National CCW?

[MarkPA]

The relatively strong tradition of State regulation of guns is our strongest bulwark against infringement. The gun controllers can dictate in the bluest States; but they have to fight like hell for inroads such as in Colorado. Those purple battle-ground States are our canary-in-the-mine; that's where the war might be won. Only when the last Red State falls would the war have been lost. When Wyoming is lost the 2A is lost; but, it's going to take the gun controllers a long time to conquer that 50'th State.
All our efforts have to be concentrated on keeping the several States in complete charge of their own gun laws. We should be prepared to SUPPORT regulation of inter-State transfers through FFLs and State paperwork - as onerous as they are - to keep the Feds out of the States' regulation of guns. In each State we can fight within our legislatures to keep local regulation within the bounds of toleration.
For example, let's advocate for: a Federal minimum 4473 form and a minimum retention period of 3 years; with States authorized to specify longer retention periods. A minimum 3 year retention period would satisfy legitimate ATF trace purposes for guns that may have crossed State lines. Some States would adopt a 20 year retention period (now the Federal minimum!) while other States would adopt 10 or 5 year retention periods.
Let's sue Won't-Issue States in the Circuit courts to get any Shall-Issue we can achieve. Eventually, SCOTUS will have to settle the 2A-Constitutionality of Won't-Issue.
Let's patronize FL and UT and other States' Non-Resident CCP programs. Let's show their legislative budget committees that we will support their State budgets if they support our 2A rights. (Let's argue that no permit should be required for open-carry but allow that concealed-carry regulation is probably Constitutional.)
Rural States will never out-vote liberal States in the US House of Representatives. Rural States elect too many untrustworthy Senators to the US Senate. SCOTUS can't be trusted to protect Civil Liberties. No place in the world is more hostile to the natural right of self-defense than the District of Columbia where each legislator is protected by 3.3 gun-packing Capital Policemen.
All politics are local. When only a small fraction of all gun-owners are members of the NRA (or any other 2A-organization) we are failing to muster our own militia. We have to fight this battle in the town-square. If we can't persuade our fellow gun-owners to get-up off the bar-stool and:
- contribute the price of a case of beer to defend our 2A rights;
- vote for the candidate who vows to protect our 2A rights and against the candidate who promises a chicken-in-every-pot,
then we have to plan to lose.
Mark

 

[Bikenut]

I guess I don't understand all the talk about modifying the present system of regulations that are "infringements" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Could it be that people have accepted the basic concept that the right to bear arms SHOULD be regulated? And the government, whether that government be Federal or State, is the entity that should have the power to ... regulate?

Unless I have a completely erroneous understanding of the actual "right to keep and bear arms" being a natural right of each and every human being that is born upon this planet merely because they have been born..... any and all "regulation" of that right, no matter which government is doing it, is an "infringement" and is unacceptable.

Make no mistake... as long as folks argue which regulation is acceptable the government will always.... "regulate" (infringe/be in control of). And it is all this arguing about which "regulations" are Ok that allows the government to remain "in control of".

There is no need for any "gun control".... guns don't do harm... what is needed is to control those people who use guns to do harm. And it would seem we already have tons of laws for that.

 

[minuteman32]

I don't want the feds involved in issuing permits at all! If they did, they would most likely be based on one of the very restrictive states, anyway. Also, people would still get jammed up on the East & West coasts, as I'm sure that someone would get arrested for HP ammo in NJ, 8 rounds in their gun in NY, a 11+ round mag in any number of states that ban them, etc.
I would like to see a national reciprocity law that stated that a person could carry as in their home state, anywhere that US law applied. That way people like me & millions of others could load my G19 with 16 rounds of HP ammo, load up my G17+3 spare mag w/ HP ammo, and my backup (G26, LCR, LCP, etc.) w/ HP ammo & go to NYC, Atlantic City, Boston, Chicago, LA & SF, and HI. Or run down to the USVI or PR, if I wanted, w/o fear of arrest for exercising a natural, God given right!

