National CCW - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: National CCW

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    I would disagree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to conceal a weapon. Shall not be infringed is a pretty clear statement.
    So, obviously you believe a state or community cannot pass laws that prohibit camping in parks or on courthouse lawns or blocking streets, sidewalks and bridges because those are ways people choose to exercise their free speech?

    The fact your right to carry is guaranteed does not mean that HOW you carry cannot be subject to limits...any more than how you assemble to petition the government...

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by alduane View Post
    Yes it is a powerful statement that I thought about many times during the Bush years. Many may argue whether Jefferson or Franklin said it but there really isn't any doubt it was Franklin. If Jefferson said it he was quoting Franklin.
    Ok, I'll buy that but I'm still gonna use the short version....easier to remember
    "Those who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
    "The original point and click interface was a Smith & Wesson".

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxMentis View Post
    So, obviously you believe a state or community cannot pass laws that prohibit camping in parks or on courthouse lawns or blocking streets, sidewalks and bridges because those are ways people choose to exercise their free speech?

    The fact your right to carry is guaranteed does not mean that HOW you carry cannot be subject to limits...any more than how you assemble to petition the government...
    Oh my! I'm at a loss how you can equate trespass, and blocking people's right to travel as valid "freedom of speech" or right to Assemble. It is the leftist position. But then the 2nd Amendment says the Right to Keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a little stronger than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," There is noting about the right to assemble overturning other peoples rights.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Oh my! I'm at a loss how you can equate trespass, and blocking people's right to travel as valid "freedom of speech" or right to Assemble. It is the leftist position. But then the 2nd Amendment says the Right to Keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is a little stronger than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," There is noting about the right to assemble overturning other peoples rights.
    It most certainly is a "leftist position" that correlates strongly with the ability to be secretly armed being infered from the right to bear arms.

    Let's use the whole First Amendment here for a minute...

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    "Infringing" the right bear arms is quite similar to "abridging" the right to peaceably assemble. A community saying that weapons must be in plain sight when you want to conceal it is no different than one saying you can't camp on the courthouse lawn because that is the method by which you choose to exercise your right to peaceably assemble.

    In reality, neither is preventing you from exercising your rights, just the manner in which you might choose to do so.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Gee, passing a law about no camping on the courthouse lawn is not a law abridging the right to peaceably assemble. Nor is passing a law saying you can't obstruct the road, or obstruct the entry/exit of a building.

    Passing a law that you can not carry concealed certainly is an infringement of bearing arms. Heck in many states you are not allowed to open carry because it upsets the fools. Again an infringement on bearing arms. Of course a "license" requirement and fee's for utilizing a Constitutional Right is an infringement as well.

    A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' — MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

    There is no evidence that requiring an unconstitutional license makes anyone safer. There is no problem in the Constitutional carry states that wasn't present before, and there has been a reduction in confrontational crime in every state that has instituted Shall Issue laws.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Gee, passing a law about no camping on the courthouse lawn is not a law abridging the right to peaceably assemble. Nor is passing a law saying you can't obstruct the road, or obstruct the entry/exit of a building.
    Passing a law that you can not carry concealed certainly is an infringement of bearing arms. Heck in many states you are not allowed to open carry because it upsets the fools. Again an infringement on bearing arms. Of course a "license" requirement and fee's for utilizing a Constitutional Right is and infringement as well. There is no evidence that requiring an unconstitutional license makes anyone safer. There is no problem in the Constitutional carry states that wasn't present before, and there has been a reduction in confrontational crime in every state that has instituted Shall Issue laws.
    Actually, having to get a license does make a group of people safer. Criminals feel much safer in states that are may issue or won't issue. Because they know that to carry in those states, either the law abiding person is going to be rich or connected or defenseless. And the odds are they won't be any of the first two and therefor safer targets to attack.

  8. #47
    I will say on this discussion of comparing 1A and 2A I am more on the side if PaxMentis here that there are more similarities between the two than most people want to admit. I do not believe that 2A is to be taken literally as being absolutely no restrictions as some believe as I do think that restrictions on such things as the types, age, who and where are justified as well as the manner of carry in public. I have yet to find a single person that does not agree that some restrictions on 2A are acceptable, and in that same way I don't know if I have found two people that agree on what restrictions are acceptable.

  9. #48
    I have some issues with this bill. I'm not sure I want the federal government to dictate the rules that my state must follow to the detriment of good laws already on the books. Only positive I could see is a good strong minimal training standard. Btw, I work for the federal government.

  10. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by RRrider View Post
    Does anyone else see this as a State's Rights violation?

    Don't get me wrong, Michigan CPL holder and everyday carrier, and I am all for gun rights, except when they infringe on State's rights.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't give the right IMO to conceal carry. That has been a decision at the state level as a matter of self defense, and not every state has the same laws. So how can the national government tell states they must allow residents from other states the right to carry? Especially when that state doesn't allow their own residents to conceal carry...
    Maybe insofar as it violates the State's right to violate yours? The whole permit thing is questionable enough to begin with as the hardliners don't get tired of pointing out.

  11. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Yes I think that it is a violation of 10A through the back door of the commerce clause. I also do not like it that is does no apply to everyone (DC and IL are left out). It is also troublesome that in some cases a non-resident will have more "rights" while carrying than a resident in many states. These concerns are not great enough for me to try an fight this bill and I am more inclined to think that it will be enacted than I was a few weeks ago. I do not like that it is coming from the Federal government rather than individual states like drivers license do but it appears that the majority of American gun owners want it.
    Just some food for thought.

    Right to Travel

    Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

    WHO HAS RIGHTS?!
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast