Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[B2Tall]

You ever have one of those conversations where the person says something and you suddenly realize they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about? I mean not even close? I just did!

I'm all for both concealed and open carry. I also believe in reasonable restrictions and regulations. One of those I believe in is requiring a permit to carry. Not a permit to own, mind you....just a permit to carry.

I believe in state's rights. So did our Founding Fathers. It was paramount to them. That's why they added the 10th (and final) original amendment. It's also why the original amendments were left vague and open to interpretation. They weren't dumb, nor did they want anything more than minimal input from the federal government when it came to the laws of the individual states. I do not support a federal carry law. I believe it would violate the 10A that allows states to work out the details themselves. I'd say I'm in pretty good company considering that there's never been a nationwide carry law (one that is the same for all states) despite numerous pro-gun administrations, Congresses, and Supreme Courts throughout our history.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Wow. You have an active imagination. Exactly what constitution are you talking about?? Can't be the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't contain any of that stuff. Like I said, you're just making stuff up. I might have popped a hernia from laughing so hard at your post!

Um...this one....

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Now what was that about me making things up?

As for the rest of your rambling post, go to any of the numerous pro-1st Amendment sites out there and look at all the things the Supreme Court has upheld in the name of the 1A.

Why don't you post some links for me?

The Founding Fathers did not leave the original amendments vague and open to interpretation, they are concise and poignant for a reason, so they wouldn't be open to interpretation.

Just concede that you have been outwitted and graciously accept that your ideas might be skewed.

But I just realized that your a right leaning liberal, so they may not be possible.

Although I wholeheartedly agree that the states rights override those of the government, the government is also entitled to override any state law that lessens the rights of it's citizens as defined by the Bill of Rights. So a nationwide permitless carry law would be in accordance with the 2A and governmental authority as defined by the Constitution.

See I've been studying Constitutional law and SCOTUS rulings hard core for two years now, ever since a friend of mine woke me up to what has been going on in this country for the last 100 years.

 

[Treo]

You ever have one of those conversations where the person says something and you suddenly realize they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about? I mean not even close? I just did!

Actually I'm having one right now

I do not support a federal carry law. I believe it would violate the 10A that allows states to work out the details themselves. I'd say I'm in pretty good company considering that there's never been a nationwide carry law (one that is the same for all states) despite numerous pro-gun administrations, Congresses, and Supreme Courts throughout our history.

Who said anything about a Federal carry law?

Constituional Carry = If you can legally own a gun you can legally carry it at your discretion period. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[B2Tall]

Um...this one....

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Now what was that about me making things up?

Still looking for the parts of the Constitution you claim exist about minors, children, etc. Can you specifically point those out for me please??

The 14A clearly states that when somebody is born in the US they are considered a citizen. There is no mention of any age restriction on citizenship anywhere in the document.

Like many others on this site you confuse state law with federal law. That actually helps to prove my point - that the federal government leaves the details in the hands of the individual states (aka 10A). 1A, 2A....doesn't matter. The states are free to decide the details as they have been for the 220 yrs that the Constitution has been in existence.

You want links? Here ya go:

firstamendmentcenter.org: Welcome to the First Amendment Center Online

First Amendment Coalition

These nonprofit sites are run by constitutional lawyers. Have a look around. You might learn something. Freedom of speech/expression applies to all disemenation or spreading of information be it medical advice (requiring a license from the state, AMA, etc.), or stock advice from a broker (requiring an SEC license) or driving instruction from a professional instructor (requiring a driver's license at the very least).


Oh, and when I've been "outwitted" I'll freely admit it. Still waiting on that one though.

 

[B2Tall]

Although I wholeheartedly agree that the states rights override those of the government, the government is also entitled to override any state law that lessens the rights of it's citizens as defined by the Bill of Rights. So a nationwide permitless carry law would be in accordance with the 2A and governmental authority as defined by the Constitution.

Then why don't we have one?? Why was there no effort by such pro-2A administrations like Reagan or the Bushes?? Why?? They had control of the congress....they built a conservative Supreme Court....why no nationwide permitless law??

Because it would violate the Constitution!

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you??

 

[Tucker's Mom]

I was one of those who voted no...I'd like to think that I have the right to carry a firearm and use it when needed but I also like the fact that I have been declared mentally and physically fit to own a permit via a background check. I don't mind having undergone those checks because I have nothing to hide. Touch wood, but my only brush with the law was when I was about 39-40 years of age when I had an accident. Apart from that, I am as clean as a whistle. Unfortunately, my CCW permit is not legal across the nation, just a few states. It would be nice, but I don't believe it is going to happen the way the law is constructed in this country.

 

[Treo]

I was one of those who voted no...I'd like to think that I have the right to carry a firearm and use it when needed but I also like the fact that I have been declared mentally and physically fit to own a permit via a background check. I don't mind having undergone those checks because I have nothing to hide. Touch wood, but my only brush with the law was when I was about 39-40 years of age when I had an accident. Apart from that, I am as clean as a whistle. Unfortunately, my CCW permit is not legal across the nation, just a few states. It would be nice, but I don't believe it is going to happen the way the law is constructed in this country.

Very eletist attitude you got rockin' there. Do you think all gun owners should be declared mentally and physically fit before being allowed to own a firearm?

What happens when "they" decide to raise the bar for who is considered "mentally and physically" and physically fit?

Currently Alsaka, Arizona and Vermont have Constitutional Carry and Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Utah, Virginia, Tennesse and Oregon are considering it.

Still sure it won't happen in America?

 

[gregory44mag]

Here is my thought on the subject, Just as some people should not be allowed to have children, some people should definitaly not be permitted to carry a fire arm. As much as I support gun rights it is already hard enough to defend this right with the media so quick to blame the gun for every shooting that takes place. Just imagine the feild day they would have with just any ol idiot being able to CC. A nationwide permit would definately be oh.. so.. cool! Remember, this is just my opinion and opinions are like A-holes.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Still looking for the parts of the Constitution you claim exist about minors, children, etc. Can you specifically point those out for me please??

The 14A clearly states that when somebody is born in the US they are considered a citizen. There is no mention of any age restriction on citizenship anywhere in the document.

Like many others on this site you confuse state law with federal law. That actually helps to prove my point - that the federal government leaves the details in the hands of the individual states (aka 10A). 1A, 2A....doesn't matter. The states are free to decide the details as they have been for the 220 yrs that the Constitution has been in existence.

You want links? Here ya go:

firstamendmentcenter.org: Welcome to the First Amendment Center Online

First Amendment Coalition

These nonprofit sites are run by constitutional lawyers. Have a look around. You might learn something. Freedom of speech/expression applies to all disemenation or spreading of information be it medical advice (requiring a license from the state, AMA, etc.), or stock advice from a broker (requiring an SEC license) or driving instruction from a professional instructor (requiring a driver's license at the very least).


Oh, and when I've been "outwitted" I'll freely admit it. Still waiting on that one though.

I never said the constitution defined anything about minors, other laws do that. Have you ever had a custody battle in court? Children are treated like property. I have custody of my daughters so tell me I don't know how that works.

You just cannot comprehend, neither what I'm writing (apparently) or the concept that a citizen is someone who has the rights and responsibilities of the title. Yes the Constitution defines that a child born here is a citizen, for the purposes of what they are entitled to and responsible for as an adult, not a minor.

I have not confused state and federal law.

I am a master carpenter and I can tell someone how to build a house and I don't need a license. An IT guy can tell someone how to build a computer and they don't have to have a license. I can go turn my driver's license in and still tell my daughter how to drive.

To PRACTICE in a field of business you have to have a license, to just tell someone something, you do not. THAT is the protected part.

Now before you draw an incorrect parallel from that. To carry a gun is a protected right, to professionally teach others? Ok, you have to have a license. Get it? So whats your point?

Mine is that criminals, minors and people officially determined to have metal deficiencies are treated as property under STATE laws, they are not citizens, they do not have the same rights because they either do not have the same responsibilities or they have abused those rights and responsibilities.

 

[B2Tall]

I was one of those who voted no...I'd like to think that I have the right to carry a firearm and use it when needed but I also like the fact that I have been declared mentally and physically fit to own a permit via a background check. I don't mind having undergone those checks because I have nothing to hide. Touch wood, but my only brush with the law was when I was about 39-40 years of age when I had an accident. Apart from that, I am as clean as a whistle. Unfortunately, my CCW permit is not legal across the nation, just a few states. It would be nice, but I don't believe it is going to happen the way the law is constructed in this country.

Glad to see somebody else has the guts to challenge the Constitutional Chicken-Littles.

We "elitists" have to stick together. I wonder if I can get my permit gold-plated.....

 

[Unfettered Might]

Then why don't we have one?? Why was there no effort by such pro-2A administrations like Reagan or the Bushes?? Why?? They had control of the congress....they built a conservative Supreme Court....why no nationwide permitless law??

Because it would violate the Constitution!

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you??

Here ya go

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It's called the Supremacy Clause and it means exactly what I stated before, or do I need to break this down?

 

[B2Tall]

Yes the Constitution defines that a child born here is a citizen, for the purposes of what they are entitled to and responsible for as an adult, not a minor.

Still waiting for you to show me something in the Constitution, specifically the first 10 amendments, that differentiates between minors and adults.

Still waiting for one of you world-renowned constitutional experts to tell me why we don't already have "constitutional carry" if it's such an obvious infringement on our rights.

I'm going to be waiting a loooonnnnnggggg time, unless of course Unfettered Might lets us know about the part of the Constitution written in invisible ink that only he seems to know about.

 

[B2Tall]

Here ya go

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It's called the Supremacy Clause and it means exactly what I stated before, or do I need to break this down?

Then why doesn't every state have constitutional carry already??? LMAO! That article has been around for 220 freakin' years!! Has every president, senator, representative, and Supreme Court justice chosen to ignore it?? Or perhaps you just don't know what you're talking about? Hmmmmm....let's see now.....on one side we have 200+ yrs of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government. On the other side we have "Unfettered Might" and a handful of armchair constitutionalists.

I wonder who knows best how to apply the Constitution.........

 

[B2Tall]

I am a master carpenter and I can tell someone how to build a house and I don't need a license. An IT guy can tell someone how to build a computer and they don't have to have a license. I can go turn my driver's license in and still tell my daughter how to drive.

To PRACTICE in a field of business you have to have a license, to just tell someone something, you do not. THAT is the protected part.

Now before you draw an incorrect parallel from that. To carry a gun is a protected right, to professionally teach others? Ok, you have to have a license. Get it? So whats your point?

The point is that doctors, lawyers and even stockbrokers can have life-altering influence on people. That's why they need to be licensed. That's why they can't just say they were excercising their 1A rights when they tell people what they should be doing. That's why they need to prove their competence. Electricians and contractors and others also have to be licensed because their decisions can affect the safety of others. They can't just claim "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

People that carry firearms around in public occasionally have to make life-altering decisions. They need to be licensed as well instead of hiding behind the 2A.

I don't want an unlicensed electrician coming in and doing work on my house and I don't want unlicensed people walking around the street with guns.

Oh it's good to be an "elitist"!

 

[NavyLCDR]

People that carry firearms around in public occasionally have to make life-altering decisions. They need to be licensed as well instead of hiding behind the 2A.

I don't want an unlicensed electrician coming in and doing work on my house and I don't want unlicensed people walking around the street with guns.

Oh it's good to be an "elitist"!

