Does getting your concealed carry permit promote our 2nd Amendment Rights?
- Thread starter Bill_Rights
- Start date
- Status
Harve Curry
Member
double post
mljdeckard
Member
I will say yes since the campaign has been so successful. Now that 40 of 50 states are 'shall issue', it is a leverage point for the rest of them. Before the CCW revolution when only a few states issued permits, it was widely regarded as a privilige to carry.
To the naysayers who contend that applying for a permit to practice a right is to admit it is not a right at all, I may agree in principle that it is not ideal, but the positive ground that has been made for RKBA and asserting states' rights far outweighs the concern.
To the naysayers who contend that applying for a permit to practice a right is to admit it is not a right at all, I may agree in principle that it is not ideal, but the positive ground that has been made for RKBA and asserting states' rights far outweighs the concern.
mallc
Member
Respectfully ChristCorp 2
Second Thoughts
Scott
Second Thoughts
Scott
Last edited:
Bill_Rights
Member
Harve,
I see what you mean about Vermont. I especially like that non-residents of Vermont have the same rights as residents, whenever they're in Vermont.
There are of course a bunch of limitations and rules on firearms in Vermont. However, these are relatively few in number and fairly commonsensical. (My disguised link there came from http://www.gunlaws.com/links/linksvt.htm, which has links for every US state.)
I see what you mean about Vermont. I especially like that non-residents of Vermont have the same rights as residents, whenever they're in Vermont.
There are of course a bunch of limitations and rules on firearms in Vermont. However, these are relatively few in number and fairly commonsensical. (My disguised link there came from http://www.gunlaws.com/links/linksvt.htm, which has links for every US state.)
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
It is NOT positive ground for RKBA. In fact, it rolls it back because it imposes a tax and a performance requirement on a right (not all states have this). But, some sort of "test" is involved. The worst part is the tax...there is nothing stopping a legislature from raising that tax to astronomical levels.
No, this is now an entrenched taxation scheme that damages the RKBA.
Officers'Wife
Member
How does begging the local sheriff to be given leave to carry a weapon under color of law insure the right to bear arms will not be infringed?
The idea behind being against a CCW permit is simply that they are making us get a license for a right and that turns a right into a privledge. Yes I am against the idea of having to have a CCW permit in order to carry.
You should also know that as I say this I am an Illinois resident that they make you have a FOID card to make it legal for you to Keep and Bear Arms. I also have a Florida concealed carry permit for when I go out of state. I am an NRA member ISRA member. I send letters when letters need to be sent to state sentetors and representitves and I attend IGOLD.
Just because we dont believe it is consitutional dosen't mean we don't participate and fight for our rights.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Yet it is liberalized CCW that has brought us to where we are -- a majority of Americans oppose more "gun control" and even liberal Democrats won't support it.
Step by step we will have our rights recognized, and it is foolish to refuse to take the first step.
mljdeckard
Member
cerebralfix, If the CCW movement had followed with outrageous costs to get a permit, I would agree, but it hasn't. There are reasonable costs associated with issuing permits. The CCW revolution has done much to change people's perceptions about the need and legality for carry, and continues to do so. I believe this does us more good than a larger absolutist view that is unattainable in the current political climate. They took our rights away one bite at a time, we will have to get them back the same way, and I think we're doing a pretty good job of it. Just that many states have switched their position from 'may issue' to 'shall issue' places pressure on the states that are 'no issue'. This does more good than holding out for a utopian future where no one will need a permit at all.
There are many examples of regulations placed on rights. Try to get into a presidential press conference without proper credentials. Try to claim you are married without a license. I do not view the conditions placed on my carry permit as prohibitive in any way.
There are many examples of regulations placed on rights. Try to get into a presidential press conference without proper credentials. Try to claim you are married without a license. I do not view the conditions placed on my carry permit as prohibitive in any way.
runrabbitrun
member
What ever side of the fence people are on in this subject matter.
I hope this whole permit scheme isn't simply a back door attempt to
registration BEFORE confiscation.
Some will argue the NICS check form is sort of a registration anyway,
so why does it matter if we get a CCW permit?
Well, I'd say they now KNOW you have a handgun, maybe not what type, yet...
But they now know where to come a knocking if they decide 'no more guns for you'.
In my situation, I've only purchased two weapons in my life via an FFL.
The first was a small handgun before the NICS checks began. (I think it was, long time ago)...
The other was a .22 rifle several months ago.
So >>>> IF they decide tomorrow that everyone must turn in their handguns and long guns or else.
When they get to me, I can give them my $170.00 .22 rifle and say 'thank you sir's have a nice day'.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but I gotta tell ya.
The govment hasn't given me much reason to trust them over the years
and as we all know MOST politicians and people in power talk out of both sides of their mouths.
I've only been at this forum for a few months but so far everything
I've read makes me less likely to ever get a CCW permit.
Of course I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks. lol
I hope this whole permit scheme isn't simply a back door attempt to
registration BEFORE confiscation.
Some will argue the NICS check form is sort of a registration anyway,
so why does it matter if we get a CCW permit?
Well, I'd say they now KNOW you have a handgun, maybe not what type, yet...
But they now know where to come a knocking if they decide 'no more guns for you'.
In my situation, I've only purchased two weapons in my life via an FFL.
The first was a small handgun before the NICS checks began. (I think it was, long time ago)...
The other was a .22 rifle several months ago.
So >>>> IF they decide tomorrow that everyone must turn in their handguns and long guns or else.
When they get to me, I can give them my $170.00 .22 rifle and say 'thank you sir's have a nice day'.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but I gotta tell ya.
The govment hasn't given me much reason to trust them over the years
and as we all know MOST politicians and people in power talk out of both sides of their mouths.
I've only been at this forum for a few months but so far everything
I've read makes me less likely to ever get a CCW permit.
Of course I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks. lol
christcorp
Member
Totally agree mlj. The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it can be interpreted many different ways. NO, we can't debate this. This is a fact. Different people/states/judges/etc... interpret it differently. Your interpretation is no more right than others. The difference however is to get the courts and legislators to agree on the interpretation; "Preferably the Citizen's interpretation"; and then define that in such a way that all citizens understand it. Whether they like it or not, as long as they understand it. The problem is that there are a lot of people that believe in the "State's View" which is that the state has the right to organize a militia, separate from the national military, comprised of volunteers. These volunteers would be armed to protect their state and fellow citizens. The threat could be anything; INCLUDING the national government, tyranny, and dictatorship.
The next view point is the "Citizen's" view which believes that they individually have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their family; against any harm. This harm could also include the national/state government, tyranny, and dictatorship. This view point also includes the ability to be prepared 24/7, and therefor carrying a weapon guarantees the ability.
Either view point allows the citizens to defend themselves and/or their state against harm and/or tyranny and dictatorship. Where the problem comes in, is whereby the 10th amendment comes it. Basically allowing the states to determine laws and such that aren't directly covered by the constitution and opower granted to the national government. Many have interpreted the 2nd amendment as the "State's" view listed above. Therefor, they are very strict with allowing the individual to keep and bear arms. They allow it out of political pressure of the citizens, but based on "State" law and power and NOT based on the 2nd amendment. Any reference made to/by the 2nd amendment, they believe they have the power granted by the 10th amendment to "Tweak" as they see fit.
Where the problem comes in, is that the 2nd amendment doesn't clarify certain questions such as "HOW", "WHEN", "WHO", "WHY", etc... Therefor, the states believe that the 10th amendment gives THEM the power to determine the answers to these questions. Even the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller which the supreme court upheld that disallowing an individual to posses a gun in their home, violated the 2nd amendment. The problem with this "Win" is that Washing DC is NOT a state. So this ruling, while accepted by many states, can LEGALLY be rejected by many states.
So, being the 2nd amendment didn't explicitly describe WHO could posses a gun; or WHERE they could possess it; or HOW OR WHEN they could possess it; the states were free to determine it. Many forget that when the constitution and the declaration where written and ratified, there were a lot of people that it DIDN'T apply to. Woman, Slaves, non-property owners, etc... Things have changed a lot since then. So LEGALLY, it can be argued that the state has every right in the world to determine aspects of guns and rules/laws, that the federal government doesn't address. They can easily define it to mean that you can own a gun and keep it at home, available if needed against a tyrannical government; but you can't use it or bear it in public or concealed. Right or wrong, a state can decide this and it takes the courts to re-define that if people don't agree.
I personally don't have any problem with the government; either federal or state; having certain limitations. I.e. I don't believe that a felon should be allowed to have the right of exercising the 2nd amendment. I think it's OK to have an age limit. I have no problem with either government stating certain places where carrying a gun is no allowed. I have no problem with a person having some sort of back ground check done to determine that they ARE a citizen, that they AREN'T a felon, that they ARE of age, etc... Not a registration, but a background check. Now; once the individual is determined capable of exercising their 2nd amendment right, they SHOULD be allowed to either openly or concealed. Whatever they want to do. There can be a list of where a person can NOT carry a weapon. And private businesses should also be free to post that they DON'T ALLOW patrons to enter their establishment with a gun; open or concealed. And any person who doesn't follow the list of federal/state/private restricted sites, should be fined. And if enough infractions occur, the person should lose their eligibility to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Just like felons can't vote; or freedom of speech is sometimes restricted.
So, while I believe that the states have the right to answer certain questions and are entitled to the power to enforce certain definitions; I believe that all states should be an "AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWED" situation UNLESS the individual is found to not be eligible based on federal/state laws. But once ALLOWED, the individual should be free to carry that gun in any manner they want. Either left at home, in the car, open carry, concealed carry, etc....
The next view point is the "Citizen's" view which believes that they individually have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their family; against any harm. This harm could also include the national/state government, tyranny, and dictatorship. This view point also includes the ability to be prepared 24/7, and therefor carrying a weapon guarantees the ability.
Either view point allows the citizens to defend themselves and/or their state against harm and/or tyranny and dictatorship. Where the problem comes in, is whereby the 10th amendment comes it. Basically allowing the states to determine laws and such that aren't directly covered by the constitution and opower granted to the national government. Many have interpreted the 2nd amendment as the "State's" view listed above. Therefor, they are very strict with allowing the individual to keep and bear arms. They allow it out of political pressure of the citizens, but based on "State" law and power and NOT based on the 2nd amendment. Any reference made to/by the 2nd amendment, they believe they have the power granted by the 10th amendment to "Tweak" as they see fit.
Where the problem comes in, is that the 2nd amendment doesn't clarify certain questions such as "HOW", "WHEN", "WHO", "WHY", etc... Therefor, the states believe that the 10th amendment gives THEM the power to determine the answers to these questions. Even the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller which the supreme court upheld that disallowing an individual to posses a gun in their home, violated the 2nd amendment. The problem with this "Win" is that Washing DC is NOT a state. So this ruling, while accepted by many states, can LEGALLY be rejected by many states.
So, being the 2nd amendment didn't explicitly describe WHO could posses a gun; or WHERE they could possess it; or HOW OR WHEN they could possess it; the states were free to determine it. Many forget that when the constitution and the declaration where written and ratified, there were a lot of people that it DIDN'T apply to. Woman, Slaves, non-property owners, etc... Things have changed a lot since then. So LEGALLY, it can be argued that the state has every right in the world to determine aspects of guns and rules/laws, that the federal government doesn't address. They can easily define it to mean that you can own a gun and keep it at home, available if needed against a tyrannical government; but you can't use it or bear it in public or concealed. Right or wrong, a state can decide this and it takes the courts to re-define that if people don't agree.
I personally don't have any problem with the government; either federal or state; having certain limitations. I.e. I don't believe that a felon should be allowed to have the right of exercising the 2nd amendment. I think it's OK to have an age limit. I have no problem with either government stating certain places where carrying a gun is no allowed. I have no problem with a person having some sort of back ground check done to determine that they ARE a citizen, that they AREN'T a felon, that they ARE of age, etc... Not a registration, but a background check. Now; once the individual is determined capable of exercising their 2nd amendment right, they SHOULD be allowed to either openly or concealed. Whatever they want to do. There can be a list of where a person can NOT carry a weapon. And private businesses should also be free to post that they DON'T ALLOW patrons to enter their establishment with a gun; open or concealed. And any person who doesn't follow the list of federal/state/private restricted sites, should be fined. And if enough infractions occur, the person should lose their eligibility to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Just like felons can't vote; or freedom of speech is sometimes restricted.
So, while I believe that the states have the right to answer certain questions and are entitled to the power to enforce certain definitions; I believe that all states should be an "AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWED" situation UNLESS the individual is found to not be eligible based on federal/state laws. But once ALLOWED, the individual should be free to carry that gun in any manner they want. Either left at home, in the car, open carry, concealed carry, etc....
Vern Humphrey
Member
If it is, it's blown up in their faces. More people than ever are opposed to more "gun control" -- largely through seeing how having honest people carry guns reduces crime.
The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted, but as both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court have ruled, it means what it says.
No ammemdment is immune to misinterpretation when you have activist liberal judges on the bench -- but it would be difficult to re-word the 2nd Amendment so it would be more clear,
christcorp
Member
I agree, however the misinterpretation isn't totally up to the supreme court. If it were, each state wouldn't have different rules and laws. I.e. Vermont says anyone can have a concealed weapon because of the 2nd amendment, and you don't need a permit. Other states make it almost impossible to have a concealed permit. Some allow open carry, some don't. If it was a simple matter of the supreme court ruling, then it would be a Federal ruling. But it isn't. And because of the 10th amendment giving states the rights to power over matters that the constitution or federal law/policy isn't explicit on, states are obviously interpreting differently. That's why I said this can't be debated. Because it can't. Each state is different and each has their own interpretation. As much as you'd like to think they shouldn't, they do. So, until the FULL MEANING of the 2nd amendment becomes a FEDERAL POLICY and ruling, the states will continue to interpret as they do. And that is what you, the citizen of that state, has to live with. What I have to deal with in Wyoming, is not what you might in New Jersey. No matter what the 2nd amendment says. The courts may have ruled on what the 2nd amendment says; but it doesn't interpret and hasn't ruled on the questions of WHO it applies to; WHERE it applies; WHEN it applies; HOW it applies; or many other limitations such as permits, registration, etc... That is left up to the states.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Heller is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd Amendment (Miller was a ruling on taxation, not the Amendment itself.)
No. The 10th Amendment has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. States cannot, for example, have a state religion, or censor newspapers, deny citizens the right to trial or defense council -- and all those are in the Bill of Rights along with the 2nd Amendment.
CoRoMo
Member
logical nailed it.
While an innumerable multitude of permit holders would speak volumes to our elected elite, paying our government and asking their permission for a nonnegotiable right does the opposite of promotion.
We took a step backward when permits were required for our 2nd Amendment Right.
However, as I began, every permit that is acquired and maintained active, is another chirp in a thunderous roar of statistical silence.
While an innumerable multitude of permit holders would speak volumes to our elected elite, paying our government and asking their permission for a nonnegotiable right does the opposite of promotion.
We took a step backward when permits were required for our 2nd Amendment Right.
However, as I began, every permit that is acquired and maintained active, is another chirp in a thunderous roar of statistical silence.
engravertom
Member
christcorp,
While I agree with and appreciate the tone and spirit of your overall comments, I must take issue with the comments referenced above.
Words mean things, and there IS a right interpretation of them. The Founders thoughts and intentions can be examined on these issues, and the words themselves are not obscure.
The 10th amendment ALSO shows that rights are reserved to the poeple, not only the Sates.
How= anyway they care to
when= anytime they care to
who= the people who have not had rights revoked by due process
why= to secure a free State
We The People are sovereign in a certain way also. The question always comes down to this, what am I willing and able to do to secure my prerogatives? That applies to Federal governments, States, and individuals.
The Constitution exists, independant of any court's or State's interpretation. It exists because it pleased God for it to be written, as per Romans 13. We The People have failed to insist that our representatives obey the law. this has occured because We The People do not respect the law oursleves, as a group.
Above all else, as a Nation, we need repentance, and then obediance.
I'm guessing further comments in this vein might be out of bounds.
Take care,
Tom
Harve Curry
Member
EngraverTom,
Is right on the money in his above post.
The definition of Words have specific meaning and the only reason there is any confusion is due to people believing enough of the drivel that comes from those that would take your Rights away.
Like the old saying 'if you tell a lie enough times it becomes fact".
Well who you going to beleive the Constitution, Bill of Rights, American history 101, and some dictionaries, or some politiician??
Is right on the money in his above post.
The definition of Words have specific meaning and the only reason there is any confusion is due to people believing enough of the drivel that comes from those that would take your Rights away.
Like the old saying 'if you tell a lie enough times it becomes fact".
Well who you going to beleive the Constitution, Bill of Rights, American history 101, and some dictionaries, or some politiician??
christcorp
Member
2 problems then that YOU have to answer. I say YOU, collectively, because "You" are saying that the 2nd amendment is clear. And that the Heller decision is pertinent. 1st: The Heller Decision was against the District of Columbia. It was NOT against a "State". As such, many states don't recognize it. And even if they did, the decision by the supreme court simply said that the 2nd amendment applied to the citizens/individuals and NOT just to the states in forming a militia. Now, assuming that all states accepted this as fact that applied to them and not to the District of Columbia which is NOT a state and doesn't have the same protection and power that states do; the next point however is: the court decision still didn't define the questions of where, when, who, how, etc... You might believe that they did; but they didn't. Read it. It simply said that the DC Firearms control regulations act of 1975 was unconstitutional and that DC can not prohibit the individual to posses a firearm for private use. But that doesn't stop the states from saying that you must get a permit, register it, be a certain character of person, and other requirements.
So, if you disagree with this; which I'm sure many here do; the my question to you is quite simple. WHY do certain states like New Jersey and California and Illinois, have much different and much stricter requirement to "Possess" the gun, than states such as Wyoming, Montana, and Vermont? And MORE IMPORTANT; Why are they ALLOWED to enforce these rules??????
All the decision by the courts did; which is a good thing; was to say that the right to have and bear arms applied ALSO to the individual citizen and NOT just to the state and their militia. It never defined the administrative rules that a state can impose on the procedures for having and bearing those arms.
That is why the 2nd amendment isn't clear. Yes, it's quite clear that we're allowed to have and bear arms. But it isn't clear that it's an instant right that doesn't require certain boundaries. Therefor, the states have set up those boundaries. And the federal government has also set up certain boundaries on who is ALLOWED to exercise that "Right".
So, if you disagree with this; which I'm sure many here do; the my question to you is quite simple. WHY do certain states like New Jersey and California and Illinois, have much different and much stricter requirement to "Possess" the gun, than states such as Wyoming, Montana, and Vermont? And MORE IMPORTANT; Why are they ALLOWED to enforce these rules??????
All the decision by the courts did; which is a good thing; was to say that the right to have and bear arms applied ALSO to the individual citizen and NOT just to the state and their militia. It never defined the administrative rules that a state can impose on the procedures for having and bearing those arms.
That is why the 2nd amendment isn't clear. Yes, it's quite clear that we're allowed to have and bear arms. But it isn't clear that it's an instant right that doesn't require certain boundaries. Therefor, the states have set up those boundaries. And the federal government has also set up certain boundaries on who is ALLOWED to exercise that "Right".
That's true in one sense, but not in another.
As long as concealed carry was illegal in most places, it was easy to claim that, if it were made legal, "blood would run in the streets."
Now that it's legal in most places in the US (unfortunately not in some of our largest states), that argument can't be made.
If we are to get "Vermont carry" rights back, first I think we have to show that there's nothing to fear. Right now, we are doing that. Every permit issued makes the Brady Bunch's scare tactics seem sillier.
ReadyRob
Member
I have been in disagreement w/people who think we should be able to own guns w/no restrictions. I do not think the intent of 'the right to bear arms' meant the right to bear arms w/no restrictions.
We can own vehicles and have many, many restrictions. Right now I can't think of any part of American _ rights _ that do not have laws and regulations that govern them.
I don't agree w/many of the laws/regs that I have to live by, but I do my best to live by 'em.
We can own vehicles and have many, many restrictions. Right now I can't think of any part of American _ rights _ that do not have laws and regulations that govern them.
I don't agree w/many of the laws/regs that I have to live by, but I do my best to live by 'em.
engravertom
Member
"Infringed" again...
One major point I want to share with you. I am concerned that, perhaps, you unknowingly hold the position that the rule of governments is absolute. The Founders did not think so, I do not think so, the Constitution does not say so, and God does not say so. That thought IS, however, very much the unspoken, unrealized thinking of many in our society today.
There are perhaps various reasons for this. Do you realize many gun control laws in this country originally sprang from racist motives? "We" don't want certain folks, whom we fear, to have guns. So we pass certain laws, understanding that "we" will be exempt. over the course of time, we eventually become subject to those laws also.
Once we hand over the Rule of law for any convienience, or for any desire for safety, or personal provision of any good or service, we are in trouble. Because people who hunger for power will always hunger for more. And people who are too lazy or covetous to care for or provide for themselves, will tend to get lazier and lazier, over the course of time.
We have become a Nation who expect "Government" to be our god. To provide everything for us, to protects us, to give us happiness, to guarantee every good thing, to be above any questioning or disobediance. That attitude has to change. That is fundamentally a spiritual problem, much more than a political one.
Thankfully, the issues are becoming more clear, as time has progressed. A false sense of comfort is harder to maintain. More and more folks are learning about the Constitution, more States are asserting States Rights. CCW has been a truly remarkable occurence in the life of our nation. I would not have believed it possible years ago.
Let's continue our efforts to not "allow" our rights to be ignored any longer. But unraveling generations of misunderstanding and sloth will not be easy. I certainly need to do a lot more myself.
Thanks for the good discussion,
Tom
KBintheSLC
Member
CC permits are nothing more than a licensing scheme... we all know that licensing is a form of gun control. I believe that the 2A fundamentally states that we can bear arms with no restrictions on open/concealed carry. However, this is the world we live in, and until we can change the laws to more closely resemble VT and AK carry, I will be stuck with my CCW license.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Indeed if you read the Debates (the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers) the Founding Fathers explicitly say the people are confirmed in their right to be armed so they can always be assured of defeating a tyrannical government.
christcorp
Member
engravertom:
1) Please don't use lime green. Very difficult to read. Use red, blue, orange, etc... Thanks
2) The problem is; the purpose of the court is to "Define" the laws and constitution when more than one person disagrees in it's interpretation. Sorry that you don't like that, but that is their purpose in life. You can believe that because YOU interpret it a certain way that you are right; but there are other citizens (Not the government) who don't interpret it that way. As such, that is the purpose of the court. So YES, the court being involved is going to be necessary.
3) The court is not saying or giving you permission to exercise your right. Matter of fact; there is no law promoted by any court or any state that says you can't exercise your 2nd amendment rights. The problem goes back however to the manner in which you exercise that right. It has been determined that the states and federal government are allowed to define certain boundaries in how you exercise your rights. I.e. you can't be a felon to own a gun; you have to be 21 years old to purchase a hand gun; some states say that every single authorized person is allowed to own a gun, but you will register it or obtain a permit. In none of these cases is the state or federal government saying that you CAN'T exercise your 2nd amendment rights. Just like part of the declaration gives you god given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However; sometimes those rights have limitations attached to them. Playing baseball and swinging a bat might give you the most happiness in the world. Above everything else. But you can't swing the bat intentionally at another person's head. You have the LIBERTY and freedom to travel the entire country and use a car. But you aren't allowed to do it at 120 mph.
Just because you believe that the bill of rights say a certain thing, doesn't mean you're right. Just because you want to say that you don't recognize the court's involvement in our rights, again doesn't make you right. The truth is, YOU will easily have a different interpretation of certain rights than some other people will have. If you and your neighbor totally disagree on what certain amendments in the bill of rights mean, then your arrogance to say you are right and they are wrong just doesn't cut it. That is where the court comes in. And the court has given the states, via the 10th amendment, the power to discern the meaning of rights that aren't clear.
No one is arguing the meaning of the 2nd amendment. You have the right to have a bear arms. But the 2nd amendment does NOT say that you have unlimited power in exercising your right. That is why not just anyone can own a gun; that not just anyone can have a fully automatic weapon; that not just anyone can brandish a weapon and start shooting into the sky with it in public. You have the right to have a bear arms. And the state/federal government has the right to ensure that all citizens exercising that right, do so in a manner that doesn't infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights, as well as their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And that is why we have this problem. I would prefer that the "Federal" policy (Which is what's needed when 2 or more states are involved) was clearer. If they defined WHO, WHEN, WHERE,and HOW the exercising of the 2nd amendment was to happen, we wouldn't have half of this problem. However, that in itself is a problem because it takes the sovereignty away from the states. But if they did, then there'd be no issues with CCW; (They'd be valid in all 50 states); same with open carry and many other rules.
I know you disagree with what I'm saying. I know you think that YOU have the sole responsibility for interpreting the constitution. Sorry, but you don't. That is the whole purpose for the establishment of the judicial branch of government. Because no matter what the declaration, constitution, or any law or bill presented said; there was going to be at least 1 other person who was going to interpret it different than another person.
1) Please don't use lime green. Very difficult to read. Use red, blue, orange, etc... Thanks
2) The problem is; the purpose of the court is to "Define" the laws and constitution when more than one person disagrees in it's interpretation. Sorry that you don't like that, but that is their purpose in life. You can believe that because YOU interpret it a certain way that you are right; but there are other citizens (Not the government) who don't interpret it that way. As such, that is the purpose of the court. So YES, the court being involved is going to be necessary.
3) The court is not saying or giving you permission to exercise your right. Matter of fact; there is no law promoted by any court or any state that says you can't exercise your 2nd amendment rights. The problem goes back however to the manner in which you exercise that right. It has been determined that the states and federal government are allowed to define certain boundaries in how you exercise your rights. I.e. you can't be a felon to own a gun; you have to be 21 years old to purchase a hand gun; some states say that every single authorized person is allowed to own a gun, but you will register it or obtain a permit. In none of these cases is the state or federal government saying that you CAN'T exercise your 2nd amendment rights. Just like part of the declaration gives you god given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However; sometimes those rights have limitations attached to them. Playing baseball and swinging a bat might give you the most happiness in the world. Above everything else. But you can't swing the bat intentionally at another person's head. You have the LIBERTY and freedom to travel the entire country and use a car. But you aren't allowed to do it at 120 mph.
Just because you believe that the bill of rights say a certain thing, doesn't mean you're right. Just because you want to say that you don't recognize the court's involvement in our rights, again doesn't make you right. The truth is, YOU will easily have a different interpretation of certain rights than some other people will have. If you and your neighbor totally disagree on what certain amendments in the bill of rights mean, then your arrogance to say you are right and they are wrong just doesn't cut it. That is where the court comes in. And the court has given the states, via the 10th amendment, the power to discern the meaning of rights that aren't clear.
No one is arguing the meaning of the 2nd amendment. You have the right to have a bear arms. But the 2nd amendment does NOT say that you have unlimited power in exercising your right. That is why not just anyone can own a gun; that not just anyone can have a fully automatic weapon; that not just anyone can brandish a weapon and start shooting into the sky with it in public. You have the right to have a bear arms. And the state/federal government has the right to ensure that all citizens exercising that right, do so in a manner that doesn't infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights, as well as their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And that is why we have this problem. I would prefer that the "Federal" policy (Which is what's needed when 2 or more states are involved) was clearer. If they defined WHO, WHEN, WHERE,and HOW the exercising of the 2nd amendment was to happen, we wouldn't have half of this problem. However, that in itself is a problem because it takes the sovereignty away from the states. But if they did, then there'd be no issues with CCW; (They'd be valid in all 50 states); same with open carry and many other rules.
I know you disagree with what I'm saying. I know you think that YOU have the sole responsibility for interpreting the constitution. Sorry, but you don't. That is the whole purpose for the establishment of the judicial branch of government. Because no matter what the declaration, constitution, or any law or bill presented said; there was going to be at least 1 other person who was going to interpret it different than another person.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