 

[Bikenut]

I don't want the feds involved in issuing permits at all! If they did, they would most likely be based on one of the very restrictive states, anyway. Also, people would still get jammed up on the East & West coasts, as I'm sure that someone would get arrested for HP ammo in NJ, 8 rounds in their gun in NY, a 11+ round mag in any number of states that ban them, etc.
I would like to see a national reciprocity law that stated that a person could carry as in their home state, anywhere that US law applied. That way people like me & millions of others could load my G19 with 16 rounds of HP ammo, load up my G17+3 spare mag w/ HP ammo, and my backup (G26, LCR, LCP, etc.) w/ HP ammo & go to NYC, Atlantic City, Boston, Chicago, LA & SF, and HI. Or run down to the USVI or PR, if I wanted, w/o fear of arrest for exercising a natural, God given right!

Food for thought... perhaps some serious soul searching thought by everyone...

How about instead of yet another gun control law.... that "national reciprocity" law mentioned in the post above which would actually be Federal "permission" (think of it as the Feds "issuing" a permit by writing it into law)... we work in each of our States to have Constitutional carry wherein anyone can carry in any way they want no matter where they are from? After all... to get a State like California to agree to a national reciprocity law California would want everyone in the entire country to abide by California's restrictive laws. Ya can't have the residents of a State not be allowed to carry while allowing folks from other States to carry like they do in their home State.... it's NOT going to happen.

Why would anyone want yet another law that only gives the government the power to ............ abuse that law? And you KNOW the government would eventually abuse that law... perhaps by requiring anyone who carries across State lines to meet certain "special" criteria that is modeled upon the State with the most restrictive carry laws. Or could it be that folks are thinking the selfish desire to make it "convenient" for them to carry across State lines is worth giving the government even more power to control guns?

 

[Pir8fan]

Does anyone have a good status update on the possibility of a national concealed carry permit, valid in all states and territories?

Such a thing would only serve as a national registration program. No thanks.

 

[Bikenut]

Ok... here is more food for thought...

Instead of inflicting the control of who is NOT ALLOWED! to carry across State lines by the Federal government being in charge of some "national reciprocity permit or a law that amounts to the same thing"... how about folks who want the convenience of carrying while traveling across State lines take it upon themselves to spend their own money and time to get non resident permits that are already available! from several States that already have reciprocity with other States... and be legal that way? I mean... why inflict even more government regulation and control on everyone just because you want to/need to travel?

Here is some interesting info about permits/non resident permits and reciprocity...........

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NonResidentPermits.pdf

 

[wolf_fire]

Oh no! I didn't mean that at all. I meant more like Kansas. A shall-issue state, 8 hour class, permit good for 4 years, just pay to renew it. No permit required to buy a gun (or ammo). Only the simplest of background checks. Very few restrictions and fewer all the time. Something like that. Is that better?

No that's much worse than my state of PA.

You see the can of worms that gets opened when we talk about a "national" or "federal" anything when it comes to firearms?

Do not ask for it, you may just get it, and the Feds will screw it up at best and use it as complete gun (people) control at worst.

 

[MarkPA]

I guess I don't understand all the talk about modifying the present system of regulations that are "infringements" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Could it be that people have accepted the basic concept that the right to bear arms SHOULD be regulated? And the government, whether that government be Federal or State, is the entity that should have the power to ... regulate?. . . . Make no mistake... as long as folks argue which regulation is acceptable the government will always.... "regulate" (infringe/be in control of). And it is all this arguing about which "regulations" are Ok that allows the government to remain "in control of". . . .

There are 2 important aspects of the problem:
- what is our Constitutional position?
- what is our political position?

The founding fathers left us a 2A with just about the strongest protections we could hope for. SCOTUS - in Heller and McDonald - gave us as strong an interpretation that they could have given us. We either exercise those advantages to their maximum; or we don't bother to do what is necessary to defend our rights.

