Edwin Leap, MD: I Own Guns and I’m a Doctor, Therefore I’m an Expert

courtesy GrabAGun

“I want to come to the table and make an offer, a suggestion, an olive branch. And I want to do it without being accused of heresy by fellow gun owners. Folks, I believe in our cause. Because I believe the founders understood the potential for tyranny in every age and the value of having the means to resist. The rest of the constitution ultimately depends on the Second Amendment, even though you may think that sounds extreme. Humans descend into totalitarianism with remarkable ease, no matter how nice we may seem for now.

“So here’s my suggestion.

“I have a concealed weapons permit. It took fingerprints, a fee, about 2 months of waiting for a background check and then a 4-hour class. I was cool with that. With that, in South Carolina and some other states with reciprocity, I can carry a firearm on my person in public.

“What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?” – Edwin Leap, M.D., I’m a Physician and a Gun Owner

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    So… the commies are on to bargaining.

    1. avatar Spit Monkey says:

      Hows about we takes that there olive branch and put our fingerprints on it as we shove it where only your proctologist can reach it?

      If you hate America so much, then go work for Doctors without boarder patrols.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      On the way to totally Constitutional laws, how about a compromise, if you hold a CCL you can purchase as many select fire weapons (long or short) as you wish and can afford? Otherwise, you are simply suggesting additional incremental restrictions/abrogated freedoms. A “compromise” gives me something “I” want, too. I can already buy all the semi rifles I want.

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        +1

        And surplus tanks and artillery.

      2. avatar Five says:

        Yup, that’s my take as-well!

        1. avatar arc says:

          SAMS and anti-drone platforms.

      3. avatar MeRp says:

        That is an acceptable compromise, at least if it comes with Federal pre-emption regarding those select fire guns. I could even do the “give” part of “give and take” compromise, and accept that you cannot buy (but can own) full auto w/o a conceal weapons license (from any state; that way people in HI, CA, NYC, etc can still gain access). See? Compromise; both sides give something!

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          A caveat- the carry permits MUST be issued on a SHALL issue basis, not “mother may I” basis.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Son; Nah, I don’t care if your state is constitutional carry, shall issue, may issue, whatever. If you can legally carry a handgun outside the home, you should also be able to own a select fire weapon. Including an assault rifle, if you wish. As I said, “on the way” to a constitutional system, which would have no licenses, no fingerprints, no training requirements, no notification to uncle sugar at all, and would include select fire, SBR, SBS, suppressors, all other weapons (still dunno what that is supposed to mean), not only reopen the registry of Class 3 weapons, but also burn it, all manner of good clean fun which no one ever presented any evidence would bother anyone, just a power grab.

    3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Isn’t it funny that without fail, all these “negotiations” and “compromises” that involve the Second Amendment, it’s ALWAYS the gun owners that give up something WITHOUT EVER GETTING ANYTHING IN RETURN? How about…NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH!!!

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Be thankful the anti gunners don’t want compromise. I could see some gun owners split up and being on board with a new “AWB” or mag size limits if the anti gun side offered up true national reciprocity.

        Of course that would still be just part of a longer term quest for total confiscation but it would be the kinder, gentler, more amicable road to serfdom.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          For me personally, I’m not interested in compromise, either. Just pointing out how disingenuous they are. I want to claw back every right surrendered or stolen since 1936.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The Second Amendment provides for true national reciprocity, without even requiring a license for it. If you bargain away ANTYHING in exchange for “true national reciprocity”, what you bargained away for it will be gone forever, but you will never see that reciprocity which is ALREADY guaranteed by the damn CONSTITUTION!!!

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Yes, and all the while they openly call each new gun law “a small step in the right direction.” The other side isn’t interested in olive branches, never have been.

      3. avatar Derringer Dave says:

        If you read the whole article, the doctor does propose a compromise where gun owners get something in return. Here’s what he says in the article:
        “So what would us “gun nuts” get out of the deal? National concealed carry permit with reciprocity. No more crossing state lines and being charged with a felony for what was acceptable 2 miles back.”

        That would be nice to get. The way it is now, if you’re a CCW holder driving across the country, and you’re about to cross a state line, first you have to know the CC laws of all 50-states, and then if you’re on a limited-access highway with no rest stop nearby, your choices are:
        a) Either pull off onto the shoulder and risk an accident while transferring your gun to your trunk, or
        b) Commit a crime merely by crossing the state line, just as surely as if you crossed the border from Mexico to the United States, except the penalties for law-abiding Americans crossing state lines with a gun are far more severe than being an illegal immigrant.
        In many states, such as New Jersey, crossing into NJ with a gun is an automatic felony, and the one and only way to get out of it is by a pardon from the governor. Governor Christie pardoned a handful of Pennsylvania gun owners who unknowingly committed a felony by crossing the NJ state line, but now we have the anti-gun extremist Governor Murphy. Good luck getting Governor Murphy to pardon you for crossing into New Jersey without the impossible-for-civilians-to-obtain NJ carry permit!

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          That *would* be nice to get. So long as it does not require training or fees or registration of anything, and includes select fire. If it only gives us what we already have, why are we sacrificing anything to get it? And, such a “compromise” should only be necessary if we have a Democrat controlled legislature, we elected the Republicans to deliver that without further sacrifices of our rights. We should never be afraid to break laws which are clearly unconstitutional.

      4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        TrueBornSonOfLiberty……..This Edwin to the other Edwin- The Constitution of the United States, Second Amendment does not mention a permission slip required to own/carry a firearm period. If going thru all this un necessary b s is ok with you to exercise a constitutional right then lets do the same permitting process to be able to vote. When the subject of voter I d comes up then the I D requirement is ” too onerous”. Can’t have it both ways.

    4. avatar Sheep Dog says:

      The Good doctor: (paraphrase) “I support the 2nd amendment because……. bla, bla, bla
      Tyranny, human nature, bla, bla, bla…………BuuuuuUUUUUUUUuuuuuut we should ask the governments permission, submit to waiting periods, finger prints, compulsory training,
      AND monetary fees to own firearms. Oh pweeeeze mystol tyrant kan I pweeze haz a gun?
      As soon as HE said “Milatary style assault rifle”. I said FUCK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. He says that rather than an AR-15, he owns a Mini-14, but claims that’s okay because the Mini-14 “doesn’t look as “angry” as the standard image of the semi-automatic weapons we see in news stories… It lives in a gun safe with many other happy, quiet firearms.”

        Okay, this doc thinks certain semi-auto guns should be banned because they’re “angry-looking”, while other semi-auto guns in the same caliber are okay because they’re “happy, quiet firearms”? What has this doctor been smoking? How can a gun be “angry” or “happy, quiet”? Doc sounds delusional.

        If you outfit your AR-15 with pink furniture, does that turn it from an “angry” gun to a “happy, quiet firearm”?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          ‘If you outfit your AR-15 with pink furniture, does that turn it from an “angry” gun to a “happy, quiet firearm”?’

          Well, it would certainly be gay.

  2. avatar Gman says:

    “I have a voting, writing, church going, redress of grievences permit. It took fingerprints, a fee, about 2 months of waiting for a background check and then a 4-hour class. I was cool with that. With that, in South Carolina and some other states with reciprocity, I can vote, publish writing, go to church, and redress government grievences.”

    What if all rights were treated like the 2nd?

    1. avatar Sal Chichon says:

      Let’s start treating the 19th like we do the 2nd, and see how quickly the libtards start squealing like the pigs they are.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      There is a problem with this argument.

      I am NOT in fear-for-my-life if – due to lack of proper training – you miss a bead on your Rosary prayers. Sicks-and-stones (to say nothing of hot-lead) will break my bones but words will never hurt me.

      Voters anxious about civilian gun carry will not be the least bit inclined to buy-into an equivalency in exercise of 2A rights with 1A rights.

      I hasten to add that I don’t entirely agree with these anxious voters. I see the equivalency argument as a matter of principle even though I distinguish the public safety risks of missing a Rosary bead, inflaming speech and a bad-shoot.

      I self-taught myself to use guns; and, didn’t have a negligent discharge for 50 years. (Since then, I’ve enjoyed the 100 hours of formal training I’ve racked-up.) Gradually, I’ve learned to temper my speech with little damage other than hurt feelings. I feel confident that I could learn the Rosary prayers if needs-be.

      The point here is that equating the 2A right with most of the other rights (especially 1A) is apt to be unpersuasive for most of our audience. We aren’t preaching to the choir; we are preaching to the unpersuaded. We need to tailor our arguments to the audience.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        While I agree with the problem, your solution is all wrong. Any voter who objects should be corralled and sent to a firearms training camp, to receive the education he should have gotten in middle school, and for the future, middle schools should be required to teach firearms rights and safety procedures, including requiring a passing grade before a teacher is hired. IOW, if ignorance is causing problems/stress, educate the ignorant instead of punishing the accomplished.

      2. avatar Gman says:

        There is a problem with this argument.
        The pen is mightier than the sword. More people have been killed over words and ideas than negligent discharges. By a factor of what? 100,000,000?

        1. avatar napresto says:

          I submit for consideration exhibit A: Karl Marx

      3. avatar Timothy says:

        Shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater can hurt or kill people. Yet we don’t muzzle you before you enter a theater. We don’t muzzle you when you leave your home. We don’t muzzle you when you cross state lines. In fact, we demand that you have the right to speak in case there actually IS a fire and your voice can save lives.

        A negligent discharge or an intentionally shooting can hurt or kill people. Therefore you have no right to carry anywhere if you live in Cali or New York, you have to pay for the privilege in many other places, and you lose your right when you cross state lines.

        Both things can harm or kill and both things can preserve. We should punish the use instead of stripping the right or charging for it. It’s always extremely disappointing to see so called people of the gun who cannot grasp the concept.

        1. avatar J_cobbers says:

          This is exactly the point, words have power they shape the actions of others as much if not more so than arms.

          Yelling “fire” in the crowded theater when there is not one and no actual danger is a breach of the limits on your 1st amendment rights because now you are putting other people in danger (panic and fear and maybe someone get hurt in the rush to leave). The limit on your rights is at the boundary of other people’s rights. With the 2A, when you are just carrying legally you aren’t breaching anyone else’s rights. But say, to borrow the prior example, if you were in that crowded theater and started shooting up in the air for no legal reason (but not at anyone) that’d be akin to shouting fire and causing a panic that could lead someone getting hurt.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      Humans descend into totalitarianism with remarkable ease, no matter how nice we may seem for now.

      So let’s give the government the power to decide who gets to exercise their human/civil rights and let’s require the people to pay. What could possibly go wrong with that?

      This “reciprocity” talk is pure manipulation of the desperate. It’s a tactic to get gun owners to accept registration, permission slips, payments to exercise your rights, increased federal control over the states, weakening of the 4th and 5th amendment, etc. They want you to be desperate enough to throw away the U.S. Constitution for “reciprocity.” It’s a false choice. It’s a trick.

      Just give us back our 2nd amendment, don”t hold it hostage and then try to get us to give you more hostages so you can dictate the outcome. Americans use to believe in not negotiating with terrorists.

    4. avatar Bear says:

      Gman: in another post you wrote: “Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.” In the second amendment, there is no mention of a limit to the type of weapons. The part that is important is: “The right of the PEOPLE (My emphasis) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  3. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    Or how about no waiting or fingerprinting or other infringements for a CCW permit? Or – sit down for this, it’s a bit radical – Constitutional carry for everyone?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      But our great elected officials and wonderful law enforcement officers have decided differently a long time ago. We must respect the laws our honorable leaders have created for us as we are a nation of law and order.

      Nobody is saying you can’t own a gun. Nobody is even saying you can’t carry a gun. All we’re saying is…

      If that ain’t true, it ain’t new.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Will there be abuse of process, such as Hawaii’s licensing scheme that requires a mandatory course which is so under funded it is cancelled many times more than it is run?

      Some of the things that happen in some US states make Australia’s firearms laws and processes look procedurally preferable, with the exception of Western Australia.

  4. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    You’re a gun owner and a doctor? Good for you, dear.

    Ever hear of a NICS background check?

    1. avatar Gman says:

      And what compelling governmental interest do NICS background checks serve? None. And is the burden the least method available? Nope. Funny how we got along just fine for over 200 years without them but now we all seem to think they are necessary and reasonable. 96%+ initial denials are false and reversed. That is a major burden upon the free exercise of a right. 15. The number of people brought to trial in 2016 for NICS violations. How many 10’s of thousands of individuals were falsely denied?

  5. avatar anarchyst says:

    “Semi-automatic, military-style rifles” are no different than your ordinary “wood and steel” hunting rifle. In fact, they are generally underpowered compared to a standard hunting rifle.
    For as much “education” as this “doctor” has, he seems to be pretty uninformed (and maybe stupid)…

    1. avatar Gman says:

      “military style rifles” are specifically protected. US v. Miller (1939).

      1. avatar SteamTroller45 says:

        Yeah, go back to the Wikipedia on that case. Literally nothing is protected by Miller, the case pretty much had no end. No resolution, no precedent. Miller would be really nice to hang on to, but legally it’s a bust.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Wikipedia is far left liberal BS, this would be the last subject I would trust them on.

        2. avatar Gman says:

          I beg to differ.
          Primary Holding

          Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Yes, you are correct for the most part. Nevertheless, I disagree about the reasoning in Miller.

          The implication of Miller’s reasoning is that a weapon that has a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” WOULD have a compelling claim to 2A protection as an “arm” contemplated by that amendment. What is faulty about this reasoning?

          Consider, for example, the weapon called a “garrote” (used to strangle a victim from behind). Suppose a Miller-II were convicted for possession of such a weapon and appealed to the 2A for relief.

          Under the Heller doctrine, self-defense or common-use would provide little comfort to his possession of a garrote. Under Miller doctrine, militia preservation or efficiency would provide little comfort.

          Conversely, suppose a Miller-III were convicted of possession of an AR-15 patterned rifle. Even if a court were to discount his claim of self-defense or common-use, it could not reasonably dismiss summarily the argument that an AR-15 bears a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Its functional handling is so very close to the standard issue M-4 and M-16 that his claim under Miller-I would be compelling.

          We should be very circumspect in discarding rationales for including weapons in 2A “arms”. Some of us foolishly claim that absolutely anything that could be a weapon must necessarily be a 2A “arm”. In so doing, they dilute the power of more serious reasoning. Why should we say that we defend the garrote with equal vigor as the AR-15? We wouldn’t pick-up any more supporters with such an argument but would more likely lose the support of some open-minded voters.

          I would argue that militia usage is entitled to the very highest level of respect and scrutiny; followed immediately by suitability for self-defense. To the degree that a weapon is in common-use, it enjoys additional respect. And, these should not be regarded as exhaustive.

          Theoretically, there may be a rare scenario where a militia-man or kidnapping victim might improvise a garrote for a legitimate purpose. Nevertheless, a highwayman with a garrote shouldn’t have the same rebuttable-presumption of Right-to-bear-Arms as he might to a revolver or AR-15.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Wikipedia is you reference for anything? Perhaps the NYTimes and Huffpo also? Learn to read and research.

        5. avatar pg2 says:

          Already been said but worth repeating…Wikipedia is a joke, a dangerous joke because some people actually believe it. what next, cite snopes?

        6. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Yup, there is an article in the Seattle Times today about how awesome Snopes and how they operate out of a 97 year old house and what a great fact-checker…yada yada ecterea ecetera. The Seattle Slimes shilling for a proven Progressive Left site…whodaknown?

      2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Between ignoring this as well as the overall intent of the 10th amendment I am eagerly awaiting a challenge to my state’s various laws

      3. avatar J_cobbers says:

        As a research tool for case law, I highly recommend google scholar. It provides the full case texts, without the editorial commentary of Wikipedia or other such sources. The only commentary you get is from what the justices in question wrote themselves.

        https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en-US

    2. avatar MeRp says:

      Unfortunately this is exactly why whomever created the abortion that is known as Washington state Initiative 1639 defined “semiautomatic assault rifle” as any semi-automatic rifle, down to, and including, an ar-7 survival rifle or a Ruger 10/22.

      Geez I hope that thing dies.

      Meanwhile, the process described in South Carolina for getting a conceal carry license is also ridiculous… he has to wait a month and, only after the wait take a class? Ugh.

      1. avatar Beerfarticus says:

        Don’t just hope, consider a donation. This campaign has been successful enough to elicit the wreath of Soros’ lawyers.

        https://www.gofundme.com/shall-not-be-infringed-stop-1639

  6. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Why in heck should we have a separate permit??
    Its bad enough our right is being taxed as is.
    This knucklehead want us to pay more for something they have no right to tax to begin with. Let alone issue a permit for!!!! Geeeesh say your sorry Edwin for being ignorant.

  7. avatar rc says:

    How about no? This is simply the ‘give us another slice of the tiny remnants of your cake’ ploy that the left is constantly pushing. I’ll meet you half-way here…how about constitutional carry?

  8. avatar retmsgt says:

    In South Carolina, where open carry is illegal, “it took fingerprints, a fee, about 2 months of waiting for a background check and then a 4-hour class”, just to get a license to carry concealed.

    In Pennsylvania, where open carry is not illegal, it takes a $20 fee, a one-page application, and 45 days at the most (usually way less), to get a license to carry (concealed, in a vehicle, during a state of emergency). No fingerprints, no classes.

    And our South Carolina doctor is happy with what little freedom he’s permitted.

    1. avatar Quasimofo says:

      I got my PA license same day. Biggest hassle was trying to find parking nearby. Still, it would be better to not have the process altogether.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        My PA license was originally issued in 14 minutes. (The girl was late for work that day.) Renewal (5 years later) took 45 minutes. What has happened to Myyyyy RIGHHHHHTS!?

        Oh well, I suppose I can put up with this imposition once every 5 years.

        Now, I’m thinking of my son. He got his permit; two years later he moved to a different county. He was very busy (medical school) and it took months before he could squeeze out the time to go to the Sheriff’s office and be re-issued a new permit corresponding to his new address.

        So, now he moved again (to do his residency). His hours are erratic; First shift for a few weeks, then Second shift for a few weeks then Third shift. Punctuated with shifts where he is on-duty for 25 hours. Six days a week. When is he supposed to go to the Sheriff’s office to be re-issued a permit? Now when his hours and commute are more dangerous than they were in school.

        Has anything changed about his qualifications to carry a gun – coincident with moving from one county to another? If his background check status changed the PA Medical Board would be far more interested than the Sheriff.

        I’m beginning to develop even more doubts about the net benefit/difficulties with even PA’s mild permitting scheme.

        1. avatar retmsgt says:

          In Pennsylvania the licenses are good until they expire. Move from one part of the Commonwealth to another? No license change required. There are no provisions in state law permitting a change of address on a firearms license – they are valid until they expire. You have to change your driver’s license, but not your firearms license – which is why it is not considered a valid state ID. Address on the firearms license DOES NOT have to match the address on the driver’s license.

          They are valid until they expire. That’s when you effect the address change, not before.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sarge, that would have the additional effect of making administration cheaper for the people of the state!

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      constitutional carry is now in effect in West Virginia…under consideration in Ohio…can PA be next?…based on recent events, I wouldn’t count on it!…

  9. avatar Arc says:

    In an attempt to summarize “governments will Eventually descend into tyranny. the 2nd amendment protects that. Let’s grant the government more power to restrict who can have guns.”

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      It should be rather obvious to the citizens of Oncegreat Britain that they really screwed up in not adopting our Constitution.

  10. avatar DJ says:

    Too late. Fuck you! We are WINNING! Here’s my suggestion…. Molon labe.

    Hey shithead why would I register something I don’t have???

  11. avatar Mike in Ohio says:

    Ohio is open carry. Remember all the bloodshed at the RNC in 2016? Because there wasn’t any. Americans were openly carrying loaded sporting rifles.

  12. avatar W says:

    Edwin, all rifles, including those deemed assault rifles, contribute to about 400 deaths per year in the United States. That’s barely over 1 per day. For reference, opioid overdose deaths run well over 100 per day, in this country. All firearms murders are over 30 per day.

    So, why the focus upon those firearms called assault rifles? They are, believe it or not, a very minor contributor to this society’s ills. Why not just speak the truth and use a little reason?

    I will note that as the opioid crisis spun out of control over the last 20 years, countless politicians, opinion writers, and others went on and on and on about firearms and assault rifles. They basically hogged all of the public debate space when the subject should have been something else. Now we’re over 100 overdose deaths a day on opioids alone.

    1. avatar DaveDetroit says:

      If we applied the same logic to opioids, which make life bearable for many people with chronic conditions, then these people could only receive their medication after a thorough background check, a significant wait time and having to pass an exam in their use. Even then, drugs might only be given to those whom a bureaucrat, who doesn’t even know the patient, might deem worthy- which would exclude many not politically connected, those who don’t live in the “right” area, or who are non-white. Any mistake, like an accidental overdose, would be a federal crime- which would also not allow the patient to ever legally use any medicines in the future. Great sections of the country would be denied life altering drugs for no reason at all. The amount of medication in a pill would be decreased so much that even if you could get a permit to take it, it would be largely ineffective.

      1. avatar JayInWisconsin says:

        Actually, as a 25 year chronic pain endurer, I go – monthly – through pretty much what you just described. I have to pay extra to go to ‘pain management’ who assesses my well-being monthly. They DECIDE if I get any medication and what types. Then, it takes three hours at the pharmacy, and only after 30 days have passed to the minute, while they cross-check my name on the national ‘database’ for violations. If I’m ever ‘suspected’ of selling or trading my medication it will be taken away permanently and I will be under charges for a federal offense of trafficking a schedule 3 opioid. So, careful what you envision for ‘the future’, friend. That future’s been here for the last two years now. -Jay

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?” – Edwin Leap

    We should NEVER have to acquire government permission/licensing to exercise our fundamental human RIGHTS. Period.

    If arsonists used tampons to start 50,000 fires and kill 25,000 people every year, would that make it okay for government to require a “feminine products” license before anyone could purchase tampons? Would that make it okay for government to ban possession of tampons in “sensitive locations” such as schools, government buildings, churches, bars, and sports arenas? NO!!! Neither is it okay for government to do the same regarding firearms.

  14. avatar Danny Mann says:

    No.

  15. avatar DerryM says:

    Here’s the thing, Doc. You SHOULD NOT have had to complete all those steps to Conceal Carry a pistol in the first place. Therefore, asking “What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?” is missing the point more than entirely.

  16. avatar ollie says:

    I might favor the good doctor’s idea…..if that would forever put an end to all further restrictions on the acquiring and possession of “modern sporting rifles”. BUT, we all know that within a short period of time, the left would simply use the registry as a confiscation tool, or worse*. That makes the proposal a non-starter.

    The progressive/liberal/democrat behavior during Kavanaugh confirmation is final proof positive that those folks simply cannot be trusted….ever…..on any issue.

    * Schumer-Pelosi-Feinstein Emergency Public Safety Act of 2019 : Anyone who feels the need to possess a multi-shot firearm is obviously a dangerous paranoid psychotic and is hereby deemed Clinically Insane by this statute.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      “I might favor the good doctor’s idea…..if that would forever put an end to all further restrictions on…” Please, please don’t take any more of your rights???? How about back the fvck up! Restore your full rights!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Wait!! What if they PROMISED? Crossed their hearts and all? Then we could surrender our rights to defend ourselves against their tyranny, couldn’t we? Believe it or don’t, POTG have fallen for that shit several times before, up to and including FOPA (maybe more), and all it ever does is surrender more rights.

  17. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I don’t recall the part in the Second Amendment about fingerprints, fees, waiting periods, background checks and classes, so no, I’m not OK with all that.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I have 5 permits from various states. My home state has nothing more than a NICS check. A couple others have finger-prints (not that the procedure is particularly difficult to defraud).

      Whatever the permitting procedure represents (some combination of NICS check, finger-prints, training, testing, qualification), then that is what the permit represents; and, nothing more.

      Now, then, suppose I cross paths with the constabulary while in possession of a gun. Might be merely a traffic stop; or, there may be a body bleeding out on the pavement. In any case, here is the question: What does my PA permit (representing a NICS check from 1 – 5 years ago) REALLY MEAN? In a couple of minutes the cop can get a background check on my name and DoB that is current.

      From the cop’s viewpoint, my PA card means next-to-nothing. My FL & UT cards mean a little more. My MN & SC cards mean more, but something different (testing, qualification but no prints). But, I really don’t care (under these circumstances) about the cop’s viewpoint. I care about my own viewpoint.

      I want that cop to come to the conclusion that I’m the GOOD-guy, (not a bad-guy). It’s going to take the cop a couple of minutes to get a current background check on me. During that period of time I don’t want him to start writing my name on the line labeled “Suspect”.

      It is in my own personal interest to hand the cop my permit card to initiate the thought in his mind that I am – more likely than not – a good guy. No doubt, he will run the background check on me anyway for confirmation; but, his thought process has started down the RIGHT path.

      If the applicable card (FL / UT) represents that prints were taken then the cop knows (or at least presumes) that I am who my ID says I am. My prints have discounted the possibility that I might be a criminal or fugitive.

      If the applicable card (MN / SC) represents that I have gone through the trouble to be trained and qualified to the applicable standard. If there is a body bleeding out, that might be relevant.

      The permitting schemes of the several states are of dubious value to the public at large; small value to the cops. They might be perceived by gun-carriers to be of some considerable potential value to themselves.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Could not possible care less about what some busybody cop wants relative to the Constitution.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I wonder if they made you pay a permit fee, take a civics class, took your fingerprints and made you wait to vote if anyone would consider that an ‘infringement’ on your right to vote?

  18. avatar million says:

    “Humans descend into totalitarianism with remarkable ease, no matter how nice we may seem for now.”

    so let’s subject our rights to a background check and finger prints and whatever other barriers that same totalitarian government wants to impose.

    well that is just brilliant.

  19. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Edwin Leap, MD: I Own Guns and I’m a Doctor, Therefore I’m an Expert”

    Rather a expert tyrannical pompous prick.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Right, big whoop. *I* own guns and I’m retired US military, take your MD and put it where the sun don’t shine, it means less than nothing insofar as firearms are concerned, nor so far as civil rights are concerned, nor so far as common sense is concerned. Here is a clue; firearms are not a disease. Pretending they are does not fool anyone, makes you look like a moron.

  20. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?” – Edwin Leap, M.D.

    OK- So what if we did? The vast majority of real “gun violence”, which I define as either an unwarranted assault on another with a firearm or actions by one gang against another with no concern for “collateral damage” is both already illegal and usually done by a person already prohibited from owning or being in the vicinity of a firearm. The overwhelming majority of these incidents are caused using some form of handgun, not semiautomatic MSRs or clones. Can anyone say “Chicago, Baltimore, SCLA, Philly”, etc? So- other than cause the normal, law-abiding person to have to incur more red tape and expenses, what was the result? Other than adding to a progression of regulations and laws seeking to overturn the scope and meaning of the US Constitution- nothing.

    Now- concerning “school shootings” and other incidents which involve some narcissistic nutbag seeking 5 minutes of fame and glory, how about if we require that every event or circumstance where there will be more than 30 people present have at least 3 armed CCW holders or persons carrying openly? Now there would be a deterrant and the whack-o would likely go elsewhere.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Correct! And once we leave MSR alone and go after handguns as the main tool used to shoot innocents, we find that we have installed all manner of “controls” already, and they have accomplished NOTHING. If all were repealed tomorrow, including prohibitions on felons and domestic abusers, ALL, I’ll bet a bunch it would not cause a blip on any graph of violence, would make no difference. This is an AGENDA, not anything sensible, a flag to rally the morons around to vote for tyranny and against scary freedom, we want it and we want it NOW, we will screech hysterically until we either get it or they stop paying us to screech. Looney times we have today.

  21. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    We already put up with the crap this fool proposes. NICS is an unconstitutional failure that many thousands of good people fail every year, it is so bad that no DA bothers to prosecute because more than 95% of the failures are false positives. We need to dump NICS and adopt constitutional carry.

    We need to dump most of the gun laws in this country including NFA ’34. Now that would be real common sense gun law reform!

  22. avatar MarkPA says:

    Basically, there is NOTHING we can do that will make a difference worth the cost of the measure under consideration. That said, the potential value in any measure is cosmetic public relations.

    Suppose, hypothetically, that we contemplated a very high barrier to entry. For illustration, a net worth of $1 billion. Now, a few people could have guns legally; and, most of those who have guns (now) illegally would still have them illegally. How much of an improvement would that be? Then, take into consideration that those dis-enfranchised (net worth under $1 billion) would be defenseless against the criminals. Not a promising proposition.

    Clearly, the permit – the little card – does nothing by itself. Arguably, having met the prerequisites to being issued the permit might be useful. It depends upon whether there is any real meat in the prerequisites. I’m tempted to believe that we could work on developing a really meaty training and testing regime. However, the political opposition to anything (or, maybe anything beyond a NICS check) would be high – and these are the guys on OUR side.

    So, if there is any value to a permitting scheme, it would come from “buy-in” from the general public that guns-in-civilian-hands is OK because those issued “permits” have jumped through the prescribed hoops. I really DO think that has some value. But, this is merely an opinion. So, indulge my fantasy for a moment. Those that would believe permitted people having guns are probably those voters who are NOT particularly vested in gun-control/-rights one-way-or-the-other. So, making these voters a good bit more comfortable doesn’t buy us much. What would a permitting scheme do to persuade Bloomberg et al.? Probably almost nothing. Bloomberg would accept only the net-worth above $1 billion as the barrier.

    I think we have an issue; and, the issue is a PR perception of gun-owners. One way of dealing with it is to petition our legislators to IMPOSE a permitting requirement with a well-designed training + testing regime. But why should we take this initiative? It makes sense to do so IF-and-ONLY-IF we have gun-CONTROL advocates JOINING us in supporting gun-ownership and gun-carry under a permitting regime. E.g., imagine the Moms joining hands with us! When you are done laughing – I can wait a few minutes – I think you see the difficulty here. So, the best we can make of this proposition (proposing an IMPOSED permitting requirement) is to throw-it-in-the-faces of our opponents challenging them to join with us. Seeing as they don’t and won’t do so, WE should “stand-our-ground”.

    An IMPOSED permitting scheme is NOT the ONLY possibility. We really ought to take the PR problem seriously. That means an open and candid discussion of what standards we think we should all strive to rise to. By way of illustration, should we be talking about NRA’s: First Steps course as the standard for keeping a gun in the home; Personal Protection Outside the Home for carrying a gun in populated urban venues; etc.? Should the curriculum for any such “best practices” standards be altered?

    FFL salesmen, friends and neighbors should all be telling customers/friends that they should get “certified” to the applicable standard to ensure that they REALLY ARE well versed in safety and the law of self-defense.

    Bear in mind that soon SCOTUS is apt to mandate “Shall-Issue” to the last 10 states with large urban populations. New gun-keepers/-carriers in these locations have little – or NO – gun-culture in their personal and family experience. I shudder to think of a life-long Manhattan (NY, not Kansas) dweller popping into her LGS, buying a gun, loading it, and putting it in her purse. She should be admonished to achieve the level of training + testing corresponding to her proposed activities.

    I have no doubt that the NY legislature will mandate training or testing for a permit REQUIREMENT. So, the problem is not in NY. Rather, the problem is when this hypothetical un-gun-cultured new-bee moves to Manhattan Kansas where the prerequisites to a permit are low. Gun owners bred-and-buttered in Kansas are not much of a risk; our migrant from NY IS a risk.

    More generally, take Pennsylvania for example. We have a NICS check and a $20 fee. Pretty close to “freedom” as the founders envisioned. And, yet, a life-long resident of Philadelphia can get a gun and a carry permit lacking any knowledge of safety or law of self-defense. Such new-bees are accidents or bad-shoots waiting to happen.

    If we – the seasoned gun-culture – don’t do something to promote comprehensive knowledge of safety and law of self-defense practices, then we will suffer the consequences when these ill-informed or mal-informed carriers’ mistakes appear in the national press.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      How about being taught safe gun handling being required in high school?

      Then *everybody* gets it…

      1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

        How about being taught safe gun handling being required in high school?

        Then *everybody* gets it…

        If my kids’ school wanted to implement such a program I would WHOLE HEARTEDLY support it and happily pay any additional fees associated with it, even though my oldest has already been through the NRA basic course.
        Even if it was just an elective class I’d be thrilled.
        I’m not gonna hold my breath though because BWAAAA GUNZ, KIDS, SCHOOLS!!! The sounds of liberal heads exploding at the mere mention of such a thing would rival the Mt St. Hellens eruption.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree; and, in fact, believe that we PotG ought to actively promote gun safety and marksmanship in public schools. Eddie-Eagle for the little ones; safety for middle school. Marksmanship in high school. Congress has express authority to prescribe the discipline for the militia and the States have the duty to train according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

        Now, if we need driver’s ed, swimming-ed, health-ed, and safe-sex-ed in schools;
        AND
        if gun “safety” is really an important issue, then Congress SIMPLY MUST DO SOMETHING (add exclamation points to taste).

        If the Moms won’t go along with this “common sense” proposal, then why not? Is it that X-safety-ed is a bad idea? Do the Fundamentalists have a point when they object to safe-sex-ed? Or, is it that gun safety isn’t really as important as they heretofore thought? Or, is it that “a well regulated militia” isn’t really “necessary”?

        We need to understand their rationale for opposing such a common-sense proposal.

    2. avatar VicRattlehead says:

      finally, a voice of reason.

      We most certainly DO have a PR problem and it makes it REALLY hard to get converts. There are literally millions of people out there that have never touched a gun in their life and they are very apprehensive, at best, or downright terrified of guns. When we all shout that everyone has a God-given right to own a gun and there should be absolutely no training, education or any other requirements what so ever to purchase, what they see as, an extremely dangerous item, we all look like a bunch of senseless morons. You’re not going to get many people to support your cause that way that don’t ALREADY support it.

      I believe there are certain things we could possibly conceede that could GREATLY boost the PR image of gun owners (thus gaining supporters and general ‘good will’) without infringing on our rights. Things like minimum gun education levels (I think the basic NRA gun safety course is an EXCELLENT start) or minimum controlled live fire time. REQUIRING those and the time/cost associated with them can get to be a sticky subject though, especially since it would be a burden on the low-income side of the scale.

      Ultimately, it’s a very delicate matter to accomplish without adding undue restrictions and thus far I haven’t heard ANYBODY, on either side, that has the good sense and level headedness necessary to really discuss it honestly, rationally and with everyone’s best interests in mind.

      1. avatar Jhon says:

        You’re obviously not student of history. Go back and read about previous totalitarian regimes. It might dawn on you. Or not. You seem all too ready to concede your civil rights to a government entity.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Any firearms training mandated by government should be 1) Paid for by government taxpayers, and 2) mandated for *everyone*, old and young, possibly (for example) as a prerequisite for voting in the next election. Too many such requirements are recognized by everyone as completely useless except for adding cost and frustration to firearm ownership. If those demanding it are advised that they will have to pay for it, and also take all those same classes, interest will drop to zero in weeks. Meanwhile, if I *want* some training, I will choose it, and pay for it, myself.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        @Vic: I think that there are 2 issues to solve.

        The first is that we PotG have little incentive to go along with any legislated MANDATES so long as we can expect no lessening of opposition to gun-rights. Yes, we will probably make some voters more comfortable, but this doesn’t matter while Bloomberg considers Congress-critters a bargain at the price of $10 million a dozen.

        The second is that we PotG are sincerely concerned with lightening the burden of gun-ownership on those who need self-defense the most and have the least amount of discretionary income. I really CAN afford to do whatever is necessary to preserve my right-to-arms; but, I do NOT – in principle – want the government to raise the barrier any higher for others LESS blessed than I am.

        Politically, we ought to do what we can to bargain for the best deal possible for others with limited resources. A fee no higher than barely covers cost of administration. I’d argue for exempting classes of those with limited means from fees and charging others a higher fee to defray the expense of the former. I’d argue for an objective written test in lieu of a mandatory class-room training. (A poor person could learn on the internet or from a vet or friend.) Mandate that the police provide free qualifications on police ranges. Those of us who have NRA Instructor qualifications could provide free training in areas not well served by commercial trainers.

        We should be spending our energies thinking of ways to out-reach and bring those less-advantaged into the PotG. That would do more than finding new ways to cry “Myyyyyy RigHHHHHts!!!”

        1. avatar bob says:

          So, as always, I like your way of thinking Mark.

          There are two big paths to take and you can only take one.

          While I like the idea of making carry much like a drivers license, show you aren’t totally incompetent and you can take it wherever you want however you want….. ok….

          But, there’s a reason the founders added “shall not be infringed” in there.
          There is a very real fear and high probability, if not a given.
          That if it were allowed to pass that say, hypothetically we decided to do a national carry license.

          Eventually the anti types would come up with means of restriction.

          Mark, you live in Pa, you and I both know the struggle the people of New Jersey have. I mean, you CAN get a carry license in Jersey….. IF they release them….. :evil laugh:

          So, take that tried and true method, spread it across the nation, bingo, still no better off…..

          BUT!

          “Shall not infringe” born with rights…. those are free and clear, at least, they should be.

          So, perhaps instead of the fear of a careless New Yorker bringing her new carry weapon here leading us to give up rights, we accept the risk much in the same way we accept the risks of surgery.
          The good far outweighs the bad.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I GOT IT!! It just struck me what we need, why didn’t I see it before? We should pass an Amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing every citizen that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! What a PLAN! And, my suggestion was shorter than yours.

      1. avatar JayInWisconsin says:

        ^ This. You are a genius. Wish we had a few more like you who might write up a whole document FULL of enumerated rights that we all have (Even those who, for some reason, don’t actually ‘want’ their rights. They still get them.) Maybe then we could get a country worth living in.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    “I’m a doctor. That makes me an expert on guns”…quite a LEAP.

  24. avatar Dr Dan in Detroit says:

    I own/carry/repair/build guns and I’m a doctor, Therefore I’m an expert too.
    No.

  25. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    1) Since we already require an NICS background check, all you’re doing is adding bureaucracy and expense to the process, and not making anyone safer. Ask me about my Illinois FOID card and how that makes Chicago such a safe place to live.
    2) Since the states with Constitutional Carry tend to have less violent crime than the states that require permission slips, I don’t know what you think this would accomplish.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      I know what this will accomplish. More red tape and expenses -> less gun owners who think it’s worth the hassle -> less people with vested interest in opposition to next round of gun control bills. Rinse, repeat. Ratchet tightens the screws and we lose more and more.

      How about NO MORE ‘COMPROMISES’!?

      Not just stand our ground, it’s too late for that. We need to push back. Let’s start getting our cake back! When, if not now? Progressives lost the House, the Senate and we even got President who swore to support 2A and is BFF with the NRA. Where are all those promissed reverses of 2A infringements?

      “But… but we can’t do anything, the Dems would filibuster!”
      So what? Let them talk until they are blue in face and after they all had their turn, vote our rights back.

      Or is it realy so easy to strip Americans of their freedoms? Just because one a-hole shot up a school and bunch of billionaires used it as a stick to beat down hundreds of millions who did not? I can’t believe that.

  26. avatar bob says:

    I’m sticking with the idea that having never been a problem to anyone my entire life I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise my rights.
    Constitutional carry.

    Also sort of digging the idea of using local gangs as practice for our elite armed forces.
    Get rid of the gang violence and drug problems and 90% of the rest of the problems will fade away.

    Then its on to banks and insurance companies.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Great idea. Kill the gangsters, to stop them from killing each other.
      Now, how are you going to make sure that our elite forces don’t mistake you for a gangbanger? Once the military starts doing their job (fucking shit up and killing people) against US citizens, who can tell where it will stop?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        As is already true, I will be nowhere near the gangbangers, no one will mistake me for one. Those hanging around them are just past or future gangbangers, kill ’em all and let god sort ’em out.

  27. avatar Cz Rider says:

    >opens with the idea that 2A is a check sgsinst tyranny
    >suggests a regulatory scheme to allow the potentially tyrannical government to catalog and monitor its potential opposition

    …yeah, good thinking, doc….

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      Registration is the problem. I have a NY License, a Florida and UTAH Permit. The NY License lists all the handguns I own in NY. Florida and UTAH don’t list anything I own in Florida. If there is a License/Permit there should be no listing of any firearms or confiscation is inevitable. The fact that they even know that I am a gun owner is also problematic.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        The “registration” issue is in two parts: guns by serial number; users by name and address. We need to think about each separately and carefully.

        Having any paperwork about guns by serial number is a smaller issue today than it was in centuries past; and, it’s getting to be a smaller issue at an accelerating pace. Nevertheless, for precisely this reason, whatever investigative purposes might be served by paperwork on gun serial numbers is evaporating. Suppose, hypothetically, the Feds had a perfect record of all legal guns and no records of illegal guns. What good would that do? The more we invest in better records on legal guns the more certain we can be that illegal guns will be off-the-books. The argument we have here is that gun registration – and any paperwork whatsoever – is useless in proportion to its vigor. Go ahead, make your perfect registration system. We will participate by buying and finishing 80% receivers. Make-my-day!!!

        Gun owners – or users – are a different matter. Imagine an America where 100% of the people had guns and every person was registered. I would PRAY for such a vision to be realized. There would be no political problem at all. Conversely, imagine an America where 1% of the people had guns and every person was registered. This would be a NIGHTMARE. By this point, the right to arms would have been lost politically; it would not be recoverable.

        We think that gun owners are about 40% of the population now. That’s pretty good; but, not good enough to protect the 2A with our voting power. We don’t all vote; and, we don’t vote as single-issue-voters. Now, imagine if 60% of the population were gun owners; but, the politicians still believed that we were not so numerous. Suppose their perception were that only 30% or even 20% of us were gun owners and we didn’t vote as single-issue voters. It might actually be BETTER if most states had FOID requirements so that we would be a more visible interest-group.

        I am NOT advocating for FOIDs here. I’m arguing for finding ways to promote our VISIBILITY. Imagine, for example, if NRA published returns from their certified instructors as to how many students they trained for each course. That data would provide a strong indication of growth in NEW entrants to the shooting sports and self-defense interests.

        We need to get away from the “grey man” idea. I.e., we should tell our friends and relatives to get training, participate in the shooting sports AND be PROUD of your new activity. Do NOT regard your new-found interest to be something of a “social disease” to be ashamed of.

        Imagine the difference in impact of one woman taking her training course and then: telling no one; vs., telling all her girlfriends. If she tells no one, then we won 1 convert; count her – ONE! If she tells all her girlfriends then we will likely win 3 more converts. Now they tell their girlfriends, and these three bring in 9 new converts.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          After they get universal background checks, they will get universal registration. Then they will turn to eradication of ghost guns, like they already started in California.
          First get your registration and serial no. before you even start on that 80% lower. Then all main gun parts will get serial numbered and registered. No more online shopping for barrels, uppers, slides or even revolver cylinders. You still can get springs… for now.

          Inconceivable? I have seen it in Europe. “Want to buy box of ammo? Show us in your owner’s permit you have registered gun in that particular caliber! Sign in our registry that you bought this box of .32ACP today.”

          They will not be content until only agents of state are armed. They will not stop halfway through. And when we, the people, are defenseless, they will be free to do as they please.
          Unless we stop them.

  28. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I have a better idea- since the 2A is the birthright of every American, how about giving every baby born in America a birth certificate and a voucher for a free AR15 that can be redeemed at the age of 18, notwithstanding any criminal history at the time of redemption? That’s the America I want to love in.

  29. avatar Greg says:

    What reason is there for a permit process other than putting together a registry of who has what kind of firearm? Would it prevent crime? No Would it stop a mentally ill person w anger issues from shooting at a crowd? No So other than you falling for the liberals trick of incremental banning of firearms there isn’t any reason for what you propose.

  30. avatar Shire-man says:

    He went full X Products.

  31. avatar pg2 says:

    The vast majority of MD’s are middle men for the pharmaceutical industry, nothing more, nothing less. Why are we letting this profession that is officially the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA hide behind an almost priest-like MD label and putting their opinions and beliefs on pedestals?

    1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      You nailed it! I just finished reading the book: Overcharged…Why Americans Pay too Much for Healthcare. It will certainly pizza you off when reading how the Congress, AMA, insurance and pharmaceutical companies have extorted and BS’d the country into the current, very expensive, crap pile we call healthcare in the USA. The authors offer constructive suggestions for turning this mess around with the results that healthcare becomes truly affordable and effective care for all concerned (hint: their answer is NOT single payer…)

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        You want to get really pissed off? Read JB Handley’s “How to End the Autism Epidemic”. The people running the system are sociopaths.

  32. avatar Kenneth says:

    Dr. Leap wants to take the right to purchase a certain item away from all of us and replace it with a government permission slip(with some suitable, no doubt high, and higher later, fees)?
    OK, Dr. Leap, but what are you willing to GIVE UP to get that concession from us? Perhaps… national reciprocity? Or the repeal of the NFA? I might go for your deal IF you give me those two things. Or maybe even just one of them.
    THIS is compromise. You want something, then you give up something else that you would rather keep, to get said new thing. This is called negotiation. Welcome to the real world, for probably the first time in your long, rife with university courses, life in academia(NOT the real world…).

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Kenneth, you’re drinking the kool-aide! We already HAVE national reciprocity, and NFA is not only stupid and unenforceable, like all other gun control it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! So, let’s give up this or that for yet another empty promise? Maybe they’ll also throw in a few 10-kilo gold bars and free guns for all, it is a LIE!! But if we do not fight the additional rules they want to hit us with, those will be with us forever. FOPA was a lie, does nobody any good whatsoever, but the NICS checks which came with it are a continuing pain in everybody’s ass.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Have you ever heard the words: “lighten up a little”? The point was to attempt to inform as to what negotiations even are, NOT a serious proposal! Like the left would ever offer anything to us that doesn’t explode or shovel dirt on us. Its quite obvious they want us all dead, not a compromise.
        THAT was the point. You might get more of the world’s points if you relaxed a little. One has difficulty staying sane in the midst of so much heat and pressure. Could you make diamonds if you put a piece of coal up your ass for a while? 🙂
        PS, I already enjoy Constitutional Carry. I live in Montana!

        1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          We (Montana) are NOT a Constitutional Carry State…that legislation was vetoed by Governor Bullock (D) a half-dozen years ago (just as he vetoed restaurant carry on the last day of the last legislative session).

          The good news is that we are a “Shall Issue” State with very minimal harassment from “Da Man” in the process. One of the reasons MT CWP’s are not recognized by some other States is that we recognize that if an 18 year old can vote and if they can fight for his / her country then they can be issued a CWP (caveat: under Federal law they cannot actually purchase their own handgun or ammunition until they are 21)…so, I “loaned” my son a Ruger SP101 2.25″ (until his 21st birthday) after he applied for and received his CWP at 19.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          YO!! Kenneth and Old Guy!! Are there two Montanas, or something?

        3. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          LarryinTX,

          No, only one. The question of whether MT is a Constitutional Carry State or not is answered by a quick search…we tried and it was vetoed seven years ago. We do have a broad “Open Carry” interpretation.

          We have a Republican majority in the State House and Senate who try for meaningful firearm legislation every session or two…our Governor is a Donkey Rider and waits until the last day of the legislative session to veto firearm legislation so that it cannot be brought up until the next convening (every two years). Governor Bullock sees himself as a contender for President and has been testing the political waters by showing up in other States for DNC events. He is a DNC stooge all the way…they say “Jump”, his response is “how high?”

  33. avatar Ken says:

    When I hear or read “I’m a gun owner and a concealed permit holder but we need more restrictions on gun ownership”. I wonder about their honesty and motives. I suspect some in the anti-gun camp actually buy a gun and get a concealed carry permit just so they can make the claim of gun ownership. I think it’s just as likely that the anti-gun forces are actually lying about gun ownership and concealed carry permit holders. You might say I am a “little” skeptical about anything they say.

    1. avatar Fred Lead says:

      I don’t think it’s actually planned. It’s probably just that this individual has certain kinds of guns for one purpose and doesn’t understand or have any interest in other kinds of guns for other purposes. That’s why there are FUDDS out there, they see their grandfather’s shotgun as ok because they use it, but nothing else makes sense to them because they don’t think they have a use for it. It’s a simple lack of empathy and imagination, not a logical plan to undermine gun rights in my opinion.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Ken, I think you’re an optimist. When somebody makes those claims and then goes on about infringing on natural rights, I don’t assume they bought a gun and got a license so they could preach stupidity, instead I assume they are LYING in order to convince me to listen to them preaching stupidity. Have you seen any proof they have done the things they claim? Have we seen this moron MD prove he owns a single gun? Or is an MD, for that? Maybe his actual last name is Soros.

  34. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

    Dear Dr. Edwin,

    Back when I was a 91B, I had my fill of medical demigods pontificating on $#!t waaay outside their expertise / experience…a brief survey of your published work and on-line opinions gives credence that you are just another pompous, self-righteous demigod.

    How many patients have you addicted due to over-prescribing opiates during your 25+ years as an ER physician? How many have you killed due to “medical error”? I dare say that you have contributed more to the death rate in our country than my firearms have…crawl back into your rabbit hole, Dr. Fudd.

  35. avatar Tim says:

    I support that if you want to speak freely, you need to be finger printed, pay a $100 fee, and that only allows you 1 hour for you to shout all you want, then you can shut the fuck up!

  36. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    More like he has an opinion, and we know what those are like…

  37. avatar raz-0 says:

    I suggest the dear doctor wash his hands and launder his scrubs daily. It’ll go farther in reducing deaths than any licensing scheme on semi automatic rifles.

  38. avatar Frank says:

    “What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?”

    Since semi auto handguns are used in something like 1,2000 times as may crimes and in fact the biggest school shooting was with semi auto handgun , they you have to admit that what you mean is semi automatic gun of any type.

    By the way the largest shooting of students was not even in the US, but in Norway and that was with a rifle that was not a “military-style” rifle, but a ruger “ranch” (the most popular rifle in Canada and not even “restricted” there).

    Your problem doctor is your total ignorance. Someone may as well say: “I am a doctor and a person who uses free speech, why don’t we have licenses and waiting periods for free speech?”

    Lastly, your olive branch” is ONE WAY loss of rights. That is your olive branch??

    Hey let’s compromise about Doctor and medical professionals pay that is the entire elevated costs in the US over other western nations — my “olive branch” … we halve your pay. OK?

  39. avatar Fred Lead says:

    It’s funny how the problem is assumed in order for the solution to be presented. What is the purpose of this? As we saw in Maryland, and every other shooting, the attacker can take the time to plan and jump through every hoop or can choose to circumvent the system altogether and steal a gun.
    All this does is add more restrictions in an effort to choke gun culture to death slowly by potentially stopping people from buying guns through bureaucratic red tape and fees, just like with suppressors.

  40. avatar Michael says:

    …Shall not be infringed…funny, the narrower the scope of expertise, the more self confidence from these elitist scup. It’s never, pass a law to prevent me from doing something bad, pass a law to stop other people, minding their own business, from doing something that, in my infinite wisdom, I think is bad. Once and for all, let’s get these dogs out of the manger.

  41. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Don’t doctors have among the highest rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, divorce, and depression? We don’t need people like that to be armed.

    Sounds like he should have been marked as a prohibited possessor the day he graduated med school, you know, since he’s down with the whole pre-crime fighting spiel.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      You have any citations for this?

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        When I googled it for you this was the first hit I considered at least a little reliable:

        https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20180508/doctors-suicide-rate-highest-of-any-profession

  42. avatar Kevin says:

    Hey there Mr. Doctor Doolittle.

    How’s about you go reread that there 2nd Amendment and reread the part that sayeth there somethang about,

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

    Go ahead, read it again. Rinse and Repeat as often as is necessary to get through your scalp into those there brain cell thingies in your head.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

    Read it out loud in a strong manly voice (if you can muster it), SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

  43. avatar PeterK says:

    “semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases”

    Aaaaaand credibility lost. Sorry.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Fun fact: in the financial fields it’s noted that doctors are one of the easiest groups to scam, because they think they’re too smart to fall for it.

      Similarly, see this Dr. Ford that testified against Kavanaugh – I don’t think she was lying, she just thought that she was too smart for her muddy and pieced-together-decades-later memory to be wrong.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Thanks. With the administrative/documentation/compliance aspects of medical practice, this is not that surprising. Not to mention many of these professionals are likely highly disillusioned as they entered the profession with good intentions, not realizing their role as an MD was to be a highly trained pharmaceutical running dog.

      2. avatar pg2 says:

        Sorry, this was response to your WebMD link about Dr suicide rates.

  44. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Sadly another educated professional this time a doctor who is stupid about constitutional rights.

  45. avatar pod says:

    The problem with the vague definition of “military-style” is that it can be adapted and changed to suit the needs of the opposition. It’s what they do in California. Today’s harmless feature is tomorrow’s evil feature. A gun with an adjustable stock and a removable magazine is “military-style” today. Tomorrow it could also include any gun with a scope. Guns with fixed stocks and scopes are in use by the military. Next month it could be shotguns. Since shotguns are regularly used by the military.

    So yeah, that’s gonna be a “no” from me, Dr Leap.

    Also with regards to licensing – what good does that do? You already underwent a background check to buy the gun. A second check isn’t gonna show much of anything different. And the class doesn’t do jack squat.

  46. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    I reject the “military style” carve out on rights. The 2nd amendment codifies a pre-existing right (and responsibility) to possess military grade weapons. Put another way, there was no distinction between “military” and “civilian” weaponry. Beware of a government that wants to “make you safe”. Governments “make people safe” only by incarceration.

    Restricting “military style weapons” is as logical as restricting a doctor from having “military grade medical equipment”. Honest to God the people who want to ban guns are completely ignorant on guns. Their only knowledge base is what they see in the movies.

    1. avatar pod says:

      Their idea of “military-style” literally comes down to ergonomics and cosmetics. An AR chambered in 5.56mm is really just nothing more than a coked-up .22LR dressed in black.

      If I had to jump in front of a bullet from an AR, or a bullet from Grandpa’s old Remington 700, I’m jumping in front of the 5.56mm round.

      And here’s the kicker – most “styles” of guns are used by the military. Outside of specialist applications like Olympic target shooting, almost every style of handgun, rifle, and shotgun, is in use by our military.

      And that’s the whole idea – their little definition of “military-style” will keep growing.

  47. avatar Oscar Cannington says:

    We should first demand a return to full compliance with the 2nd Amendment; only then can we determine if there’s a need to change it.

    In other words, once every able-bodied adult is armed, equipped and trained in riflery, we will see how many are willing to give it up. Not many, I would guess.

  48. avatar Ralph says:

    Here’s my suggestion, dear doctor.

    You stop killing 1000 people a day with your fvcking “medical mistakes,” and then we’ll talk about guns.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      We put people with MD after their name on pedestals like the public worshiped priests back in the old days. Much of mainstream medicine is religion.

  49. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Small steps in the same direction will get you to the same destination as large steps. It just takes a little longer. The Progressive/Socialist/Democrat destination is, of course, the same as it has always been. The town of Tyranny.

  50. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    The FBI or a state law enforcement agency already checks us out for every gun purchase from a store, not just the scary black varmint guns he is concerned with. We have waiting periods in Florida for all guns and firearms, and silencers, etc. I have a concealed permit, so with the class, fee, background check, fingerprint, I can skip the wait but still have to get a fresh background check.

    Why do I need to undergo extra scrutiny to purchase one class of weapons? Why are we even still talking about assault weapons bans?

  51. avatar Chris Morton says:

    “What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?”

    Or:
    * computers
    * cell phones
    * internet service
    * bibles
    * abortions
    * voter ID cards
    * same sex marriage licenses
    * interstate travel

    It’s funny how ONLY one right needs to be abridged, but NO others…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bullying is much in the news today, apparently a major problem in social media, a contributor to teen suicides, and on, and on. I have a suggestion, my good doctor! How about raising the age to participate in social media to 21? And requiring hours of training, followed by a test (at your own expense), then a common sense waiting period, before you can register with any social media group. And again, each time you wish to join another. If you’re suspected (or accused) of being mean to your spouse or significant other, police will come to your house and confiscate every electronic device except your toaster, including phones, computers, tablets, TV, radio, everything. But you can get it all back after just a few thousand dollars worth of legal fees and a year or two. OTOH, if you are *convicted* of being mean to anyone, you will be banned FOR LIFE from ever again possessing any electronic device, or standing on a box to yell at your neighbors. Doesn’t that sound like a good “common sense social media” program?

  52. avatar George S Young says:

    I’m a gun owner and a retired Fire Chief, Cardiac Medic and Acting Police Chief. I have a FFL and a SOT. Eight out of ten times when I buy a gun at a store as a citizen without using my FFL I get a “Delayed” NICS status. The system is flawed. I have talked to the FBI agents that work behind the civilians that work the NICS phones and computers and they said that no matter how much information you provide to them via a phone or computer NICS check the initial run through the computer check is a name match only. If there is an FBI agent handy during the day times they can access the full NCIC and court databases. Apparently there are two bad guys with my first, middle and last and that gives the “Delayed” until an FBI agent can review the application. Even then I rarely get a “Proceed” within the three Brady days… I have never been denied.
    Luckily in my State of Alaska if one takes a State approved concealed class (not mandatory in Alaska but people do it for the training they often get) and wants to fill out one additional form and submit your photos and fingerprints to the FBI and everything goes OK you will receive a State of Alaska Concealed Carry photo ID card with the words “NICS Exempt” on it. It’s similar to applying to the Feds for a UPIN number that does the same thing.
    Never mind the fact that I have been fingerprinted for work as a security guard in College, again for working with kids in the Civil Air Patrol, and another for my FFL application… apparantly NICS can’t see any of this information during your first run through…
    I can’t agree with another check to buy “scary looking guns”
    Gotta go… there is a sale on 80% lowers going on….

  53. avatar Char says:

    I appreciate that you are attempting to offer a compromise. What is the offer from the other side – what will they return? The 2nd amendment gave us the right, we (gun owners) compromised and gave up most all of our rights to gun ownership and the ability to bear arms. We received nothing in return. Now you just want to give up just a little more and when they come asking for more you give that up until finally there is nothing left to give. No I do not support giving up anything more.

  54. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well since Doc-Approval there is the expert, I’ll ask…

    “What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military-style rifle purchases?”

    OK, what if?

    What would it actually do? You know, with facts, and statistics, and science, and other expert-y things. I’ll even help: with something like 400 incidents / year with *all kinds* of rifles, how much good would this do? You’re not even getting rid of “all” of the evil death machines (that mostly just sit there.) Say eliminate 400 incidents, max? Vs. how many DGUs with same? How many DGUs that don’t happen because you made the G part harder? How many assaults and not-DGUs because the unarmed victims ended up actual vs. potential victims. Hard to warn some thug off with that fire arm you’re gonna maybe get in 4 months, if your application clears.

    What if …
    What’s the selective-approval, graft, patron / client-ism this sets up. You OK with the risk of “may issue” by another name? Let’s talk to black people in the South and see how they take this.

    Even if it doesn’t go sideways, how much more bureaucracy; how many more bureaucrats? They count as a plague — making more is the opposite of a good thing.

    What if …
    What’s the burden? We have people who’ve done nothing wrong. Just wanna do their thing. Have their hobby is the light benefit. Keep themselves and theirs alive is the stronger one. So, what’s the burden you’re gonna impose?

    Worked it out in $, in hours, in lost work / hobby / life time, in risk and uncertainty? What cost do you intend to inflict on people; people with less money and autonomy than doc-you?

    What if?
    Not a lot of good, possibly worse; graft, patronage and corruption extending to making easy victims of out groups (not like this has happened before); a burden of cost, bother and risk imposed on people who’ve done nothing wrong.

    At least that is “what if?” I assume you’re for that.

    What if?
    It it saves just one life … except the one thing close to an experiment we have — the federal AWB — had something like no, or unmeasurable impact.

    What if?
    At least all that bad, for what’s the good, again?

    So, what is the up(-side) Doc?

    Maybe you get off on keeping your gun in a safe, getting printed, having your sessions with “the man.” No accounting for taste. But there’s nothing stopping anyone from doing that now, on their own, right down to the costume and ritual abuse.

    If your kink is telling people they have to like what you do, well, there’s a name for that, and no thank you. Not judging, just not my thing. Getting off on getting off by inflicting what you want on other people under cover of law … there’s gotta be Latin for that, but I’ll defer to you for that Doc.

    Here’s the thing: “You do you.” leaves the rest out, which apparently Doc-Likes-It needs spelled out for him. Just this once, I’ll play along a little. Imagine it’s an office. Blank. Just a table n straight-back chairs. Standard-issue TV interrogation room. I’m wearing a shirt with epaulets. Maybe some cheddar and a name patch. The questions are demanding; my face half way between boredom and glower. Now pay attention, worm…

    The whole reading goes: “You do you, (unless and until that includes your inflicting your kink on other people, when that’s just not their thing.)” So, no, you don’t get to tell other people what they can do with their guns, because you get off on the telling. Sorry. Not everybody’s into that. Maybe try CraigsList.

    Meanwhile, you, yourself can beg all you like for permission to keep your gun in a box. No accounting for taste, really.

    1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      Please, sir; may I have another?

  55. avatar DAC45 says:

    I live in a constitutional carry state and we do not need to ask permission to carry our firearms anyway we want.

  56. avatar GS650G says:

    We have to put up with the permitting system so police don’t shoot or arrest us for carrying a gun for protection. That’s infringement as it is.

  57. avatar Bob999 says:

    I am always amazed by how stupid people with a doctorate can be. I work with a lot of people with masters and doctorates. Often, all they know and all they want to know is what they learned in school and what their colleagues want to talk about in their little echo chambers. Half these people do not even know or care to know what happens in the flyover states, how us little people live, and what’s outside the window of their Lexus as they drive home to their gated community or high rise condominium.

  58. avatar Dr. CR says:

    I am a doctor with decades of highly specialized trauma surgery experience, the grandson of another doctor and firearms owner and hunter who was an international sharpshooting champion and Olympic competitor, the son of another doctor with a CWP and firearms owner; I am myself a firearms owner, CWP holder, own handguns and M4 style carbine, so let me guess, by your own criteria I am much more than a little more of an expert than you. I am Pro 2A, I have seen too many cases with morbidity and mortality that would have been preventable with less gun control.
    “What if we had a similar permit process for you to be able to speak freely, for you to vote, for you to be able to be free from unwarranted searches, for you to have a right to due process?” What if a prosecutor could say to you, sorry Dr. Leap, but your permit for a writ Habeus Corpus has been denied, so you get to sit in jail indefinitely or the police tell you that they can search your home without probable cause or a court order because the issuing authority failed to grant you a permit. What if the JAMA were told, sorry guys, but you cannot publish because you failed to be issued a permit to freely state your views?

  59. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Dear Dr Leap,

    No.

    Sincerely
    Me.

  60. avatar irwin says:

    book smart
    no common sense
    or a progressive loon

  61. avatar JW says:

    What if we had a similar permit process for ̶s̶e̶m̶i̶ fully-automatic, military ̶s̶t̶y̶l̶e̶ rifle purchases?

    There, fixed the question for him… and my answer – not perfect, but I would sign on to that if it allowed citizens to once again buy current production fully automatic firearms.

    Give up ground on gun rights just because my semi-auto looks scarier and other semi autos? Um. No.

  62. avatar piper says:

    Dear Doctor, F*&^ Off.

  63. avatar manny says:

    I went back to read the Constitution (and how our Founding Fathers interpreted it) and I couldn’t find any mention of “registration”, “4 hour course”, “permit”, “size of the firearm”, “number of projectiles allowed”. Am I missing something? Maybe Justice Kavanaugh will clarify that for us.

  64. avatar DaveE says:

    I propose that we put EXACTLY the SAME requirements on the right to FREE SPEECH that are placed on the SECOND AMENDMENT. Before anyone can publish any written material in newspaper, magazine or online, they must qualify for a concealed weapon in their locality. If they are denied a concealed weapon permit, they are not permitted to speak, write, publish or post any material under threat of prosecution. That would stop most of the anti-gun material. If someone says, “YOU CAN’T DO THAT!”, the response is, “If the government can take away the second amendment, they can also take away the first”.

  65. avatar EnDangerEd says:

    It has been convincingly put forward that “an expert is anyone from out of town that’s wearing a suit.” That being the case I would recommend that you read the 2nd, then read what the Founders had to say and WHY. If you still want to start bargaining? My initial weapons choice, for controlling Governmental Tyranny would be the “Ma-Deuce”, fully automatic, with a vehicle mounting kit and two cases of ammo. As to controlling SEMI-Automatic Rifles… Why bother? They are not and never were “combat arms” nor “assault weapons” if that term alludes to military assault. If it’s a cowardly reference to personal assault you should start with kitchen knives and baseball bats, which are used considerably more often.

  66. avatar Michael says:

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…no compromise, no retreat, no surrender. You want to give away my God given rights. Good luck with THAT, doctor.

  67. avatar Alan says:

    Having seen the doctor’s comment, I doubt that I would trust him to take my temperature.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email