Let's make Concealed Carry a RIGHT - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Let's make Concealed Carry a RIGHT

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    +1. Concise and clear and spot-on.
    Like hell, every single US citizen can understand the law, but it won't make a whit of difference if the US Supreme Court says "no."
    If he's suggesting electing senators and presidents to appoint the right Supreme Court judges, then forget it: rights, by definition, don't invove jumping through hoops.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Invisible_Dave View Post
    What case said that? My understanding is that the Heller case actually said the exact opposite.

    If you look up Nordyke, the 9th circuit incorporated the 2nd as a federal right. It is now going to be heard en banc on Sept 24 in San Fransicso. If and when the SCOTUS hears it (either on appeal or due to dissenting opinions between the 9th and 7th circuit) they will be forced to rule on incorporation and how it applies at the state level. This could be done in the fall session.

    There are some amazing things happening right now, many within the VERY liberal 9th circuit. I'll find some of the wikipedia pages and post links here shortly.
    No, don't. I was talking about the states: If state laws recognize the right to carry a gun, they can't refuse to allow people to carry concealed-- that's a violation of federal PRIVACY rights.


    The 14th Amendment, simply says that all federal rights must be respected by all state laws:

    Amendment XIV
    Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    In my state at least, the state Constitution expressly states that EVERY PERSON has the RIGHT to bear arms for self-defense.
    Likewise, NO state can pass laws, which infringe on federal privacy-rights, to be free from public scrutiny.

    By requiring a person to carry their gun openly, even though carrying is a right, this is an infringement of the federal right of privacy.

    As I said initially: states DO have the right to regulate or ban guns, but if they recognize such a right, then they do NOT have the right to regulate them in a manner which infringes on federal privacy-rights.

    This would be different, if the state held that bearing arms was only a PRIVILEGE; then, they could impose various reqirements on carrying-- just like they qualify DRIVING as a privilege; and so require that every driver has a license and insurance, and that every car has a license-plate.

    However in contrast, the state CANNOT make you wear a name-tag, live in a glass house in full public view, or carry everything openly on a tray for everyone to see, because that's a violation of your federal privacy-rights.
    It's the same thing with carrying a gun. If the state considers it your RIGHT to bear arms, then it cannot require you to carry it openly for all to see, since this is ALSO a violation of your federal right to privacy.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    733

    Arrow Easy, Brad, I agree with you about the right....

    Quote Originally Posted by BradAnderson View Post
    Like hell, every single US citizen can understand the law, but it won't make a whit of difference if the US Supreme Court says "no."
    If he's suggesting electing senators and presidents to appoint the right Supreme Court judges, then forget it: rights, by definition, don't invove jumping through hoops.
    Unfortunately, if every single U.S. citizen understood the law, then we wouldn't HAVE a supreme court, nor would we need one. What SHOULD be the case is not what IS the case.

    Personally, I see the whole bloated, corpulent entity that is our federal government being far more akin to a cancer than an actual government as set out in our founding documents. Little by little, over a period of a couple of hundred years, our liberties have been chipped away, like healthy cells, to be replaced with multiple legislative tumors that suppress the "immune system" that is our liberty.

    The original vision of our federal government was small, with a very few clearly defined roles. What we have now is a mess, and I don't think that it is repairable. Sometimes one must simply excise the tumor.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    Unfortunately, if every single U.S. citizen understood the law, then we wouldn't HAVE a supreme court, nor would we need one. What SHOULD be the case is not what IS the case.
    Actually the court only exists to resolve disagreements about the meaning of the law where it's unclear.
    However this situation is perfectly clear.


    Personally, I see the whole bloated, corpulent entity that is our federal government being far more akin to a cancer
    That's great, but let's stick to open-carry laws, ok?

    There is a federal right of privacy, which supersedes state laws that violate it.

    Open-carry laws are an example of this.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ohio
    Posts
    766
    Blog Entries
    10
    HOUSE RESOLUTION 45
    Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing
    and Record of Sale Act of 2009



    The Congressional Plan to Disarm Americans

    No legislator in their right mind would vote for this bill now but you need to be aware of what is going on in Congress regarding gun ownership. I'm sorry; did I assume our House of Representatives were in their right minds? The Blair Holt Act is sweeping legislation that forces you to take extensive and numerous actions in order to own a gun or you will be criminalized.

    Bill: House Resolution 45

    Sponsor: Rep. Bobby Rush, Democrat from Illinois

    Referred to: House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

    1. Everyone will need a firearms license to own a gun and there will be a fee paid to the Attorney General.
    2. You will be required to turn your guns into a firearms dealer for any transfers. Transfers include passing down your firearms to family members.
    3. Report any address change to the Attorney General within 60 days.
    4. Restrict you from having access to a loaded gun if there is someone under 18 in your home.
    5. Fine and imprison you for failure to comply with any of the regulations.

    These points are just the tip of the iceberg.
    Last edited by Debray; 08-30-2009 at 05:41 AM. Reason: section needs to be removed will not work correctly
    “Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

  7. #16
    XD-Fender - You're over my head - SCOTUS?

    But they took the right from us state by state. Maybe it's time we took it back, state by state. My lovely state of Illinois is severly lagging behind in its gun rights laws - thanks to the Chicago politicians.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by vn6869 View Post
    XD-Fender - You're over my head - SCOTUS?

    But they took the right from us state by state. Maybe it's time we took it back, state by state. My lovely state of Illinois is severly lagging behind in its gun rights laws - thanks to the Chicago politicians.

    Sorry--SCOTUS is "Supreme Court Of The United States" (like "POTUS" is "President Of The United States").

    Quote Originally Posted by BradAnderson
    Where did you get this idea that I was talking about the 2nd Amendment? I didn't say that, YOU said that.
    Missing the point: You stated that "There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please." The statement that "states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please" is not correct. They are subject to the same restrictions on regulating firearms that the federal government (and the District of Columbia--thank you Heller) are under the 2A, because those restrictions have been extended to the states via the 14A. SCOTUS will recognize this when one of the presenty pending cases involving this issue is before it, reversing the century-old line of cases from Cruikshank. So your point is effectively moot (and will be "officially" so when SCOTUS rules on this).

  9. #18
    Agreed!
    "Never advance cheerfully on your late opponent without reloading. You may have used your last round, and he may not be properly dead and still spiteful." Major Hugh Pollard

  10. Quote Originally Posted by XD-Fender View Post
    Sorry--SCOTUS is "Supreme Court Of The United States" (like "POTUS" is "President Of The United States").



    Missing the point: You stated that "There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please." The statement that "states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please" is not correct. They are subject to the same restrictions on regulating firearms that the federal government (and the District of Columbia--thank you Heller) are under the 2A, because those restrictions have been extended to the states via the 14A. SCOTUS will recognize this when one of the presenty pending cases involving this issue is before it, reversing the century-old line of cases from Cruikshank. So your point is effectively moot (and will be "officially" so when SCOTUS rules on this).

    Until then, Federal courts have ruled that the 2A only protects a state's right to a well-regulated militia, NOT an indiviidual right to keep and bear arms; therefore the states are NOT required to respect the right to bear arms.
    However again, that's not what I'm talking about, so please cease from decorating this pie-in-the-sky.

    My point is that if a state Constitution does spell out this right, then both the state supreme court and the federal district courts, are required to enforce federal requirements of equal protection and privacy.

  11. Sir you're panicing.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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