Gun Law in Puerto Rico to Respect the Second Amendment as of 1 January, 2020

Opinion

President Trump meets with hurricane victims in Puerto Rico
President Trump meets with hurricane victims in Puerto Rico

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- On December 11, 2019, Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced signed Act No. 168. into law. The new law totally re-writes Puerto Rico firearms law. It is the most sweeping change in firearms law in the history of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico came under the sovereignty of the United States in 1898, about the same time as Hawaii. Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States as the result of the Spanish-American war. In Puerto Rico, the possession of firearms has always been regarded as a privilege, not as a Constitutional Right.

Puerto Rico had one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the United States, arguably more restrictive than California, Hawaii, or New York. There were only about 225,000 legally owned firearms in Puerto Rico in 2016, giving it one of the lowest levels of legal firearm ownership in the United States, at about 6.6 legal firearms per 100 people.

Two things seem to have led to the massive reform of Puerto Rico firearms law.

  • First, the actions of the United States Supreme Court in recognizing the Constitutional protections of the Second Amendment in the Heller and later, the McDonald, Supreme Court cases.
  • Second, the utter failure of the extremely restrictive Puerto Rico gun control scheme.

While Puerto Rico has had extreme infringements on Second Amendment rights, it has had extreme crime and murder rates, far higher than any state in the United States. Puerto Rico's murder rate averages four times the murder rate of the United States as a whole.

In 2016, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows Puerto Rico with 19.9 murders per 100,000 population. Louisiana is the closest state with 11.8 murders per 100,000 population. The District of Columbia, as a federal territory, edges out Puerto Rico with 20.4 murders per 100,000. The District of Columbia is one of the few places in the United States that could claim, in 2016, to have more infringements on Second Amendment rights than Puerto Rico.

Perhaps this is why, when those pushing for a disarmed society compare gun control regimes and crime rates, they conspicuously ignore Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. 2016 is not an outlier. It is representative of the last 20 years, at least.

The reason for the passage of Act. No. 168 is stated as the necessity of bringing Puerto Rico law within the protections of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Caveat: Act No. 168, and other Puerto Rico law is written in Spanish. What is quoted below are translations to English.

Given the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court, it is necessary to take action to safeguard and protect the rights of American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, through a new Weapons Law that is consistent with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, with decisions of the Supreme Court, and make it clear that, in Puerto Rico, carrying and possessing firearms is a fundamental and individual right, as in the rest of the Nation.

The most sweeping change in Act No. 168 is to eliminate the restrictive and burdensome requirements of the old law in obtaining a permit to purchase, own, or carry firearms. The new law enacts a shall-issue system that requires a permit to be issued if the applicant meets the legal requirements. The legal requirements are essentially the same as in the United States for firearms ownership; except for a uniform minimum age of 21. This was likely influenced by recent legislation in California, Washington, and Florida.

Costs under the old system were upwards from $1,500, with no guarantee of obtaining a permit to own a gun at the end of the long process. Under the new law, costs are about $200, with a guarantee of a permit, if the applicant does not fall into one of the prohibited categories. The permit is valid for five years. The renewal fee is $100.

Under the new law, a permit to own includes the right to carry a firearm for defense in public, if the firearm is concealed. Obtaining a permit to carry, under the old system, was even more difficult and costly than obtaining a permit to own a firearm. The government has a limit of 45 days in which to investigate and issue a permit. After a year, the limit is reduced to 30 days.

Puerto Rico will recognize all other firearm permits issued in the United States or territories of the United States. This warning, in Spanish and English, is to be posted at all ports and airports:

“FIREARMS WARNING

Every person, not authorized to have firearms under Puerto Rico laws, and who does not hold a valid weapons permit issued in any State, enclave, possession or territory of the United States of America, who brings a firearm with him/her or in his/her luggage, must give immediate notice to the Ports Authority Security Office and an officer of the Police Bureau of Puerto Rico upon arrival. Noncompliance with this notice may carry prison penalties. The Ports Authority Security Office and/or an Authorized Agent will inform you on how to proceed with your weapon.”

