[GAGunOwner]

It seems that sometimes bad guys do get issued pistol permits.

I hope that "Alice" doesn't read this post. :shattered:

I was reading through Hitler The Pictorial Documentary of His Life by John Toland and it has a photo of Hitler's pistol permit that was issued by the Bavarian Police on November 26, 1921. It's the 50th photo.

It even has his picture on it. It seems that Bavaria's pistol permit of 1921 is more high-tech than Georgia's GWL in 2010. :?

 

[GAGunOwner]

1921 was before he went to prison after The Beer Hall Putsch of 1923.

He was sentenced to 5 years for treason, but only did a year.

Think his permit was revoked?

 

[JDcollins78]

A GWL is no more an indication that a person will handle a firearm responsibly than a driver's license means you are a safe driver. Yet another reason, in my opinion, to do away with permits/licensing altogether. It opens the door for more infringements and regulations, all supposedly in the interest of "public safety".

 

[GAGunOwner]

This, however, was not the first time Hitler had been in trouble with the law. In an incident in September 1921, he and some SA had disrupted a meeting of the Bayernbund, and the Nazis who had gone there to cause trouble were arrested as a result. Hitler had ended up serving a little over a month of a three-month jail sentence. Presiding Judge Georg Neithardt was judge in both Hitler cases.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

Hitler's permit was issued Nov. 26, 1921. It appears that it got issued right after he got out of jail for the above.

 

[vanguard]

A GWL is no more an indication that a person will handle a firearm responsibly than a driver's license means you are a safe driver. Yet another reason, in my opinion, to do away with permits/licensing altogether. It opens the door for more infringements and regulations, all supposedly in the interest of "public safety".

um. i disagree if that is ok :? if i had a felony i would not have one. i have done some bad things in my life, but i have never hurt anyone or had a felony charge.

 

[ChipM]

um. i disagree if that is ok :? if i had a felony i would not have one. i have done some bad things in my life, but i have never hurt anyone or had a felony charge.

I'm glad you support keeping guns out of the hands of such menaces to society as Martha Stewart, who is a convicted felon.

 

[vanguard]

um. i disagree if that is ok :? if i had a felony i would not have one. i have done some bad things in my life, but i have never hurt anyone or had a felony charge.

I'm glad you support keeping guns out of the hands of such menaces to society as Martha Stewart, who is a convicted felon.

ok i get your point on her it should only be on violent felonys.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

had a felony charge.

Copied a videotape? MP3 sharing? Possessed too-short lobster tails? Should all of these dangerous people be disarmed for life? Are you really going to fall for the government's characterization of these people as a public safety risk? Surely you have more discernment than that. If members of this web site fall for such propaganda, like the general populace does, then all hope is truly lost.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

ok i get your point on her it should only be on violent felonys.

did not read this before I posted, but I will leave my post anyway. Now, let's think of a situation, ok, how about you visit your relatives, and, in the middle of the night, shoot a ski-masked but otherwise naked intruder clutching a butcher knife whom you do not suspect is collecting for the Red Cross. When the police arrive, you discover that the state where your relatives live is a "retreat" state, and, quite obviously, you could have retreated out a back door that the officer points out.

You negotiate with the DA, and, after tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees, manage to avoid a murder conviction by pleaing to aggravated assault and doing three years on double secret probation.

It is a felony.

Should you be disarmed for life? After all, you are a violent felon, sir.

 

[JDcollins78]

ok i get your point on her it should only be on violent felonys.

did not read this before I posted, but I will leave my post anyway. Now, let's think of a situation, ok, how about you visit your relatives, and, in the middle of the night, shoot a ski-masked but otherwise naked intruder clutching a butcher knife whom you do not suspect is collecting for the Red Cross. When the police arrive, you discover that the state where your relatives live is a "retreat" state, and, quite obviously, you could have retreated out a back door that the officer points out.

You negotiate with the DA, and, after tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees, manage to avoid a murder conviction by pleaing to aggravated assault and doing three years on double secret probation.

It is a felony.

Should you be disarmed for life? After all, you are a violent felon, sir.

:righton: Well said. Let us not forget that truly "dangerous" or "violent" felons are not deterred by things such as the requirement of a GWL for firearm carry. So who are we really keeping from possessing a weapon?

 

[EJR914]

I didn't even have to get in on this one. Great job, MP and JD. Trying to change one mind at the time with logic and reason. I love it. :righton: