for the list, not just whether or not a state has concealed carry laws(which is why you will not see Wisconsin on this list; at least Wisconsin allows open carry and is hunter friendly).

9. Rhode Island: May issue, and requires handgun buyers to have safety training before they can obtain a purchase permit. Statutorally, the state is shall issue, but many sheriffs nevertheless refuse to issue permits to applicants who meet all the criteria set forth in the law.

8. Maryland: Not as bad as some of the other states on this list, but nevertheless, assault weapons and magazines holding more than fifteen rounds are banned. Also, the state is may issue and clearly is arbitrary and capricious with regard to the issuance of carry permits.

7. Illinois: In Illinois, one must obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card before being able to purchase a firearm or ammunition. Not only are Illinois residents not allowed to carry handguns outside their homes or businesses, but in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago, all firearm ownership (yes both handguns and long guns) is banned. Chicago, Evanston, Oak Park, Winnetka, Wilmette, Highland Park, and Morton Grove all ban handguns. It is so bad that back in 2004, Wilmette resident Hale DeMar, after shooting a man who broke into his home with his handgun, was fined $750 and had his handgun confiscated for violating the village ordinance against handgun possession. As if that weren't enough, the sheeple of Chicago, despite paying the highest sales taxes in the country (11%), keep electing Mayor Richard Daley, who, with the help of Cook County Board President Todd Stroger not only taxes Chicagoans to death, but also who, on more than one occasion, has stated his desire to have guns banned for everyone except for military and law enforcement personnel. He also tried unsuccessfully, at taxpayers' expense, to establish a 100-mile gun free zone around Chicago, which would have encompassed parts of Indiana and Wisconsin as well. As if all this weren't enough, Gov. Rod Blagojevich just signed a bill requiring private collectors to conduct background checks on buyers at gun shows. At least Illinois gun owners outside of Cook County can take some comfort in knowing that they don't have to register their guns with the state. At least they can always move to either Indiana or Missouri.

6. Massachussetts: What else is there to say about a state where the people keep electing John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to represent them? No one can purchase a firearm of any kind unless they first obtain permission from Massa(chussetts) in the form of a permit obtained by filling out a mountain of paperwork. Assault weapons are banned and only after filling out the paperwork for a class A license is anyone allowed to possess handguns or large capacity magazines. It is so bad that Glocks are not on the list of handguns approved to be sold there; Glock has had to produce "Massachussetts compliant" guns in order to do business in this god awful people's republic. If all this makes your head spin, move to either New Hampshire or Vermont.

5. New York: Much like Chicago in Illinois, having New York City, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton makes the rest of New York look worse than it really is. Depending on the county in which one resides it can be either very easy or nearly impossible to obtain a carry permit. However, no matter where one lives in New York, they must obtain a permit to purchase a handgun, which can take up to six months to acquire. And, if you have a LTC, you better make sure that the gun or guns you choose to carry are guns that you have registered with the state in your name, because if they're not, you'll be charged with illegal possession of a firearm. Don't even think about applying for a permit in NYC unless you are rich and politically connected because you WILL be rejected for insufficient need. It is so bad that the NYPD has refused to issue to applicants who they were supposed to issue licenses to by court order. At least Pennsylvania and Vermont are nearby.

4. California: Al Doyle said it best: No list of anti-Second Amendment places would be complete without this cancer on the body of liberty. Besides being required to register handguns and assault weapons with the state, freedom loving Californians cannot possess ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds, can only purchase guns approved by the state as "safe," and have the misfortune of having Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as their U.S. senators. Furthermore, despite the failures of handgun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., San Francisco's voters approved a ban on handguns in 2005; fortunately common sense prevailed at the state Supreme Court and the ban was overturned in 2006. Other measures that have been proposed include a bill that would require all ammunition sold in the state to have serial numbers stamped on the shell casings; anyone found to be in possession of ammunition that did not have the markings would have been prosecuted. Another would have required all handguns sold in the state to stamp a serial number onto shell casings as bullets are fired; any handgun that did not have the serial number stamper would be considered "unsafe" and thus, illegal. Finally, .50 caliber rifles are banned, thanks to governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, ironically, became famous while starring in shoot em up movies. Freedom loving Californians would rid themselves of a major headache by packing up and moving to either Arizona or Nevada, both of which are nearby.

3. Hawaii: Despite being classified as a may issue state, Hawaii is a de facto no issue state (in fact, only one person, a police department civilian worker, is known to have ever received one). All handguns must be registered, and assault weapons and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are banned. Furthermore, a permit must be acquired in order to purchase a handgun, and only after the permittee has undergone safety training. Firearms can only be carried in one's vehicle between the following points: one's home, a gun store from where a firearm is purchased, a gun range, moving to another residence, and a gun repair shop. Furhermore, only the most direct route between the points can be taken. If you want warm weather, while at the same time keeping your freedom, move to either Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, or Florida.

2. New Jersey: Even though New Jersey is classified as a may issue state, in reality, if you are not a retired police officer, it is a de facto no issue state (Nearly all of the 3,000 or so active handgun carry permits in the state, which has a population of over 8 million, are held by retired police officers). Furthermore, assault weapons and magazines capable of of holding more than fifteen rounds are banned. Class III and NFA weapons are virtually impossible to acquire unless the purchaser is wealthy or politically connected. Not only must handguns be registered, but they cannot even be purchased unless the purchaser has first gone to the police station to obtain a handgun purchase permit. Also, anyone who is going to or from a shooting range can only keep their guns unloaded and separated from the ammunition in the trunks of their vehicles, and is only allowed to take the most direct route between the two places; miscellaneous stops, such as to a restaurant, are forbidden and can get you in trouble (therefore, riding around with an unloaded and inaccessible handgun in the trunk while stopping to get something to eat will land you in a heap of trouble). Finally, even though nothing prohibits the possession of hollow point ammunition, the use of it by anyone besides police officers is prohibited. For freedom lovers, at least Pennsylvania is nearby.

1. Washington, D.C.: D.C. is the only one on this list that is not a state, but D.C. has America's worst gun laws by far. Handgun ownership is banned there (Try telling that to the gangbangers who own and carry them). Not only that, but shotguns and rifles must be registered and stored in the home unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock. Ammunition sales are only allowed if the buyer is able to present a registration certificate as proof of ownership for a weapon of the same caliber; therefore if you want to buy 12 gauge shotgun ammo, but are not the registered owner of a 12 gauge weapon, then guess what; you cannot buy the ammo. Also, ammo must be registered; possession of unregistered ammunition in D.C. is a crime punishable by jail time. You can forget about Class III and NFA weapons here; not only are those illegal, but so too are "machine guns" (defined under D.C. code as any gun that can shoot 12 rounds or more without reloading) and "sawed-off" shotguns (defined under D.C. code as any shotgun with a barrel under 20 inches in length). Finally, even pepper spray, which was only legalized a few years ago, must be registered there. For freedom lovers, thank goodness Virginia is nearby.
 

Last edited:

Hoplites1234

New member
Californicators to Nevada?

Hey Tattedupboy don't be telling them there Californicators to move to Nevada to enjoy the 2nd amendment. They need to fix their own state not come running here--they need to throw Boxer and Feinstein out on their liberal arsses and take Pelosi with 'em.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
What about Wisconsin. They don't allow carry at all do they?


Unlike most of the socialistic nine, Wisconsin does not require a permit to purchase, and neither does it require registration. Furthermore, none of the states on the list are open carry friendly; Wisconsin is (remember, only concealed carry is illegal in Wisconsin; open carry is not.). Finally, none of the states on the list are as hunter friendly as Wisconsin is.
 

spc

Member
One correction for California.

Possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds in not illegal. I have many for my AR-15, FN FAL, S&W 5906 and more. These magazines were grandfathered in along with my 'assault weapons' years ago.

It is illegal to aquire or import magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds now though.

spc :rolleyes:
 

rabywk

New member
I really think that Illinois should be moved higher on the list. I have to write a couple of emails a week becasue all of the new BS laws they try to get passed in regards to banning this. It is a tiresome effort for those who live here.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
One correction for California.

Possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds in not illegal. I have many for my AR-15, FN FAL, S&W 5906 and more. These magazines were grandfathered in along with my 'assault weapons' years ago.

It is illegal to aquire or import magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds now though.

spc :rolleyes:


Technically, the same goes for handguns in D.C. and Chicago. People who owned handguns that were already registered at the time the handgun bans were enacted in those cities are not subject to the ban. However, what good does that do for people who move there or were born after the ban took effect? Same for your magazines; there is a de facto ban on them for people who did not own them before the ban was enacted.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
I can vouch for New Jersey. For all practical purposes NJ is a NON-issue State. Interestingly, there's an article in the paper today (or you can see in on NJ.com) that laments people leaving this State in droves and taking their taxable incomes with them. New Jersey is deflating like a cheap balloon, and there are myriad postings from citizens trying to explain why, which follow the article. Of course, that only addresses that part of the population that can be traced . . . no mention of the enormous influx of untraceable folk.
 

spc

Member
Technically, the same goes for handguns in D.C. and Chicago. People who owned handguns that were already registered at the time the handgun bans were enacted in those cities are not subject to the ban. However, what good does that do for people who move there or were born after the ban took effect? Same for your magazines; there is a de facto ban on them for people who did not own them before the ban was enacted.

Oh, I know it is a technicality, but I just wanted everyone to know my 'full capacity magazines' were legal in california as I do not want folks thinking I am braking the law. I have 'full capacity mags' for my S&W 5906, AR 15 Bushmaster and FN FAL by DSA.

It is a shame that we have to be so aware of the laws from state to state to be on the up and up. Notice they are 'full capacity magazines' not high capacity magazines. For carry for me it really doesn't matter as I am allowed only 2 firearms on my permit and they are : SA Micro-compact and Kimber Ultra CDP II, so 7+1 is all I get.

spc
 

SnowCajun

New member
I've had my CPL in Washington state for about eight years or more now, I just got it renewed the first time awhile back. I'm proud that my record is clean and that I'm allowed to have this license, yet I feel that it was way too easy to get. I feel that with this license should come responsibility, it's should almost be like a pledge to each and every other license holder assuring them that you have the sensibility to properly and safely use your weapon and won't mar the system that they've bought into that allows them to carry also. I want to be able to trust each and every concealed license holder believing that that they won't go off and accidently shoot their child or family member, or even me, because they've never been properly trained on how to handle their weapon! Unfortunatly Washington state doesn't seem to care if you know or not, and that bothers me to be honest! I'm pleased I was able to get my license, I've handled guns all my life, yet I'm not totally pleased with the system handing out licenses to people they have no clue about their experience with their weapons.

I don't think it's right to just hand out licenses without knowing if someone has sense enough to handle a weapon or not, or has even ever fired one in the first place, yet that's exactly what happens here. You go in and fill out the paperwork, they fingerprint you, do an FBI background check while you wait 15 minutes and bingo, if you're clear you get handed the license without them even having the slightest clue if you know how to even load your weapon or not. I don't like that part of it.

I feel that at least while getting your license you should be made to demonstrate to someone there at the police station that you are at least familiar enough with your weapon to handle it properly and safely. Is that an unreasonable thought? Why is the law so slack in this here?

SnowCajun
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Why is the law so slack in this here?
The "Law" you refer to here is the 2nd Amendment. I subscribe to the Ted Nugent school of thought: The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit...no other authorization is necessary.