Under the new law, if a firearms owner purchases more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition in a year; or more than 10 firearms in a year; the police chief may investigate to ensure the ammunition and firearms were purchased for lawful reasons.

The collection of firearms is specifically protected under the new law. There are no limits to the number of firearms which may be collected.

Under the new law, “assault weapons” are banned, except for those people with a firearms permit.

Under the new law, target shooting is to be encouraged by the government of Puerto Rico. The establishment of clubs, shooting organizations, and competitions are to be promoted by the government.

People without firearms permits will be allowed to shoot at licensed ranges.

While the requirement to apply and pay for a firearms permit may seem burdensome to gun owners in many states, Act No. 168 is an enormous step toward respecting Second Amendment rights in Puerto Rico.

Consider: The permit must be issued. The permit includes the right to carry for self-defense. There is complete recognition of all permits issued in the United States. There are, effectively, no limits on the number of firearms or amount of ammunition which may be purchased and used.

Moreover, the law specifically states its purpose is to bring Puerto Rico under the protections of the Second Amendment of the United States.

If the Supreme Court further clarifies and restores those protections, as expected, the law will be subject to revision to bring the benefits of the Second Amendment to Puerto Rico.

The law goes into effect on 1 January 2020.

Regulations are being written to conform to the new law. If you are traveling to Puerto Rico, it is recommended you determine the details of the regulations before traveling.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Subscribe
Notify of
112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
elboripr787
elboripr787
1 month ago

I moved out of the island because of the crime theres alot less police than murders in usa in only one town i have seeing more than 50 DIFERRENT PERSONAL OFFICERS AND more Than 50 DIFERENT POLICE VEHICLES. In one town of my island I only see 3 or 10 same cops patrolling the area really really sad but the saddest par its that the murders in PR age rage between 16 and older but most murders are young inteligent people making they’re guns automatically illegal wich is the most baddest thing in a place to live soo even if… Read more »

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago

USA – There’s no need to take hyperbolic license when listing fees as taxes. While the out-of-pocket effect may be the same on the consumer, fees are not taxes (which is why “fee” and “tax” are spelled differently). On the other hand, I agree with your premise and would only add that, as the PR firearms carry permit fee is excessive, paying for any permission to exercise an uninfringeable right is an infringement.

Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

RickN
RickN
6 months ago

As a resident of Puerto Rico, I have mixed feelings about the new legislation. While it makes getting a firearms license easy and CCWs go along with the license for everyone, it makes it illegal for citizens to purchase ammunition (like California), gun parts, and accessories outside of PR. Yes, now non-residents without a license can bring a gun to PR IF the stringent reporting requirements are met, but they can’t bring ammunition or spare parts. What accessories can be brought is unclear at this point. The new legislation gives with one hand and takes away with another. Guess who… Read more »

Graham
Graham
6 months ago

Missing a big one “self employment tax”

I’ll add that when I share it

donfranko
donfranko
6 months ago

Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States as the result of the Spanish-American war.

Gee, did we lose that war? I thought we won that war… we must have lost.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
6 months ago

I do not remember seeing and “value added tax” in you list. IE: Pick a rock off the field. Paint “a face on it”. Sell the “painted” ROCK PET. Your rock is now taxed when you sell it.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
6 months ago

I am STILL awaiting the passage of CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY and the RECOGNITION of CC ALL ACROSS America for all LEGAL LAW ABIDING American CITIZENS – – – IF you noticed, I did not say hunters!!!!!!

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  Laddyboy

Laddyboy – I agree, with the caveat that “RECOGNITION OF CC” is intended to mean “recognition of CONSTITUTIONAL carry,” not just “Concealed Carry.”

De Oppresso Liber

hoss
hoss
6 months ago

So in other words instead of $1500.00 it is now $200.00 to exercise the God given right to self defense? Well I suppose it’s a start.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  hoss

It is also a change from “may issue” to “shall issue”. Also, many Puerto Rican gun laws are either enforced incorrectly or so convoluted that one can easily become an accidental felon. This change in gun laws is supposed to address that. We will see!!!

Wass
Wass
6 months ago

As a resident of NJ, I would happily accept the reforms just implemented in PR, if applied to my state. Too bad for the infantile whiners. Because PR’s reforms aren’t perfect, the whole thing is not good. As for the infernal gun grabbers, if they truly believe the ineffectiveness of American gun restrictions stem from the fact that we have a patchwork of gun laws, then look south to Mexico. There, you can see the effectiveness of universal gun restrictions.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  Wass

Wass – I note that you “…would happily accept the reforms…” if they applied to New Jerseystan. Acceptance based on comparative tyranny is understandable, being rather like accepting better-looking uniforms as a prisoner, while still being a prisoner. It may be a step in the right direction, but it’s still not freedom. Constitutional Carry is known best for recognition of a right assured and guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution for the United States of America. Virtually all else constitutes infringement and is, for the most part counter-Constitutional. If one is an advocate for counter-Constitutionality, your comment makes… Read more »

ExGob
ExGob
6 months ago

If Puerto Rico plans to respect the Second Amendment, why should it be necessary for any law abiding citizen to have, (and pay for) any kind of permit to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to The United States Constitution? We are quick to defend the First Amendment, let’s be just as quick to defend the Second.

Roadkill Coyote
Roadkill Coyote
6 months ago

Is anyone crowdfunding to raise money for expanding ranges and classroom space in PR? It would seem like something that’s going to be needed, and a perfect fit for crowdfunding. I wouldn’t mind kicking in twenty bucks to help out some folks that have been disenfranchised for a hundred years.

jack mac
jack mac
6 months ago

USA: The list of taxes and fees which should be consider tax is excellent and more could be added. If people who earn their income would add up all the taxes they pay they would see that most will approximately pay five and a half months of their earnings in taxes.

Tionico
Tionico
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

lst I checked, “tax freedom day” was in early July. That’s the day when we stop working to fill the government troughs at every level, and begin working for ourselves.

NightFire
NightFire
6 months ago

While I agree that our taxation is excessive, spreading false claims tends to hurt a cause more than help it. A lot of these taxes didn’t exist 100 years ago because the taxed item or related service didn’t exist. For the things that did exist, most of those were taxed. The US first started taxing our income during the Civil War. The US has always had a national debt, except for a short period in 1835-1836. The only reason the US was the most prosperous country 100 years ago is because Europe had been completely bombed out from the war… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
6 months ago
Reply to  NightFire

COnsider something else that did not exist, or when it did, was a small fraction of what exists today:

IRS, BLM, DEA, BATF, DOT, FMVSS, EPA, USFS, DNR, FBI, FAA, FDA, CIA, and I’m pretty certain I’ve not remembered the other two thirds.

NOT ONE of these FedGov boondoggles is lawful under the Constitution. Sack them all and see how quickly our total tax burden falls. And how far.

Vern
Vern
6 months ago

If it is not compulsory for criminals to register their firearms, why is it compulsory for law abiding citizens to register theirs?
Why do politicians back criminals and exempt criminals from the same laws they require on law abiding citizens?
Are the politicians and criminals sleeping in the same bed?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Vern

, The libtards feel that the criminals are poor, unfortunate victims of our unjust laws. Pitiful logic. Just pitiful. MC and a Happy New Firearm!

Vern
Vern
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I just realized I left out the news media, the left, criminals and the media are all sleeping together in the same twin bed. Since they are so poor they can’t afford a bigger bed, maybe they will raise taxes for a new bed but as usual, they will spend it on something else.
The new year will bring more challenges to decent people, none of the decent people are in the “D” party or connected to it in any way.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.

jack mac
jack mac
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Wild Bill: Libtards are unfortunate victims of brainwashing by the left.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

@jm, Yeah, I think that the Libtards remained in the spin cycle too long! MC and a HNF.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

jack mac – Perhaps it’s time we recognize that, under the original meaning of the word, our Founders and Framers were radical “liberals” who fought the established governing body. Today’s “liberals” co-opted the term for the purpose of camouflaging the fact that they were and are leftists. Now, for one to be “left-leaning” is a cooperative perspective, but to be a true leftist, one must adopt an objective of equality of result for all peons, with rewards and bonuses for the elitists. True leftism is communal socialism on the journey to communism. No matter how many times leftism changes its… Read more »

jack mac
jack mac
6 months ago
Reply to  Vern

Vern: Our public servants already have been given power by us to control criminals. Our public servants are now taking our power to control us. It is our uppity public servants who leave us sleeping among private criminals.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

And a Happy New Firearm!

Vern
Vern
6 months ago
Reply to  Vern

“Godly” people, aren’t, “boot lickers.” We have a higher power that we adhere to who has given us the ability to know what is going on because He has told us what is going to happen. Those who don’t believe think we are cowards who can be walked on at their pleasure, history has proven them wrong many times but because they don’t know history they are prone to walk in the same disastrous steps as those before. Seeing the storm coming helps us to prepare so we aren’t drowned but cling to the master of the storm trusting Him… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Vern

, Your description “… We have a higher power that we adhere to that has given us the ability to know what is going on … ” Sounds like the advertising description of my favorite 5 – 25x rifle scope!
Oh, and I liked the rest of it, too! MC and a HNF.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  Vern

Vern – At the risk of stating the obvious, “criminals” and “politicians” are, for the most part, synonymous terms.

Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

2ASandy
2ASandy
6 months ago

. While the gun law may have a few good things looking to comply with the second amendment, it does not apply the right, treating the right as a privilege (and some rights as a crime).   While it reduces the cost ($200 + other expenses ) to apply for a license permit to Possess and Conceal carry firearms, at the same time it infringes on the right and on other constitutional rights. (including those that we already enjoy in the actual gun law).   In the first paragraph the opening statements says that this bill aims to ESTABLISH A… Read more »

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  2ASandy

2ASandy – The Devil’s in the details!

Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
6 months ago

Puerto Rico will recognize all other firearm permits issued in the United States or territories of the United States. So what about states that are Constitutional carry and do NOT require a permit?! If PR was really trying to follow the US Constitution, they would NOT require permitting at all, instead they are looking at $$$$$$$$$ for permitting millions of PRs. They are following unconstitutional permitting and federal/state gun laws as their example.

Wass
Wass
6 months ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

Unless I’m mistaken, all Constitution Carry states provide the option of applying for and receiving a concealed carry license card.

RoyD
RoyD
6 months ago
Reply to  Wass

After Oklahoma got permit carry we recognized Arizona’s CC status. I always thought it was odd that someone from another state only needed their driver’s license to be able to carry in Oklahoma when State residents needed to spend money and get a carry license to do the very same thing. And I think that was just another rung in the ladder that led to CC a month ago in Oklahoma.

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago

D.C. Highest murder rate of any place in the USA………….Hmmmmm.
Glad to see the Puerto Rican’s finally being recognized as American,and getting eqail treatment under the Const.
As an aside we all hear MORE people are murdered by firearms in America than any other country in the world, NOT TRUE, per-capita we average #30 on the TOP HOMICIDES list.WORLDWIDE.
Add that we have MORE weapons I would say we are doing great, and if the Dems would clean up their toxic cesspools it would put us a 100th in the world.

Old Man Retired
Old Man Retired
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

Probably even lower

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

@Dos, DC has the highest murder rate of any place in the USA? Then why does Congress, Lobbyists, and nincompoop bureaucrats still exist?

Bill
Bill
6 months ago

Oops- they ban “Assult weapons”? What is their definition?

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Bill

You will know it once you get arrested for it. At least that’s how it works in PR.

Littlejohn1411
Littlejohn1411
6 months ago
Reply to  Bill

So called “assault weapons” are banned unless you have the permit, wonder what will be allowed, $hit they might soon have more rights than than the U.S.
Doubt it but you never know.

