National CCW

[PaxMentis]

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...

 

[longslide10]

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

 

[maybejim]

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.

 

[PaxMentis]

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.

 

[maybejim]

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.

 

[S&W645]

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.

 

[FN1910]

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.

 

[IvanTheTerrible]

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.

 

[jg1967]

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.

 

[Seeya]

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

Link Removed

 

[alduane]

Ok, I'll buy that but I'm still gonna use the short version....easier to remember

No problem with short versions. It says the same thing. 18th century writers tended to be wordier than we are. They probably had more time on their hands.

 

[alduane]

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.

At the risk of raising the ire of the 2A commandos, I personnaly like the requirements that many States, including my own of Michigan, have concerning training. If you are going to carry a gun, you should have a basic knowledge how to use it and especially the laws concerning lethal force.

 

[FN1910]

Just some food for thought.

Right to Travel

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

Link Removed

About the right to travel, this has been discussed on this and almost every other gun board in existence along with most other boards many, many times. On more than one occasion I have asked to see where the SCOTUS or other courts have equated the right to travel with the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway. While a person convicted of DUI/DWI for the tenth time and finally served his prison sentence he may never be allowed to have a drivers license again. However this in no way will effect his right to travel upon the public highways of the US. The right to travel in any manner that you wish to any where in the US other that privately restricted areas is granted to each and every citizen of the US. What it not granted is the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway, that is a privilege. So I ask once again to please show me in one of these cases pointed out in the article where the courts have equated the right to travel with the right to operate a motor vehicle.

Although I have asked this many times I have yet to have anyone actually do it. Hopefully you can be the first and I will not have to get my license renewed.

 

[FN1910]

At the risk of raising the ire of the 2A commandos, I personnaly like the requirements that many States, including my own of Michigan, have concerning training. If you are going to carry a gun, you should have a basic knowledge how to use it and especially the laws concerning lethal force.

I agree that if you are going to carry a gun you absolutely must have a basic knowledge of how to use it and a good knowledge of lethal force laws, self-defense laws and in hushed tones, brandishing laws. I think that most, but not all, people will agree with this but the great argument is on how to require or obtain those skills. Some feel that people who choose to carry will obtain them on their own without any requirement. Some feel that such a requirement is a needless restriction that discriminates against certain individuals and has no actual bearing on the safety of the public or the person carrying the gun. Then others object to any type of training that they do not personally provide or supervise, that if left to anyone else they will be taught the wrong things.

Although the training requirement is a noble gesture you are not going to get a lot of support for it.

 

[Seeya]

United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Perhaps you should investigate more on your own. Read a 6 and a 10. It is only a crime if you use the public Highways for comercial purposes. Title 18 is the crimminal code of the Republic of the United States of America. Look and study Uniform Commercial Code. This was adopted by all the states. It is the basis for most laws.Juristriction must be challenged. I cannot teach you or do all the work for everyone on here. So I give a starting point, for those who wish to investigate.

 

[RRrider]

I understand that gun owners want this bill. I was even browsing the Liberal Gun Club forum, they they, more or less, supported the bill.

but the vast majority of gun owners are conservative. Conservatives, like me, and especially those who support the tea party movement, like me, support State's Rights and the Powers of the State as given by the Constitution.


This is where maybe I am wrong. I don't see concealed carry as having anything to do with the 2A. The argument can very easily be made that not allowing concealed carry doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Every state still allows you to buy a fire arm. No one is saying you cant, and no one is trying to take your guns away from you. They can say IF you want to carry, carry it out in the open. After all, if concealed carry was protected by the constitution, then why did it take so long for states to adopt it? In the Constitution, a woman's right to vote is protected. You don't see individual states that do and some that do not let women vote. Right?

 

[jg1967]

I understand that gun owners want this bill. I was even browsing the Liberal Gun Club forum, they they, more or less, supported the bill.

but the vast majority of gun owners are conservative. Conservatives, like me, and especially those who support the tea party movement, like me, support State's Rights and the Powers of the State as given by the Constitution.


This is where maybe I am wrong. I don't see concealed carry as having anything to do with the 2A. The argument can very easily be made that not allowing concealed carry doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Every state still allows you to buy a fire arm. No one is saying you cant, and no one is trying to take your guns away from you. They can say IF you want to carry, carry it out in the open. After all, if concealed carry was protected by the constitution, then why did it take so long for states to adopt it? In the Constitution, a woman's right to vote is protected. You don't see individual states that do and some that do not let women vote. Right?

The States have had the last 200 years to do it on their own but have not done it. I am sick and tired of having to worry about going to another State that may or may not recognize my permit. Particularly since reciprocity can change.

For Christ's sake in this country a one eyed monkey can get a driver's license and drive in all 50 States. I am far more afraid of my fellow driver's than other gun owners that carry.

And the second doesn't say anything at all about having to carry openly so there is that. Aside of the fact that a lot of States don't allow open carry at all.

 

[FN1910]

Saying that every state allows you to buy a firearm is not exactly reassuring. To purchase a firearm in some states is quite an ordeal with having to get a permit purchase, waiting times and then keeping one in your home, especially if you include DC in the discussion. There are quite a few sttes the do not permit OC and even more that require some type or permit to OC or CC. For example TN.

 

[maybejim]

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.

I'm at a loss as to what "good laws already on the books" are interfered with with this bill. Can you enlighten us? As far as training standard, I'm for training, I'm not for Government defined "training". I've seen no evidence that those with Carry permits without required training are guilty of any more problems than those with Carry Permits with no training. If it's not quantifiable, why is it good enough to require a mandate?

 

[maybejim]

At the risk of raising the ire of the 2A commandos, I personnaly like the requirements that many States, including my own of Michigan, have concerning training. If you are going to carry a gun, you should have a basic knowledge how to use it and especially the laws concerning lethal force.

Can you show any evidence that states with training requirements are any safer than states without training requirements? I am in favor of training, but not government defined training. If there is no quantifiable gain from a requirement, I would argue it is a requirement the government should not be involved in.