The Truth is that some folks shouldn't be carrying guns. Some people should also not be driving, or writing their volatile opinions for others to read. Some people shouldn't be procreating! But who's to decide that? There's no "Right" to drive, but...despite the fact that they're hard to conceal, registered with the State, easy to trace and require a test to operate legally...cars are use in the commission of virtually every crime that's committed. And inept drivers cause accidents, some fatal, every day of the year. What good are those controls, which are even harsher than those you recommend for firearms?

Sorry...Vermont and Alaska have it right, and it should be the law of the land. (It is, actually, but no politician seems to have the cojones to stand up and make it reality!)
 

SnowCajun

New member
Huh?

The "Law" you refer to here is the 2nd Amendment. I subscribe to the Ted Nugent school of thought: The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit...no other authorization is necessary.
Good deal, you just go right on ahead and run with that theory, I hope you can afford a good lawyer to keep getting you out of jail for carrying a weapon without a permit! Well I guess we only have to worry about that happening three times, that three strike law may bite ya in the backside eventually. Surely you don't expect us to believe that you carry with no license because of Ted Nugent and his view of the 2nd Amendment? I think we all know better! Why spout off this way, that's what I don't get? That's like shaking metal rod up towards the sky in the middle of a lightning storm and daring God to nail ya.

The Truth is that some folks shouldn't be carrying guns. Some people should also not be driving, or writing their volatile opinions for others to read. Some people shouldn't be procreating! But who's to decide that? There's no "Right" to drive, but...despite the fact that they're hard to conceal, registered with the State, easy to trace and require a test to operate legally...cars are use in the commission of virtually every crime that's committed. And inept drivers cause accidents, some fatal, every day of the year. What good are those controls, which are even harsher than those you recommend for firearms?
True there are a lot of people doing a lot of things they shouldn't be doing, idiots who continue to drive without licenses after getting numerous DUI's .. or people who have just gotten too old to safely control their vehicles any longer, but that's why there has to be licenses and laws, it's the only way the government has of controlling people who abuse these issues and endanger innocent peoples lives. When they break those laws then they get put away where they won't keep endangering the rest of society over and over again. Would you want the 95 year old man down the street who is nearly blind driving his Cadillac down the road past your house several times a day while your kids play on the sidewalk just because he has a right to, or do you think there should be some kind of control over him to keep him from endangering your kids and the rest of society?

Are you suggesting that Ted Nugent feels it's okay for everyone to be carrying concealed no matter who they are, gang members or not, or does he really feel that there should be some bit of regulation to prevent those who continually are breaking the law from carrying? These are the very people making it so hard on the truly honest folks now. There's too many gang shootouts, the drive-by shootings, or school shootings. Proper licensing is helping to remove illegal guns from those who shouldn't have them. True they'll probably never be able to get them all because there's so many, and criminals will always either steal one or buy one somehow, yet the licenses assure us that when found with one and you don't have the proper licensing to be carrying it then that gun is likely going to be history and gone from the population! I believe that any time a gun is removed from the hands of a gang member, or anyone else carrying it illegally, it's a good thing, that it's better for each and every one of us who do honor and obey the rights we have in accordance to our licenses.

As for cars since you mentioned them, there has to be some sort of assurance that drivers can pass the set requirements and guidelines which show they have the ability to continue to operate their 3000 lb vehicle and speeds up to 75 mph in a safe manner for another couple of more years, that makes it safer for all of us. It's just this simple, it's a checks and balances system, if they go to renew their license and find there's been violations of the laws then they lose their privilege to drive, and that is supposed to help in protecting the rest of us out there on the roads. Does it always work? Of course not, but that's why the laws are there, so when it doesn't work they lock the people away to prevent them from further dangering society again in the future. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world!

You speak of the Law as if it were written for today, yet this law you so boldly quote was actually written 220 years ago, a time when the 1790 Census showed there to be 3.9 million people in the entire USA, there's that many in the Houston, Texas area alone today, and that's a good bit short of the nearly 400 million people in the USA today! To be honest I can hardly imagine that our founding fathers would have expected there to be this many people here now.