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  Littlejohn1411

Yes,those are NFA Weapons, and we are trying to overturn the FIREARM ACTS of ’34/’68/and ’86, all are Unconstitutional.

Rattlerjake
Rattlerjake
6 months ago
Reply to  Bill

Under the new law, “assault weapons” are banned, EXCEPT for those people with a firearms permit. Maybe you should learn to READ!!!!

Littlejohn1411
Littlejohn1411
6 months ago
Reply to  Rattlerjake

@RJ Maybe you should take your medication!!!!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Littlejohn1411

Gentlemen, You all vote the same, but can not have a conversation? Maybe we should all have a Christmas cookie, and cool our jets.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Wild Bill – HAVING a Christmas cookie is not synonymous with being permitted to EAT a Christmas cookie. Are you suggesting that others obtain a permit to eat? Are certain “Assault Cookies” banned from the option to possess? 🙂

De Oppresso Liber

PS – For elucidation of the rabid among us, the above comment is intended facetiously.

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  Bill

Only a handful of Americans know the definition.
In order for a weapon to be AN ASSAULT weapon it must have these 3 features.
They must be capable of FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE, THEY must be capable of SEMI AUTO fire, and they MUST use an INTERMEDIATE powered CENTER FIRE rifle round.

If anyone calls a semi auto an ASSAULT WEAPON SET THEM STRAIGHT.

John Dow
John Dow
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

You’ve defined an Assault Rifle. Assault Weapon is whatever a gun banner says is scary.

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  John Dow

Not true, it’s all SCARE tactics for the SHEEPLE.
TOO ignorant to know better and believe everything their told without researching it them selves.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

Doszap – Only the “SCARE tactics” portion of your comment is true. Your definition of “assault weapon” conforms to the accepted definition of “assault rifle,” making your definition of “assault weapon” false.

De Oppresso Liber

Old Man Retired
Old Man Retired
6 months ago
Reply to  John Dow

Assault weapon’s include fists, tire irons, baseball bats,knives, etc, etc, etc

jack mac
jack mac
6 months ago
Reply to  John Dow

John Dow: For you too, there is no such thing in reality as an assault rifle or assault anything, regardless who calls any firearm that. They can only be defined as a figment of imagination.

Tionico
Tionico
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

I once killed a cornered nuisance feral cat with a shovel. I guess I own an assault shovel, now, don’t I?

Come to think of it, if some feral gangbanger had ME cornered and I had my handy dandy assault shovel ready to hand, I suppose it would once more serve as an assault shovel. No, wait, tht would suddenly turn it into a defense shovel.

Well I don’t care WHAT anyone wants to call it. If I’m in trouble and that’s all I can grab, that’s what I’ll use.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Tionico – Adding to the confusion, select-fire “assault rifles,” when issued to government agents, are considered “Personal Defense Weapons.” When in possession of non-government persons, they are feloniously banned.

Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

Now, the irony is that we are discussing assault rifles on a gun forum on December 16, the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, where the Sturmgewehr 44 was used in combat. Some people here, including YOU @laughing Jack mac, don’t even know why the term “assault rifle” exists in the first place. Completely clueless! The word “Sturmgewehr” is a German compound noun, made up of the two nouns “Sturm” (as in storming or assaulting an enemy position) and “Gewehr” (rifle). Yes, there is something in reality as an assault rifle. The Sturmgewehr 44 is the original… Read more »

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago

Charlie Foxtrot – “Assault Rifles” existed long before the Sturmgewehr 44 used by German infantrymen in the 1944 Battle of the Bulge. American Patriots used rifled firearms to assault British troops and their Hessian mercenaries during the Colonial Rebellion (which we Americans commonly know as the “Revolutionary War”), but such weapons were in general military use even before that for quite some time.

De Oppresso Liber

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Drawer22

@Drawer22 Sorry, but you are making stuff up here!!! Just because rifles were used in battle before, doesn’t mean they were “assault rifles”. Maybe you should actually try to understand my post, before replying to it in your drive-by in this thread? The TERM “assault rifle” was INVENTED by the GERMANS. The Sturmgewehr 44 is a SELECTIVE FIRE rifle that could be EASILY CARRIED by an INFANTRYMAN. The German word “Sturmgewehr” LITERALLY translates to “assault rifle” in English. The TERM “Sturmgewehr” (or “assault rifle”) wasn’t used before the Sturmgewehr 44. The Sturmgewehr 44 was named that way by the Nazis… Read more »

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
6 months ago

CF, lots of people here know the derivation of the term. Other than that, I gonna blame public education.-

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago

@DiF, I think so too, but the radical left is using it against us. I don’t think that we should help them by legitimizing the term in conjunction to American firearms. MC and a Happy New Modern Sporting Rifle!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Drawer22

@D22, Were you special forces?

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

So, an M60 isn’t one? Interesting! Your definition is useless and nonsensical.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago

@CF, The term plays into the hands of the anti-Second Amendment Civil Rights crowd. Definitions and the M60 aside, we should not use the term.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I know. I was just making the point of how ridiculous such a definition is in the first place.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago

@CF, Ohhh, I see and concur!

jack mac
jack mac
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

Doszap: There is no such thing in reality as an assault weapon regardless of who calls any firearm that. An assault anything can only be defined as an imagination. Anyone who believes that anything should be correctly called an assault anything has been fooled.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  jack mac

@jm, Roger that. MC and a HNF.

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  Bill

As of NOW their is a NEW case going before SCOTUS that may clear the ASSAULT weapons and all these insane magazine bans, and laws FOR GOOD. The Judge doing the prelims is a Constitutional Judge and has his head screwed on straight.He has ruled correctly before. As gun owners we have been shafted for decades NO MORE!. When the Const is interpreted correctly, see the SUPREMACY CLAUSE,and Title 18,U.S.C.SECTION 241 (if applied correctly anyone even cops who shoot and kill someone over an ILLEGAL RED FLAG LAW, they are culpable of murder(unless said victim’s are a felon and ,or… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Doszap

@Doz, Which case did you have in mind, brother? MC and a HNF!

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago

Government: The entity that takes away a right and then sells it back to you in the form of a “permit”. The following is a public service announcement from the Bureau of Tourism for the Territory of Puerto Rico (and many states in the USA) “Massa, may I, a good slave of the Territory of Puerto Rico, have yo permission Massa to protect myself and my family? Can I massa?” Gooberment, “You have our permission slave, as long as you pay us $200 and $100 every five years to us for our permission (permit). We will let you have our… Read more »

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

Screw PERMIT’S for weapons, under the CONST there are FEW instances were we are to be DENIED.

joefoam
joefoam
6 months ago

Hmmmm, higher murder rate associated with restrictive gun laws. Where have I heard that before. Oh, yeah everywhere there is a set of restrictive gun laws.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  joefoam

It seems to occur quite regularly in those “Gun Free Zones” AKA Crime SPREE ZONES!

24and7
24and7
6 months ago

Tell Puerto Rico to become a state or go away!!

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  24and7

LOL! They should have emoticons on here. :‑)

Jeff82
Jeff82
6 months ago
Reply to  24and7

We don’t want them as a state. They are very corrupt, much graft, left-liberal leaning and is a Democrat stronghold.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Jeff82

@Jeff82, and a drag on the US general fund! But if we cut them loose they will all make a play for getting to CONUS.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

More people from Puerto Rico already live in the rest of the US than in Puerto Rico. They have already escaped that corrupt island.

I don’t understand what cutting them loose means. They are already US citizens. There seems to be a mutual agreement between Puerto Ricans and the other US citizens not to make Puerto Rico a state. Both sides don’t want it. That’s it!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago

@CF, PR is a possession of the USA. Cutting them loose means giving them independence from the US. If the US proposed to give PR independence, the entire population of PR would know that poverty and corrupt government was on the horizon and then come to the US. MC and a HNF

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

My point was that they already know that, hence more Puerto Ricans already live outside of Puerto Rico than in Puerto Rico. There are about 6 million Puerto Ricans stateside, while there are only 3 million still in Puerto Rico.

