Does getting your concealed carry permit promote our 2nd Amendment Rights?

[Owen Sparks]

Would buying a Bible license or a free speech permit advance your First Amendment rights?

 

[engravertom]

I appreciate the polite disagreement.

You present your points well.

The court took to itself the "right" to interpret the Constitution. Since we allow it, it has remained in place.

Sorry about the lime! I'll try and change it up later!

Anyway, one more point for me, since we likely will have to agree to disagree.

Aren't you implying then that the Supreme court is the ultimate law of the land? They could "interpret" any and all rights down to nothing. Or create "rights' where none are enumerated in the Constitution. We then have No Constitution. We have whatever 5 out of 9 persons say we have at any given time.

If you are saying that such IS the current state of affairs, I agree with you. If you are saying that such is what the Constitution requires or permits, then I most vehemently disagree.

I maintain, and with God's help always will do so, that the Constitution stands alone, above any court or political body. Above any individual. Those who oppose it have been often too lazy or devious to amend it. We have collectively been too lazy to stop the infringing and overturning of it, piece by piece.

I have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. According to Romans 13, and many other passages from the Bible, I must fulfill that oath. The Founders understood this. It remains to be seen whether We the People have indeed borne the sword in vain.

Cordially and with respect,

Tom

 

[engravertom]

I know you think that YOU have the sole responsibility for interpreting the constitution. Sorry, but you don't.

I appreciate you making that statement, since I used some poorly chosen words at some points in my posts.

No, I do not believe I have the sole responsibility for interpreting the Constitution. I do have the sole responsibility for recognizing what it means, and what I will do with that understanding.

Just because you want to say that you don't recognize the court's involvement in our rights, again doesn't make you right.

What makes anyone "right"? Do you believe in truth?

And the court has given the states, via the 10th amendment, the power to discern the meaning of rights that aren't clear.

I do not believe that this is factually correct.

........................................................................................................

Truth is self existent. Some truths are "self evident"

Again, words mean what they mean. Truth is what it is. It only needs to be recognized. If no one on the earth today correctly recognized what the meaning of the Constitution was, it would still say what it says. If only one person saw the truth, that one person would be right.

If I can muster the self discipline, I now rest my case!

Take care,

Tom

 

[christcorp]

On the contrary about the supreme court being the ultimate law of the land. The people are the ultimate law of the land. But our system of government is not democratic, parliamentary, monarchical, or a dictatorship. It is; or at least suppose to be; a "Representative" Style of government. Our BIGGEST problem with our government is the congress; and then by proxy, we the voters.

First thing to remember is that the constitution was ratified in 1787. However; 4 years later, in 1791, they realized already that they needed to amend it. They added the first 10 amendments. This alone illustrates that the founding fathers knew that even more amendments would probably be needed in the future. Now the first 10 amendments; along with the next 2; all happened under the direct or indirect guidance and leadership of the founding fathers. I.e From ratification of the constitution, until the 12 amendment was ratified, was a total of 17 years. Including a change, 11th amendment, directed towards the judicial branch. Then there was a 61 year wait until the 13th amendment.

This too, the 13th amendment, as well as the 14th and 19th amendments, showed that there was obviously an "Interpretation" issue in the declaration and the constitution. It was originally written with the concept that "All Men" were created equal. It emphasizes "One People". Yet until 1865, they did not believe that blacks were part of "One People" or that they were created equal. And until the 19th amendment, they didn't believe women were of any societal importance. Obviously, that interpretation has changed. If you noticed, they didn't CHANGE or DELETE anything in the constitution. They added an amendment to clarify. And the 10th amendment makes it clear that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

So where do the problems lie. That is simple; the congress and the people. The people for continuing to vote in the same lazy SOB's term, after term, after term, etc... The congress, because if the supreme court interprets a bill, law, or the constitution in such a way that the congress who voted on it does not agree was the intention; (Including their ancestors who were the original congress who wrote the constitution); then the congress has the POWER to rescind the bill that was put into place and signed into law by the president. They can then submit a NEW bill with clarification leaning more towards their intent. The only thing the supreme court can contest, is if the laws written by congress and approved by the president, contradict the existing constitution of the united states and it's amendments. If it isn't unconstitutional, the court can not rule against it. Even if they don't like it. I personally believe we saw this FIRST HAND last week when the 9th circuit court (I believe) upheld the voter's vote in california for PROPOSITION 8. The court obviously didn't like the ballot; but the people voted on a properly submitted ballot initiative. The people voted. There's nothing about marriage in the constitution. Therefor the proposition is constitutional. Obviously, there are some different interpretations, but that is what the court ruled.

So, if the supreme court rules against something that the PEOPLE and by proxy their congress, did not intend to mean a certain way; then it is the congress's responsibility to rescind the law and present a clarified version that can not be as easily misinterpreted. So, we should be blaming congress. However, we should blame ourselves for re-electing the Pelosi's, Boxer's, Kennedy's, etc...

