Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[Treo]

Might be that some of us understand that there are places where you never will be able to freely carry. Constitutional Carry would require it to be done freely everywhere by anyone whereas it just never will happen. Nor should it.
One of those places is my former employer's headquaters building. When threats are made against the lives of some at meetings, I don't want anyone but the armed guards or possibly employees armed there. And we have had pipe bombs and explosives set off at some of our structures so those threats are real.
Constitutional Carry also removes the chance of blocking felons from buying guns legally at gunshops. Yes I know they can get them illegally but that isn't the subject. Constitutional Carry would mean anyone and everyone could buy a gun legally and carry anywhere, anyway or you don't have Constitutional Carry. Anything less than that is Constitutional Carry with restrictions which is what you have now. Call it what you want but even those states that claim it aren't really Constitutional Carry. AZ, AK, and Vermont require background checks before sales of guns, do they not? VT also restricts places it can be carried. AK does too. And so does AZ.

And how about it on airplanes? Think it should apply there?

The best thing that could be done is to allow the states together to decide what they accept and keep the Feds out of it. Except to tell the Feds that the states' laws, unless in violation of the US Constitution, overrule theirs.

What you are doing is called Reducto ad absurdum it's a logical fallacy in which you take and argument to an absurd end and try to say that's where we'll all end up.

Not a single state that has constitutional carry has done away w/ federally mandated background checks on retail sales of firearms. In all three states it is still illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm and it's still illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Reducto ad absurdum would be saying that carrying a concealed weapon while jay walking would be using a firearm in the commission of a crime

 

[FN1910]

There are a lot of terms, figures and "facts" being thrown around in this thread by both sides that have no relationship to how they are being tossed out and in many cases actually conflict with the statement that one is attempting to make.

First it what is Constitutional Carry? I firmly believe that the writers and voters of 2A had no concerns about what kind of arms 2A would cover. Anyone that tries to calim that 2A is meant to only cover personal weapons such as handguns, hunting rifles or shotguns is just trying to rewrite 2A to meet their own idea of what they want it to mean. 2A covers any type of weapon that can be used to defend yourselff, your property or your country.

Then we get to the Carry part where 2A says to keep and bear arms. If you think that you need to walk around with a nuke strapped to your back 24/7 to defend something then you should be able to do that. Personally I don't think that the need or practicality is there for a personal nuke 24/7 so I don't think you need it or should be allowed to have it.

After the title of this thread we get to the poll which rather than Constitutional Carry says permitless. Proponets of this try to ignore the first part of 2A about "A well regulated Militia" which includes trained. It also includes knowledge and ability. The Minutemen were expected to report for battle and then follow orders, not take off from their homes to start fighting at the first redcoat they say. They were trained in what to do and if they didn't know how to shoot a rifle they were taught.

What does this have to do with permit. The Minutemen and anyone who wanted to join them were expected to be on roll. They didn't need a permit but they did need to let the leaders know who they were and what their abilities were so the leaders could be prepared. Move that to today and if someone wants to join the ranks of those who protect themselves ia the use of arms they need to be prepared and that includes being trained is some way.

All of the previous BS says is that I think that anyone who purchases a gun should be required to know how to shoot it without killing themselves and be familar with the laws of gun ownership. Now if you want to require permits to accomplish that then that is one way. If you want to cover that in Junior High School as a requirement before you are promoted then that is another method. How about requiring a gun dealer to show you how to shoot every gun you buy and having you shoot before you are allowed to take it out of the store.

I don't think that 2a was intended to allow any idiot who want to to carry any gun they wanted to any place they wated to. I think that 2A was intended that any person who had the need could keep and bear any weapon that they needed. I think that the writers also thought that the people of the new country had enough sense to know that certain people should not be armed and arms should not be allowed in certian places no matter how you want to interpret or diagram the wording of 2A.

Unfortunately there are many on both sides of this argument who want to redefine every word in the Constitution to fit their wants, not needs. When you are on your property it is one thing but when you step off onto public or someone else's property then that is different.