They have already come. Those that are still there either can’t afford to move, are OK with the existing corrupt government, or are part of it. Independence from the US, which is actually quite complicated, won’t change that.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago

@CF, so you want the rest, residue, and remainder to come here, too?

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

My point was that the ongoing migration from Puerto Rico to the rest of the US won’t change, independence, statehood, or status quo. The population of Puerto Rico has been constantly decreasing since 2010, which means that the migration rate is even higher than the birth rate.

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  24and7

They are Americans NOW,and you do not want to give them REPS and give the Communistic fascist DemoNcrats anew voting bloc do you?.

Grigori
Grigori
6 months ago

I see mostly good in this in that it IS a step in the right direction for the citizens of Puerto Rico! That said, I do agree that there are glaring flaws and major room for improvements. Having lived in South Carolina most of my life, I recall how badly it sucked as a young adult, not being able to obtain a permit by which I could legally carry. In my early 20’s, working a menial job and unable to afford a car, I took my freedom in my hands everytime I walked to the store or the laundry with… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  Grigori

In another words…you be a good slave! I never had a permit in my life. I lived in Florida up until I was 32 and carried from the time I was old enough to be on my own. At the time I was considered a criminal by the psychopathic control freaks in the government, so much so that they would have considered me a “felon”. Then I moved to Tennessee and carried there for the 2 1/2 years I lived there in violation of the “law” too. Then I moved to Washington State and lived there and violated the “law”… Read more »

Jeff82
Jeff82
6 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

You are not smart, only lucky. One run in with the law and you’d be dead or in prison.

RoyD
RoyD
6 months ago
Reply to  Jeff82

I have always said that I would rather be “lucky” than good any day. Of course there are those who say you make your own luck. I have been very lucky in life. For that I give thanks.

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

CourageousLion – We are all free to make our own decisions with the type of life we choose to live. As a Special Forces combat Veteran of multiple, voluntary deployments and a former law enforcement officer, I carried unlawfully for many years, noting that my skills did not decrease solely because I had shed uniforms. Then I considered the risk:benefit equation and decided that, should I be caught as a status felon, voluntarily living as a prisoner with no rights to a firearm and limited rights on other fronts, or dying in a vain attempt to establish my right to… Read more »

Doszap
Doszap
6 months ago
Reply to  Grigori

And the WORST part is UNDER the CONST you did not need a permit,I foresee all these PERMITS going away of SCOTUS rules correctly.
IF they take the case I look for ROBERTS to be the traitor he is,or it will come down to 5-4 FOR.

Arizona
Arizona
6 months ago

It’s an improvement but barely. They state that Americans have the right to own and carry firearms, then immediately infringe on that right and turn it into a privilege by demanding $200 to exercise the right, and $100 to renew the privilege of exercising the right. Enumerated rights may NOT be legally subject to permits, fees, licenses, taxes, etc. A CCW permit is as illegal as a FOID card or a poll tax! As a human, we have the right to build or buy any weapon we can carry to defend our lives, liberty and property, from those who would… Read more »

J Gibbons
J Gibbons
6 months ago
Reply to  Arizona

Actually, it is a huge improvement over the previous unconstitutional laws in PR. It is really one step shy of constitutional carry. Does it go far enough? No. But in an age when liberals are trying to further restrict gun rights, PR, which leans very left in overall politics, is making a smart move that will actually reduce crime.

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
6 months ago
Reply to  J Gibbons

Many people don’t even know that the PR government had decided a long time ago that the US Constitution does not apply. This is a HUGE change. For reference, http://www.handgunlaw.us still has the current PR laws listed: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/puertorico.pdf. Two sentences in there are quite representative of the PR approach to gun rights (and pretty much everything else): “Puerto Rico has Reciprocity in their laws but no one knows of any State Permit/Licenses they say they will honor. From all that I have heard they will not honor any other states Permits/Licenses even though they have a reciprocity law.” Is this… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  Arizona

I’m sure glad you’re on our side! BTW…I’ve been looking into plasma cannons and think I can build a small one for about $30,000. Anyone interested? (just kidding!)