I'm not saying the law is not good and not just, but it shouldn't be used as a blanket set of rights to allow just any law violaters to carry concealed. Do you honestly want just every Tom, Dick, and Harry carrying without any verification to see if they're dangerous, if they've had mental issues, or if they're prior criminals? All things have to change and there have to be ways of keeping people who absolutely shouldn't be walking around with firearms from having them. For the life of me I can't see how you could possibly not agree with that!

I'm all for the Concealed Carry laws and was just voicing my feelings about my own state and what I felt they were not being totally safe in doing, what's wrong with being safe? I think above and beyond all things said above, just the fact that we're allowed to have this license and carry concealed should be a sign to all the other people who really don't like this law that we know what we're doing and know how to safely carry and use our weapons we have. Simple safety checks instead of just handing out licenses haphazardly and not knowing one way or the other if the person they just gave the license to even has a clue how to load the very weapon they just gave them the license to carry concealed would be a step in the right direction.

SnowCajun
 
Last edited:

Sgt. SIG

New member
Hey Tattedupboy don't be telling them there Californicators to move to Nevada to enjoy the 2nd amendment. They need to fix their own state not come running here--they need to throw Boxer and Feinstein out on their liberal arsses and take Pelosi with 'em.

+1 Hop! :D
 

windfinder

New member
I don't think it's right to just hand out licenses without knowing if someone has sense enough to handle a weapon or not, or has even ever fired one in the first place, yet that's exactly what happens here. You go in and fill out the paperwork, they fingerprint you, do an FBI background check while you wait 15 minutes and bingo, if you're clear you get handed the license without them even having the slightest clue if you know how to even load your weapon or not. I don't like that part of it.

I feel that at least while getting your license you should be made to demonstrate to someone there at the police station that you are at least familiar enough with your weapon to handle it properly and safely. Is that an unreasonable thought? Why is the law so slack in this here?

SnowCajun

I too believe the Ted Nugent School of Thought. The Second Amendment should be my CCW. However, the law of the State of Kansas says I must have a permit to carry. I have one. Remember, we are all law abiding citizens here and I doubt that the other guy was actually proposing we carry illegally. If you aren't happy with the way your state gives out licenses, work to change the law. Personnally, I believe that we shouldn't have to jump through as many hoops as we have to. But that is the way some states have written their laws, and we do it.
 

SnowCajun

New member
I too believe the Ted Nugent School of Thought. The Second Amendment should be my CCW. However, the law of the State of Kansas says I must have a permit to carry. I have one.
The Ted Nugent theory would be acceptable to me if it weren't for a couple of small facts! First off this isn't 1787 anymore and not every single household in the country has guns hanging over their fireplaces that all of their children have been taught to handle to both put food on the table and protect themselves from the Indians they've pushed off their homelands when they decided to settle just wherever they wanted! :)

If you aren't happy with the way your state gives out licenses, work to change the law.
I am, did I give you the impression I wasn't? Never the less it's not in effort to bring forth more regulations for people to struggle through, I just want it to be more like a guarantee to those who already oppose these rights we enjoy that the person being issued this license has enough sense to handle his loaded weapon safely, that's all. Wouldn't you want the person carrying concealed next to your child in the grocery store line to be absolutely knowledgable and safe with the weapon he's carrying around so close to them? Just because Ted Nugent thinks this guy should have it doesn't mean he automatically knows how to handle it.

Personnally, I believe that we shouldn't have to jump through as many hoops as we have to. But that is the way some states have written their laws, and we do it.
First off I take these forums as a source of learning, and by debating the issues we learn how others think. I'm not angry or arguing about your views, I'm just trying to learn how you think and why you think different is all. I clearly see you feel that the Second Amendment should be all you need, no discussion period, it's just that cut and dry! Right?

Where you seem to find it to be an inconvenience to "jump through as many hoops as we have to" as you say, I honestly find it to be an acceptable inconvenience to endure because I feel the end result of my efforts are worth this special priviledge I'm allowed, that my country or state thinks I'm safe enough to be allowed to do this.

Remember, we are all law abiding citizens here and I doubt that the other guy was actually proposing we carry illegally.
I don't think the other guy was proposing that either, but I said it that way trying to make a point. On top of that I don't buy it that "we're all law abiding citizens here" either. There have been times in my past that I've not been, I'm not perfect, and I'm sure you aren't either. I've carried many years ago without a license because I was a truck driver working in some of the worst areas that Houston, Tx had to offer, areas where I had to go to numerous mini warehouses in bad areas alone at night, park my 18 wheeler, get out and walk up to the buildings in the dark and unlock the doors, and go in alone to find the lights so I could see to back my truck in, and unload my load all alone. I know of two times right off hand thinking back twenty years that had I not been armed I'd have been in serious trouble, that having my weapon probably either saved my life or saved me from serious injury.

I also remember one other time a police officer somehow squeezed past the rubber bumper between my truck and the loading door and walked up behind me totally unheard and when he spoke I spun around and drew down on him with a 1911 from a shoulder holster. You want to know what he did about me carrying illegally? He apologized to me because he knew he wasn't supposed to have been in that building. I worked for a Newspaper company and he was after a free morning newspaper which we always gave them, but they'd always hollered from the loading door and never come in the building before! There were darned well no concealed carry licenses back then I guarantee you, yet he understood the areas and times we had to work, still he could have arrested me, but they pretty well knew us all and fortunately realized the places we had to work in! You can't toss out a blanket statements saying, "we are all law abiding citizens here" because life is life and sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

If you use this blanket statement theory of Ted Nugents saying the, "Second Amendment should be my CCW", then I say it's your right to have your opinion, but as far as my own beliefs and opinion goes, it's just a fact unfortunately that there are people out there that in no form or fashion should be allowed to carry a weapon period, and that's what the law is trying to prevent even if it inconveniences you a little or not.

It's just not an equal world out there. Do you think the Virginia Tech shooter should have had that same right Ted Nugent proclaims? Well we know he shouldn't have because of his documented mental issues, yet even the laws let him slip through. Mistakes will always be made, that's just human nature unfortunately, but hopefully each time an error in the system is found it'll lead to a more exact system that will turn out in the end to be right for everyone and make things safer for all, even to the point the anti gun advocates might see that also.

SnowCajun

PS: Sorry about the books, I have trouble condensing! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

kwo51

New member
Look at at the stats of legal ccw people in bad shooting. It is your responsablility as a person to have self government. How many bad shootings have occured since ccw arrived.
 

HK4U

New member
2nd Amendment

The "Law" you refer to here is the 2nd Amendment. I subscribe to the Ted Nugent school of thought: The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit...no other authorization is necessary.

The Truth is that some folks shouldn't be carrying guns. Some people should also not be driving, or writing their volatile opinions for others to read. Some people shouldn't be procreating! But who's to decide that? There's no "Right" to drive, but...despite the fact that they're hard to conceal, registered with the State, easy to trace and require a test to operate legally...cars are use in the commission of virtually every crime that's committed. And inept drivers cause accidents, some fatal, every day of the year. What good are those controls, which are even harsher than those you recommend for firearms?

Sorry...Vermont and Alaska have it right, and it should be the law of the land. (It is, actually, but no politician seems to have the cojones to stand up and make it reality!)



I totally agree with you. The 2nd amendment is and should be our licence to carry. The unfortunate problem is that we have been brain washed for so long by liberal polititions and a liberal press that most Americans do not no or understand the constitutioin. The left has been chipping away at the constitution for years so that it now lies in the Smithsonian on life support systems near death.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,607
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top