 

[mappow]

Don't fully agree with your post FN BUT I do believe the Founders made it CLEAR. The States will decide not the Federal Gov't. Due to the 17th Amendment, States Rights have gone by the wayside. Of course with the 16th Amendment pacifying the States as a buy off for giving up their rights. Most States (ALL STATES) fully comply with Federal Mandates. IF THEY DON"T..............then the all mighty Fed's will cut off all their funding they get from the garnishment of the 16th. PLAY our way or Lose any Federal Funding.
This my friend is what the Founders DID NOT have in mind.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Don't fully agree with your post FN BUT I do believe the Founders made it CLEAR. The States will decide not the Federal Gov't. Due to the 17th Amendment, States Rights have gone by the wayside. Of course with the 16th Amendment pacifying the States as a buy off for giving up their rights. Most States (ALL STATES) fully comply with Federal Mandates. IF THEY DON"T..............then the all mighty Fed's will cut off all their funding they get from the garnishment of the 16th. PLAY our way or Lose any Federal Funding.
This my friend is what the Founders DID NOT have in mind.

HOWEVER, certain unalienable, God given rights are protected by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence from regulation by ANY government. The Constitution does NOT give the state free reign to do whatever it wants. I just happen to place the right to keep and bear arms among those unalienable rights.

If we went with unhindered states' rights, then we would also have to grant the states' rights to "regulate" free speech, to "regulate" freedom of religion, to "regulate" persons of certain genders or races. I simply contend that freedom to carry a firearm should be equal with those other freedoms because I not only believe that on a personal level, I also believe that is what the Constitution says.

First it what is Constitutional Carry? I firmly believe that the writers and voters of 2A had no concerns about what kind of arms 2A would cover. Anyone that tries to calim that 2A is meant to only cover personal weapons such as handguns, hunting rifles or shotguns is just trying to rewrite 2A to meet their own idea of what they want it to mean. 2A covers any type of weapon that can be used to defend yourselff, your property or your country.

Actually, our Declaration of Independence says that it is the duty of the citizen to throw off a government that has become oppressive to the point of violating unalienable human rights. Therefore the 2nd Amendment to me would mean that it is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms sufficient to throw off such government, that's what "being necessary to the security of a free State" means. Notice "State" is capitalized - that means our nation. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the citizen maintains the ability to ensure the State remains free - and the Declaration of Independence says that the citizen may have to rise to the level of governmental overthrow to make that happen.

 

[mappow]

LT, all I see is that we the People in these United States need to call for a Article 5 Constitutional Convention by 2/3's of the States to bring this Bastardized Constitution back to what our Founders wrote and was ratified. Congress WILL NOT call for it, too scared of loosing power. The States must act to rein in this madness. The GOP/DNC will not change the way they do business.
Our Founders had no intention to revert us back to share croppers. To be bleed the citizenry for the sake of the almighty Federal Gov't. Hell might as well stayed in Europe if they wanted that.

 

[NavyLCDR]

LT, all I see is that we the People in these United States need to call for a Article 5 Constitutional Convention by 2/3's of the States to bring this Bastardized Constitution back to what our Founders wrote and was ratified. Congress WILL NOT call for it, too scared of loosing power. The States must act to rein in this madness. The GOP/DNC will not change the way they do business.
Our Founders had no intention to revert us back to share croppers. To be bleed the citizenry for the sake of the almighty Federal Gov't. Hell might as well stayed in Europe if they wanted that.

That, I absolutely agree with!

 

[TheSaint]

No!

I know its not popular but I prefer laws like we have here in Florida. Right-To-Carry yes, but at least you have to take a few hour course and demonstrate some minimal sanity. Sure, I know that wouldn't stop somebody with bad intentions getting a permit, but it apparently does stop a lot.

A $75 investment and a few hours of my time every 7 years is not such an infringement on my rights.

 

[gregory44mag]

All you have to do is read the thread to know there's a fudd or two here.

So Treo, why did you even post this thread asking "DO You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry" if every one who doesnt agree with you is a fudd? I'm sorry, I thought these forums where for discussions not for insults?

 

[hp-hobo]

So Treo, why did you even post this thread asking "DO You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry" if every one who doesnt agree with you is a fudd? I'm sorry, I thought these forums where for discussions not for insults?

My guess is to find out who the fudds are. He did a good job.

Mandatory training, mandatory permitting and mandatory fees are unconstitutional infringements on our right to keep and bear arms. I would expect that anyone who truly supports liberty and gun rights would realize that, but I've learned throughout my 50+ years of life that reasonable expectations are seldom met by unreasonable or uneducated people.

