Moderators: Apophis, San Andreas Network Mods, Lead Admins
- Game Admin
- Posts: 8058
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:28 pm
- Ingame name: popposito x dai lo
ARTICLES — EMPLOYMENT — REAL ESTATE — JOBS — VEHICLES — WEEKLY CIRCULARS — GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS — PLACE AD
Are PF license regulations unreasonable?
By Enzo Nota | June 31st, 2018.
The Purchase Firearm license, ran by the LSPD, is one of the most sought after applications in the state. Naturally, because of the side effect of you gaining access to firearms from a successful application - the LSPD has attempted to make the application stringent to ensure they are in compliance with local and state standards. But recently activists raise the question - are all their criteria in accordance to state law? Are their expectations unreasonable, and do they endanger anyone?
One of the most controversial provisions of the LSPD's "criteria" (a sort of pseudo-law, something that you must obey or be arrested without being written by any elected official) is a clause in section 2.3 - "Must not remove the firearm from its locked container when transporting the firearm to a property, even if self defense is required". As a para-legal reading this, this does not look enforceable. A reasonable interpretation of this is if your life is being threatened, you can not defend yourself. This is something that the LSPD's firearms licensing division may revoke your license for, but duress protects someone from prosecution.
This is just one of the many potentially problematic provisions in the licensing criteria. Should the LSPD be able to create rules that every citizen who wishes to own a firearm must follow, even if they don't go through the senate or governor? Comment down below what you think of these rules.
Code: Select all
[b]COMMENT by[/b] [Insert Username]
[b]Email:[/b] [Insert E-mail]
[b]Comment:[/b] [Insert Comment]
apophis x plastic x junipero x dogs x leispang x gwb x kirby x zulu x oliver x retina x limpone x sao x bd x redboy x lunar x loud pack x mrm x m1
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 1567
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:24 pm
- Location: Hungary
sd should loan their paralegals to pd
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:53 pm
- Ingame name: Jennifer Wells
- Location: Inside your closet
I think the said rule is just. Otherwise the system would be open to abuse. If one wants to be able to use their firearm outside of their business or property, they should apply for a CCW.
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:34 pm
- Ingame name: Derrick_Kwon
ur suggestion is dumb LMAO, clearly you don't know shit for being a terminated cop and being a FLD supervisor, i guess thats y u were terminated LOL
- Posts: 2812
- Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:56 am
- Location: キッスランド
yes lemme just get popped in my face and not defend myself with the pf gun i specifically purchased for an incident like this
if it aint XO then it gotta go
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 3204
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:38 am
COMMENT by Shiimy Aoleriona
Comment: only cops should have guns
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:20 am
- Ingame name: Carry Saunders
It's a joke - you'd think after the government going down like what four times the past two years they'd finally set the regulations to allow private enterprises to actually protect themselves from all the rifles on the street, but no!
Every ganger has their kalashnikov under the bed and the legal economy fights back with handfirearms, that is the real problem here. Our local gun regulation is a joke- the state fails to control illegal gun shipping and trafficing and thus focuses to bully what they can cover- legal firearm holders who cause barely a danger to anyone, and in most cases have to protect businesses who regularly get attacked with heavy arms.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users