I can alter someone's life with a rock. Do we need to license rocks? I can alter someone's life with a tire iron, do we need to license the carrying of tire irons? I can take my belt off and strangle someone. I can put a plastic grocery sack over their head. I can stab them with a kitchen knife. I can poison them with any number of things available at Wal Mart.

You are concentrating on an inanimate object, B2Tall.... just like the anti-gun groups want you to.

 

[Treo]

Here is my thought on the subject, Just as some people should not be allowed to have children, some people should definitaly not be permitted to carry a fire arm. As much as I support gun rights it is already hard enough to defend this right with the media so quick to blame the gun for every shooting that takes place. Just imagine the feild day they would have with just any ol idiot being able to CC. A nationwide permit would definately be oh.. so.. cool! Remember, this is just my opinion and opinions are like A-holes.

This country got along fine for the first 150 or so years of its existence w/ no such requirement. Several state now issue permits w/ no trining requirement and it doesn't seem to have a detrimental effect on their general population. In many states I can open carry a firearm w/ no permit, no trainig and again, no apparent detrimental effect.

IMO if we went to constitutional carry (and we will it's just a question of when ) it would cease to be an issue because no one would know who was carrying. Right now criminals carry w/ out benefit of a permit and I don't hear the media screaming over that.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

Very eletist attitude you got rockin' there. Do you think all gun owners should be declared mentally and physically fit before being allowed to own a firearm?

Yes. And they should be trained how to handle one too. There is no point having a firearm when all you can do is whip it up and hit someone in the head with it because you do not know how your gun works. You can call me anything you like, elitist, bigot, etc...feel free to do so -- I can be generous enough not to insult anyone no matter what I think...or how.

What happens when "they" decide to raise the bar for who is considered "mentally and physically" and physically fit?

They can raise it as high as they want. Do you think they will take away my gun when I get too old and too slow to use it ? Just like my driver's license, if I am no longer capable of driving, there is no point having one. I will gladly give it up when the time comes. Now if a doctor will declare me mentally unfit to have a gun, I will pass my guns to my kids and live in a safe place under a rock or something...then I can do a lot of rockin' around before I move on to that better place I know is waiting for my presence.

Currently Alsaka, Arizona and Vermont have Constitutional Carry and Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Utah, Virginia, Tennesse and Oregon are considering it.

I am from Missouri ... we have a good Castle Doctrine here. And oh, btw, I am also an Australian. I know what it is like not to have permission to own a firearm...

Still sure it won't happen in America?

Yep. Not in my watch anyway...if you are younger than me, maybe...just maybe...in your watch it may...
Aussie--Izzie

 

[B2Tall]

I can alter someone's life with a rock. Do we need to license rocks? I can alter someone's life with a tire iron, do we need to license the carrying of tire irons? I can take my belt off and strangle someone. I can put a plastic grocery sack over their head. I can stab them with a kitchen knife. I can poison them with any number of things available at Wal Mart.

You are concentrating on an inanimate object, B2Tall.... just like the anti-gun groups want you to.

You're concentrating on criminals. They'll always be around. I'm more worried about those who're ignorant of proper firearm usage and safety.

You're not going to accidentally bash somebody's head in with a tire iron or accidentally take your belt off and strangle somebody (unless it's a real kinky date :biggrin. I'm worried about the idiot who accidentally discharges their weapon in public. Or the one who's stupid enough to leave it laying around where anyone can get to it. There are enough idiots out there as it is. Allowing unrestricted carry will only add more fuel to the fire. Isn't that what the anti-gun lobby wants??

We all have to pass a driving test in the interest of public safety. I believe everyone who wants to carry needs to pass a firearm test as well.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm worried about the idiot who accidentally discharges their weapon in public. Or the one who's stupid enough to leave it laying around where anyone can get to it. There are enough idiots out there as it is.

And, of course, training and permitting will fix that?

Baltimore Crime Beat: Harford sheriff's deputy's gun stolen from convenience store - Baltimore crime news: Police, courts and police stories in the city and central Maryland - baltimoresun.com

Link Removed

JetBlue Pilot Loses Gun At JFK Airport After Someone Mistakenly Takes Carry-OnCBS New York

Link Removed

Link Removed

LAPD Blog: Accidental Discharge of a Firearm
Los Angeles: While off-duty, A Los Angeles Police Officer accidentally discharged a firearm.

Eugene cop dies after accidental discharge at gun range - Koinlocal6.com
A 17-year veteran Eugene Police officer accidentally shot and killed himself today



In states that have no training required to obtain a permit, have no permit required, or have no permit required to open carry, what you speak of is no more of a problem than states that do require training. Again, all you are doing is repeating the rhetoric that the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups have pounded into your head for the last few decades.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Still waiting for you to show me something in the Constitution, specifically the first 10 amendments, that differentiates between minors and adults.

Still waiting for one of you world-renowned constitutional experts to tell me why we don't already have "constitutional carry" if it's such an obvious infringement on our rights.

I'm going to be waiting a loooonnnnnggggg time, unless of course Unfettered Might lets us know about the part of the Constitution written in invisible ink that only he seems to know about.

Its not going to happen because the definition is by STATE law. Didn't I already say that......?

Because there has been a liberal agenda in this country since it's beginning. The Founding Fathers ignored those ideas because they would have led to our downfall, but those that had them did not give up and they have been picking away at them ever since. The first thing you do to a populace when you want to control it, is disarm it.

The first blow happened in 1934 with the NFA.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second blow happened in 1984 with the Hughes amendment.
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's video of the actual vote, it is blatantly obvious that the ayes DID NOT have it as even the recorded vote shows.
YouTube - FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986

Now there is corruption at it's finest!!

There are other gun control legislation that also chipped away at our freedom, but I feel these two were the worst.

Then why doesn't every state have constitutional carry already??? LMAO! That article has been around for 220 freakin' years!! Has every president, senator, representative, and Supreme Court justice chosen to ignore it?? Or perhaps you just don't know what you're talking about? Hmmmmm....let's see now.....on one side we have 200+ yrs of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government. On the other side we have "Unfettered Might" and a handful of armchair constitutionalists.

I wonder who knows best how to apply the Constitution.........

Many states do, it's called open carry.

Yes it has and it has been used for the wrong reasons. Power corrupts B2Tall, just look at your history books. For the most part, it's OUR fault that this has went on so long unchecked. That the 17th amendment removed the power of the state legislatures to recall senators is a BIG part of the problem.

Because we as states have no recourse when a senator is not representing our best interests until reelection and even then, it's determined by popular vote instead of votes by our local representatives who can actually keep an eye on them, most of us don't have the time in our lives to watch every single move they make.

See my state is one that did not agree with the 17th and did not ratify it. It sounded like a good idea at the time, but as it turns out, it was a horrible idea and there is a movement to repeal it.

Link Removed

There is an oligarchy that is trying to come to fruition and that you put so much blind faith in your government is disturbing and part of the reason it's gotten this far.

Look at the shape of the economy, do you know why that is?

NAFTA

This was something that was agreed on by BOTH parties and it has brought our economy to it's knees. Republicans loved it because it put more money in the pockets of their rich friends, who in turn put more money in their pockets. The Democrats(socialists) loved it because it fit their agenda of a nanny state, cripple the economy and you bring the mighty US down. Don't think that they didn't benefit financially from it as well.

They do not have our best interests at heart, you need to wake up. The health care bill was signed into law despite overwhelming public outcry. This is not the first time that has happened.

We got some good people in there this last election and there are some powerful changes that are being implemented, hopefully we can get them through.

As for our discussion, if you can't see the logic in my words and choose to stubbornly hold to what you believe, that's fine. I'm finished with this, I have other things to do.

But so far 80% disagree with you......