I'm sorry if anyone here fits that description, but I'm afraid that there are many who do.

 

[jg1967]

What exactly is a FUDD anyway? leasantry:

 

[S&W645]

What you are doing is called Reducto ad absurdum it's a logical fallacy in which you take and argument to an absurd end and try to say that's where we'll all end up.

Not a single state that has constitutional carry has done away w/ federally mandated background checks on retail sales of firearms. In all three states it is still illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm and it's still illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Reducto ad absurdum would be saying that carrying a concealed weapon while jay walking would be using a firearm in the commission of a crime

So by your very admission, you admit that the three states do not have Constitutional Carry. Carrying under the Constitution would not include a background check. Which is a restriction.

 

[Treo]

What exactly is a FUDD anyway? leasantry:

Fudd: Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

Urban Dictionary: fudd

 

[NavyLCDR]

So by your very admission, you admit that the three states do not have Constitutional Carry. Carrying under the Constitution would not include a background check. Which is a restriction.

Vermont, Arizona and Alaska do NOT require background checks to CARRY a firearm.

Also, in Vermont, Arizona and Alaska (and most states) it is lawful to purchase/sell or be given a gun with no background check.

 

[Treo]

Vermont, Arizona and Alaska do NOT require background checks to CARRY a firearm.

Also, in Vermont, Arizona and Alaska (and most states) it is lawful to purchase/sell or be given a gun with no background check.

To clarify this only applies to private sales.

 

[Garand]

I would agree to having only one (1) ccw permit per person nationwide, but with serious statutes.

 

[Ed Hamberger]

So the first amendment only goes one way?

You did take an Oath before joining the Navy, did you not? That Oath is not something to be turned on/off to suit you fancy "NavyLT", and it doesn't retire when you retire. Get with the program and stop trolling the threads on this forum looking for an arguement, kapish? :angry:

 

[S&W645]

Vermont, Arizona and Alaska do NOT require background checks to CARRY a firearm.

Also, in Vermont, Arizona and Alaska (and most states) it is lawful to purchase/sell or be given a gun with no background check.

To get a CCW permit in AZ they do. Without the permit and a background check, the Feds could go after the carriers in a GFSZ. And I wouldn't put it past this admin to not do it either with the way they feel about AZ. The VT page here is incorrect as it doesn't say that Fed law says handguns require a higher age than listed in that section. And unfortunately Fed laws win. Even when they violate the Constitution. Until they get challanged in court. AK also does a background check for the CCW permit so it is the same as AZ in that aspect.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You did take an Oath before joining the Navy, did you not? That Oath is not something to be turned on/off to suit you fancy "NavyLT", and it doesn't retire when you retire. Get with the program and stop trolling the threads on this forum looking for an arguement, kapish? :angry:

No, quite frankly I don't kapish. I am sorry if you feel as if expressing a differing opinion is "looking for an argument." I don't understand why you feel your opinion is any more important than mine or has any more validity than mine. Just like my signature line now says.... get in line for your tissue :cray:

 

[NavyLCDR]

I know its not popular but I prefer laws like we have here in Florida. Right-To-Carry yes

Can I ask this question, please, without getting shot in the face....

How is it a Right-To-Carry when a person must pay a fee in order to obtain the state's permission to do so? Isn't that a Privilege-To-Carry granted only to those who pay for such privilege?

 

[NavyLCDR]

To get a CCW permit in AZ they do. Without the permit and a background check, the Feds could go after the carriers in a GFSZ. And I wouldn't put it past this admin to not do it either with the way they feel about AZ. The VT page here is incorrect as it doesn't say that Fed law says handguns require a higher age than listed in that section. And unfortunately Fed laws win. Even when they violate the Constitution. Until they get challanged in court. AK also does a background check for the CCW permit so it is the same as AZ in that aspect.

However, no permit is required in AZ, VT, or AK in order to carry a gun openly or concealed. A citizen can lawfully carry a firearm in those three states, either concealed or openly without a background check, because the permit is not required.

Yes, you are correct about the Federal GFSZ law, which is interesting since I'll bet there are a bunch of people in Vermont violating that one every day since Vermont does not even offer an optional permit.