Drawer22
Drawer22
6 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

CourageousLion – Per our Constitution for the United States of America, whatever you can “bear” is carriageable. (Are holsters available for small plasma cannons?)

De Oppresso Liber

Charles Nichols
6 months ago

Concealed carry is not a right. Requiring the payment of a fee and requiring a permit to exercise a fundamental right (which concealed carry is not) does not “respect the Second Amendment.” Puerto Rico does not need any more cowards or criminals walking the streets with concealed weapons. Puerto Rico needs Constitutional Open Carry, and it needs it now .

https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.com

Liston Matthews
6 months ago

Much better than before.

joefoam
joefoam
6 months ago

Could you point me in the direction of where it states in the 2A how you bear arms is described?

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  joefoam

It’s written in between the lines in the EXCEPT section. Here I’ll help…This is the NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these pain in the butt listed rights) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT: You are buying the firearms for yourself. EXCEPT: we already did away with the Militia by passing the Dick Act in 1903 EXCEPT: you say something that we deem to be… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  joefoam

, CN can not because it is not there. CN is just trolling for responses to fatten his paycheck before Christmas. MC and a HNF.

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
6 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

USA, Thenkew, Thenkuvellymush

J Gibbons
J Gibbons
6 months ago

How is concealed carry not a right? The right is to keep and bear arms. The 2nd doesn’t specify whether it’s out in the open or under a shirt/jacket.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  J Gibbons

@JB, You are correct, sir! MC and a HNF!

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago

Who CLAIMS it isn’t a right? Here is how you test if something is a right or not…Ask yourself this…If I do whatever I am getting ready to do, and it will not harm ANYONE in any way if there was no government, and the answer is yes, then it is a RIGHT. PERIOD. END OF STORY. FINIS!

Vanns40
Vanns40
6 months ago

Ah me, another one wrapped in sheep’s clothing. So, Charles, an inherent Right, all of a sudden, ceases to exist when a piece of cloth covers an item but it magically returns if you uncover that item? You should sell yourself as Merlin the magician……although I’m not sure you’ll be able to support yourself.

Baldwin
Baldwin
6 months ago

“Given the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court, it is necessary to take action to safeguard and protect the rights of American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, through a new Weapons Law that is consistent with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution”
All for the small fee of $ 200. Annnnnnnd…your permission slip can be renewed for $100 annually!

moe mensale
moe mensale
6 months ago
Reply to  Baldwin

It’s a 5 year renewal.

Baldwin
Baldwin
6 months ago
Reply to  moe mensale

It’s a permission slip…

moe mensale
moe mensale
6 months ago
Reply to  Baldwin

Yes it is. No argument there. But it’s a 5 year one. Not an annual one. Learn to read better so you don’t look like an idiot. And don’t forget my down vote!

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
6 months ago
Reply to  moe mensale

Moe, This is true, but still onerous. Guam was annexed by the US on June 21, 1898, and also has horrible gun laws. Oddly enough, most of the islands have terrible gun laws, and corrupt governments. I wonder why that is.

Jonesy
Jonesy
6 months ago

Speaking of Islands, England, Australia, New Zealand, still Hawaii. must be a water thing.

Terry
Terry
6 months ago
Reply to  Jonesy

It’s a racist thing. Don’t want them natives getting all uppity and exercising them rights.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
6 months ago
Reply to  Terry

@Gentlemen, It is an English Crown, Royalty, Devine Right of Kings bs, thing. MC and a HNF!

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  moe mensale

That makes it better! LOL!. Only $20 a year slave tax instead of $100.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
6 months ago
Reply to  Baldwin

What a riot, huh, Baldwin? Yea KOA and we will give you permission!