So no; the supreme court is not the ultimate power. But our system of government, with it's checks and balance system, is set up so that we will elect representatives/senators who will address, clarify, change as necessary, etc... any laws and such so that the supreme court is clear on their meaning. Our congress however is weak. They don't rock the boat. They ALLOW legislation from the bench. But we stop that by stopping the congress. That is our power.

Personally, I'd like to see another amendment to the 2nd amendment that not only clarified the who, what, where, when, why, etc...; but to take that power away from the state. I.e. I'd like to see the 2nd amendment made so that all the requirements; e.g. age, citizenship, felony, type of weapons, concealed carry, etc... was all spelled out there. Then it would be a national issue and the states couldn't change it locally. This way, your CCW would be issued nationally and be good any place in the country. Whoever wasn't allowed to own a gun would be the same in New Jersey as in Nevada. Anyway, that's what I would like to see happen.

I don't believe the 2nd amendment is being taken away from us. I don't believe it has turned into a privilege. I don't believe that we need permission to exercise our right. There isn't a state in the union that doesn't allow an 18 year old to buy a gun; have it in their home; and protect themselves, family, and property. Some states may require that you follow certain administrative processes, but that isn't stopping you from exercising your right. (I don't think they should force you to PAY for it however). These administrative processes may be a PITA, inconvenient, etc... but to an extent, they are required. I don't believe that convicted felon should be allowed a gun. And as soon as you agree that there's at least one citizen who shouldn't be allowed to exercise a right, you need administrative guidelines. Mentally handicapped; drug abuser; etc... My thing is I'd just like to see it clarified nationally. However; it would probably suck for me. My state is very pro-gun (Wyoming). To make it nationally, including CCW, my state, along with other pro-gun states, would have to compromise with the communist state of New Jersey, California, etc....

P.S. CORRECTION: I said the courts give the states power. That is incorrect. I didn't even mean that. The constitution, via the articles, explains the power of the congress, executive, judicial branches as well as the states. I also agree that words have meanings. And if only one person saw the truth, that person would be right. Unfortunately, I don't necessarily believe that you are right. I'm not saying I am completely right either. If there was a straight right and wrong, we wouldn't have states having different rules for this issue.

 

[engravertom]

semantics and potential philosophical differences aside, I'm glad we are on the same team.

Thanks again for the vigorous discourse. I think you have stirred me up to take some healthy positive actions.

Well done!

Tom

 

[christcorp]

I also thank you. I studied a lot of constitutional history in the past. You forced me to re-read the constitution, the declaration, and involve my wife (Her law firm); in doing more research. I think more people need to read these documents and understand them. I definitely thank you for motivating me to re-read them. I don't think I'll let another 10 years go by without reading them again. Along with many other great documents such as those by lincoln and many other great Americans. It's a shame that most Americans aren't involved with the process. Many whine and complain, yet they either don't vote or they have no idea of the issues. They definitely don't understand our laws, how laws are made, the power and responsibilities of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches; or even of the states and ultimately of the people. Instead, the listen and trust the opinion of Oprah and others. They vote for who and what they say to vote for. When I first joined the military, through 21 years of service, 4 different presidents while serving; through college, and now a couple of private sector jobs; I find many American's complacency disheartening. I thank you for a passionate and educated discussion.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Excllent points.

Regarding the relevance of the Heller case, it came out in another thread (Poll: Why not enlist in your state militia?), that only 24 states actually have state-controlled (commanded by the Governor) militias. See http://www.sgaus.org/. Other states gave themselves state-constitutional authority to form/have a militia but do not, at the present time. Curiously, the District of Columbia, although nominally a federal entity, does indeed have a "state" militia.

Although Heller ruled favorably toward the individual RKBA over militia RKBA, it is doubly favorable for the individual (or favorable even if Heller had never happened) residing in a non-militia state. Surely the Founders would not want a state to be unable to defend itself. Therefore, in absence of a militia, the individuals in a state obsiously have the RKBA, even under the twisted logic of those who would insist that only militias and government have RKBA. (I know, I know - it's a minor point. The "antis" assume that there are no such things as valid militia anymore, so if they can restrict RKBA to militias, they've won.)

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Quite simply, you are asking the govt for permission to carry a gun, with the CC permit system, so the short answer is.....NO!

Why should we be required to get a license to excercise a right?

 

[razorback2003]

Cheaper Than Alternative

I am not a big fan of permits (we must have them to open or conceal in TN) because you are asking for permission and paying the government for a right. It is the equivalent of a poll tax that was once required in many states to vote.

I am glad I have a permit because I am not hassled in traffic stops by police, don't have to be concerned about a fine for carrying a weapon, or trying to buy my handgun back at the police auction. It is cheaper to pay the fifty bucks for the permit than get caught without it.