Our opponents care not one whit about the Constitution. The Constitution means absolutely nothing if We the People will not - by overwhelming majority - support that Constitution. Such is not the case; and, it has not been the case since FDR, perhaps not since Wilson, arguably, not in Lincoln's administration. This is politics; and, we have been loosing for at least a century.

No "right" of the Constitution is absolute. It is indisputable that it is Constitutional to deprive felons, the violent and the mentally-ill the right to keep and bear arms - natural right or not. It is Constitutional to deprive those who are not "the People" of the right to keep and bear arms - natural right or not. Illegal aliens and non-immigrant visa holders are outside 2A protections. Legal residents are in a debatable position. Americans who have renounced their citizenship are probably outside 2A protections. No one should have any delusions that "shall not be infringed" protects an absolute natural right.

The Heller decision establishes - as well as it can be established in our system - that "reasonable" regulation of arms IS Constitutional; it remains only for our legislative and judicial bodies to discover what SCOTUS will deem to be "reasonable". That is political.

American voters continue to elect Presidents and Senators to office who care little - or not at all - about our Constitutional rights. These Presidents, with the consent of these Senators, appoint the 9 Justices of SCOTUS who decide what our rights really mean; or, in the case of the 2A, avoid like the plague deciding wherever they don't want to decide. This process is 99% political; just 1% about the letter of the Constitution.

If we will not defend our 2A Constitutional rights in the voting booth we can't hope to defend them in the town square, nor in our legislatures and certainly not in our courts.

The right to carry openly is probably defendable; if we bother to do so. The right to carry concealed in the sense we call "Constitutional Carry" is unsustainable. There is nothing in the record contemporaneous with the writing of the 2A that supports a clear-cut right to carry concealed. There is too much in the record in the early and mid-19'th century supporting regulation of concealed carry. Anyone who imagines that we could sustain an unfettered right to carry concealed nationally is delusional - as a political matter.

Conversely, it is clearly politically achievable to maintain and build political support for what we have - a system of Concealed Carry Permits. I understand a couple of States have exceptions saying, effectively, that one can't be convicted of carrying concealed without a permit if she has a well founded fear, such as when she has been threatened. I think that THIS is the clear-cut direction to pursue. Effectively, we divide the population into 2 groups: the large group who have demonstrated they retain their 2A rights by obtaining a CCP; and, the small group who cannot obtain such a CCP because they have a record of felonious or violent behavior or mental illness.

The idea that we can eliminate all regulations in some particular aspect of life has atrophied over 200 years. Today, it is just about dead. It is delusional to expect that the gun-keeping community will persuade the non-gun-keeping community that there should be no regulation of guns whatsoever. To argue such an idea is to terrify the non-gun-keeping community into the protective "arms" of the gun-controllers.

Do we - the 2A community - advocate liberty to felons, the violent and the insane - the right to keep and bear arms? Do we advocate that a man under arrest retains his means to an effective self-defense while locked-up in the drunk tank? Of course not! We are able to reason as well - in fact better - than our opponents. Let us reason with our fellow voters and legislators about the appropriate bounds of gun regulation - ever bearing in mind the Constitutional principle that the natural right of self-defense is not to be "infringed" upon.

Now, from this position, we can conduct a constructive debate about, for example, the reasonableness of disarming civilians entering:
- a courthouse;
- a school;
- a public highway, sidewalk or town square.

We should be prepared to concede that bailiffs in a courthouse suffice to secure the public. We should argue that the police are not adequate to secure the public in the highways, sidewalks or town squares. After we succeed with the latter argument we can begin to make progress arming school employees.

As chaotic as our present system is - 40 Mostly-Issue States with reciprocity - is a pretty good base to work from. We can argue to the remaining 10 Won't-Issue States that the CCP system works very well. We can work for greater uniformity in State carry laws. If we are aggressive in pursuing this system we can Stand-our-Ground and maybe even gain some ground eventually.

If we delude ourselves into believing we can achieve Utopia in the Oval Office, Congress or SCOTUS then we are betting it all on Black (or Blue) and we know how that's been working out for us all!

In my opinion - success or failure will turn on educating our women and our elderly that they have a right to an effective means to self defense by:
- their boyfriends, husbands and sons bearing arms;
- their neighbors bearing arms; and,
- for some of themselves and their sisters bearing arms.

Think about it. I might fail to persuade my wife, daughter, mother to carry a gun herself. Nevertheless, I might persuade her that she is just-as-safe - perhaps safer - if the men around her are carrying arms. If the policemen around her are keeping her safe why should not the non-police-men around her do so as well? If the police-women around her are keeping her safe why should not the non-police-women around her do so as well? Such a line of reasoning just might succeed.

If women can serve in the police and military then women can safely and responsibly bear arms just as do policemen and servicemen.

Long term, we need to get gun-saftey classes in elementary and middle schools. We need to get marksmanship in high-schools. This is a 2-pronged approach. Locally, we have to persuade our school boards to act in the interest of safety and preparing teens to consider careers in public service. Nationally, we need to persuade our Congressmen that Federal funding for schools needs to be tied to preparation of the militia for public service. We must also persuade our Congressmen that the 1A rights of speech and press (and, generally, expression) must be protected from intimidation by public employees under color-of-law. Would we tolerate school officials suppression of T-shirts expressing of support for the right to vote by minorities, women or 18-year-olds? No? Absurd you say? Well, then, why do we tolerate school officials suppression of T-shirts expressing support for our military or our 2A rights to keep and bear arms?

All the work we have to do is political. There is no other path to defending our Constitutional rights. We either practice politics smartly - effectively - as have the Progressives, Socialists, and Totalitarians; or, we practice politics ineffectively (or, not-at-all). Our greatest success in the past 20 years has been won in State legislatures adopting Shall-Issue laws. All politics is local; learn from our success.

Mark

 

[Bikenut]

Apparently some folks have swallowed the idea that "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "shall not be infringed" but means "the government has the power to decide and institute .. reasonable... infringements". The Constitution says what it says... period. Any and all "interpretations" that put restrictions upon what the Constitution says are "infringements".... period.

And while I understand that the socio-political climate has evolved to where many people think the Constitution is something that is open to "interpretation" that is NOT what the Constitution was written for. The Constitution was written for one thing and one thing only... to limit the power of the Federal government. And from the instant it was written the Federal government has been trying to find ways to eliminate the restrictions the Constitution puts upon the government.

And many individual States have Constitutions with protections for the right to bear arms written in them too.

Am I "delusional" to think that it is possible to return to Constitutional carry? Then how does one explain this?

Constitutional Carry Index

Constitutional Carry

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry since the nation's founding in 1791--
they never enacted any law banning the right to discreetly bear arms.

Montana enacted Constitutional Carry in 1991, for all areas
outside city limits (99.4% of the state), and is working on the rest.

Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003.

Texas enacted Constitutional Carry "light" in 2007
as the "Motorist Protection Act," freeing people to carry in their vehicles,
and to and from their vehicles and their homes, land or business.

Arizona got full Constitutional Carry in 2010,
and the sky has not fallen, despite desperate fears to the contrary.

Wyoming enacted Constitutional Carry for residents in 2011.
-snip-

Quite frankly the fight isn't on the Federal level... the fight for Constitutional carry is on the individual State level.

The only thing standing in the way of having Constitutional carry is the belief that it can't happen because of socio-political influences.........

Edited to add...

What is "delusional" is thinking a system where the government is in control of who is "allowed" and who is "not allowed" to have permission to bear an arm in the form of a permit has any connection what so ever to ... the right to bear arms ... as stated in the 2nd Amendment that makes NO mention of which method of "bearing" .. "shall not be infringed". Which makes any government permit (or permission by way of a written law) that "allows" a person to exercise a right without suffering a penalty an "infringement". Remember, if some are "allowed" some are also "not allowed" and it is the "not allowed" part that is the "infringement".

 

[Seeya]

Why do we even need a permission slip?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

The RIGHT to carry in all fifty states already exists.....

Link Removed

It's a shame more people don't wake up and question those who attempt to rule us.
ALWAYS.... ALWAYS question authority.
It is your right to do so.
It is your duty to do so.

Link Removed

Live it....
Learn it...
Teach those who ignore it exactly what the price for their ignorance will be...

Link Removed

Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Bikenut]

There are 2 important aspects of the problem:
- what is our Constitutional position?
- what is our political position?
-snip-

Mark

It isn't necessary to ask what our Constitutional position is. A simple reading of the document itself makes that clear. If there is any confusion about what it "means" then, instead of applying a present day or personal opinion based "interpretation", reading the Federalist papers can be instructional.

Link Removed

Political position? Politics is the art of those in power manipulating and maneuvering the common masses into a position where they can be easily screwed while making the commoners believe that not only does the screwing "feel" good but is also the best thing to happen to them.

 

[MarkPA]

Infringement definition

I guess I don't understand . . . the present system of regulations that are "infringements" upon the right to keep and bear arms. . . .
Unless I have a completely erroneous understanding of the actual "right to keep and bear arms" being a natural right of each and every human being that is born upon this planet merely because they have been born..... any and all "regulation" of that right, no matter which government is doing it, is an "infringement" and is unacceptable.. . . .

First, I want to apologize for replying so late. I've been on vacation.

The first problem we all have to bear in mind is that the words ". . . shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law. . . " is that they neither create nor protect any absolute right. They never did; nor will they ever do so. These words matter; but, they matter only in the way - and to the extent - that politicians and judges and the public at large interpret them.
Does your freedom of speech give you an absolute right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? To libel or slander? So far, you are probably with me. Does it give you a right to blaspheme? Well, for better or for worse, no. Whether you or I think it should/shouldn't, the courts have never found any public value to protect blasphemy. And so, some kinds of speech are un-protected. Likewise, at no time did the courts recognize an absolute right to keep or bear arms by violent criminals or the insane.
In fact, it's quite clear that certain classes of people were excluded from the 2A protections. Indians, slaves, blacks. Read Dred Scott. The opinion made it quite clear that if Scott were found to be a citizen then he would have had the right to carry a gun wherever he went; and, we couldn't have that now could we? Discrimination against 2A rights were intended to be swept away by the 14A; however, it was not until McDonald that a black man's right to keep a pistol in his Chicago home was upheld.
Whether we like it or not, whatever we think are our "rights", they hang in the balance of the decisions of: the cop; our legislators; and, the 9 unelected judges of the Supreme Court. And so it has been since Marlbourough vs Madison. Short of another revolution (with an uncertain outcome) our sole means of redress is via our electing legislators and executives who will respect our interpretation of our rights.
To underestimate the complexity of the problem we face is the clearest path to defeat. We have only just recently established in Heller and McDonald that a citizen (presumably of-age) has an individual right - of some sort - to keep a handgun in his home. That it took nearly a century and a half for the US Supreme Court to recognize the 14A right extended to McDonald, and finally overturn Dred Scott in this small way, should give us some hint of the problem we face.
When you are arrested you will be disarmed and you will lose the means to your natural right of self-defense from other prisoners. No court will ever uphold your natural right as an "infringement". When your toddler wonders out your door onto the street carrying your six-shooter he will be disarmed. No court will ever uphold his natural right as an "infringement". Try handing out Bibles and Bushmasters at your local prison or insane asylum; see how far you get.
At this point, it is NOT settled law whether a US citizen not a resident of any State can buy a handgun in the US; nor, that a green-card holder has a right to be issued a CCP in a Shall-Issue State.
We are now on the threshold of discovering the extent to which the US Supreme Court will recognize the extent of any right to carry outside the home. So far, it has failed to step to the plate. It has refused to consider the matter in: DC; MD; NJ; NY. Eventually, it might consider the matter; but don't hold your breath. Mr. McDonald has waited a very long time just for the right to carry a handgun in his home!
The Heller and McDonald decisions were 5/4 votes. Now that Harry Reid has overturned the Senate's filibuster rule we remain (for 5 years) just a heartbeat away from both of those decisions to be reversed.
We have a lessen to learn from the Progressives. For over a century the Progressives have chipped-away little by little all semblance of our Constitution. We are not going to get any of our rights back by pontificating. If we succeed at all, we will get our rights back by exercising our rights at the ballot box.
We have to elect politicians who will protect our rights; not politicians who appeal to us with promises of pork. We have to pressure our politicians to vote for incremental protections. You want our Constitution back in its entirety? All at once? That simply is not going to happen. We will get our Constitution back bit by bit the same way it was taken away; bit by bit. We will do so one election at a time and one voter at a time.
If you won't, can't, or don't try to invest 2 hours of your time every 2 years in a well-cast ballot, then how do you expect to recover the Constitution simply by crying "rights"? There are far more voters crying "Entitlements!" who can get themselves to the polls and who can scare their neighbors into voting against our rights. The state of our union is no more acceptable to me than it is to any of the other members of this forum. So What? Who Cares? Does my Congressman care? My Senators? My Governor or President? Certainly not. Do any of your's care? Probably, in most cases, No. What will make them care? Just one thing: your vote.
We keep voting in the same people who don't care because we either: don't bother to vote; don't vote wisely; or, don't do enough to convince our neighbors to see things our way. Do we have the power? Of course; Colorado voters just recalled 2 state senators and a 3'rd resigned. These 3 politicians got the message. They remain unredeemed; but at least they are out of the Colorado legislature.
Mark

 

[CharlesMorrison]

First, I want to apologize for replying so late. I've been on vacation.

The first problem we all have to bear in mind is that the words ". . . shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law. . . " is that they neither create nor protect any absolute right. They never did; nor will they ever do so. These words matter; but, they matter only in the way - and to the extent - that politicians and judges and the public at large interpret them.
Does your freedom of speech give you an absolute right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? To libel or slander? So far, you are probably with me. Does it give you a right to blaspheme? Well, for better or for worse, no. Whether you or I think it should/shouldn't, the courts have never found any public value to protect blasphemy. And so, some kinds of speech are un-protected. Likewise, at no time did the courts recognize an absolute right to keep or bear arms by violent criminals or the insane.
In fact, it's quite clear that certain classes of people were excluded from the 2A protections. Indians, slaves, blacks. Read Dred Scott. The opinion made it quite clear that if Scott were found to be a citizen then he would have had the right to carry a gun wherever he went; and, we couldn't have that now could we? Discrimination against 2A rights were intended to be swept away by the 14A; however, it was not until McDonald that a black man's right to keep a pistol in his Chicago home was upheld.
Whether we like it or not, whatever we think are our "rights", they hang in the balance of the decisions of: the cop; our legislators; and, the 9 unelected judges of the Supreme Court. And so it has been since Marlbourough vs Madison. Short of another revolution (with an uncertain outcome) our sole means of redress is via our electing legislators and executives who will respect our interpretation of our rights.
To underestimate the complexity of the problem we face is the clearest path to defeat. We have only just recently established in Heller and McDonald that a citizen (presumably of-age) has an individual right - of some sort - to keep a handgun in his home. That it took nearly a century and a half for the US Supreme Court to recognize the 14A right extended to McDonald, and finally overturn Dred Scott in this small way, should give us some hint of the problem we face.
When you are arrested you will be disarmed and you will lose the means to your natural right of self-defense from other prisoners. No court will ever uphold your natural right as an "infringement". When your toddler wonders out your door onto the street carrying your six-shooter he will be disarmed. No court will ever uphold his natural right as an "infringement". Try handing out Bibles and Bushmasters at your local prison or insane asylum; see how far you get.
At this point, it is NOT settled law whether a US citizen not a resident of any State can buy a handgun in the US; nor, that a green-card holder has a right to be issued a CCP in a Shall-Issue State.
We are now on the threshold of discovering the extent to which the US Supreme Court will recognize the extent of any right to carry outside the home. So far, it has failed to step to the plate. It has refused to consider the matter in: DC; MD; NJ; NY. Eventually, it might consider the matter; but don't hold your breath. Mr. McDonald has waited a very long time just for the right to carry a handgun in his home!
The Heller and McDonald decisions were 5/4 votes. Now that Harry Reid has overturned the Senate's filibuster rule we remain (for 5 years) just a heartbeat away from both of those decisions to be reversed.
We have a lessen to learn from the Progressives. For over a century the Progressives have chipped-away little by little all semblance of our Constitution. We are not going to get any of our rights back by pontificating. If we succeed at all, we will get our rights back by exercising our rights at the ballot box.
We have to elect politicians who will protect our rights; not politicians who appeal to us with promises of pork. We have to pressure our politicians to vote for incremental protections. You want our Constitution back in its entirety? All at once? That simply is not going to happen. We will get our Constitution back bit by bit the same way it was taken away; bit by bit. We will do so one election at a time and one voter at a time.
If you won't, can't, or don't try to invest 2 hours of your time every 2 years in a well-cast ballot, then how do you expect to recover the Constitution simply by crying "rights"? There are far more voters crying "Entitlements!" who can get themselves to the polls and who can scare their neighbors into voting against our rights. The state of our union is no more acceptable to me than it is to any of the other members of this forum. So What? Who Cares? Does my Congressman care? My Senators? My Governor or President? Certainly not. Do any of your's care? Probably, in most cases, No. What will make them care? Just one thing: your vote.
We keep voting in the same people who don't care because we either: don't bother to vote; don't vote wisely; or, don't do enough to convince our neighbors to see things our way. Do we have the power? Of course; Colorado voters just recalled 2 state senators and a 3'rd resigned. These 3 politicians got the message. They remain unredeemed; but at least they are out of the Colorado legislature.
Mark

Wrong....... On sooo many levels..

Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[Firefighterchen]

The first problem we all have to bear in mind is that the words ". . . shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law. . . " is that they neither create nor protect any absolute right. They never did; nor will they ever do so. These words matter; but, they matter only in the way - and to the extent - that politicians and judges and the public at large interpret them....

My individual Rights are not up to interpretation by anyone else other than me. As you said, they did not create my absolute Right, nor does it protect my absolute Right. I was created with my Rights, I am responsible to protect them. Free men don't ask permission.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

Part of my answer is contained within the following post in blue.

First, I want to apologize for replying so late. I've been on vacation.

The first problem we all have to bear in mind is that the words ". . . shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law. . . " is that they neither create nor protect any absolute right. They never did; nor will they ever do so. These words matter;

Up to this point you are correct. But past this point all you have managed to do is to point out what infringements people have come to accept... and what excuses were used to get people to accept those infringements. And, perhaps most importantly, that people have been indoctrinated into having the willingness to allow someone or something to have the power to tell them what they will be "allowed" to do when it comes to their rights (never forget that the opposite of "allowed" is.. NOT ALLOWED!)...without even questioning whether or not any entity within the government has the authority to put any kind of any restriction upon anyone's rights. Why do I say that? The rest of your entire post reflects a perspective that the government has the power to tell us all what is allowed and what is not allowed.

The plain and simple fact is that everyone is born with ALL of the rights that are inherent with being a living breathing thinking human being. And it has always been governments with the desire to rule over the commoners that want to restrict rights... because a man with rights is a man who cannot be ruled over.

There seems to be a disconnect between understanding that rights are absolute...and that people can be held accountable for irresponsible or criminal actions while exercising those rights. A man shooting a gun (exercising the right to keep and bear arms) and killing another man is murder... but a man shooting a gun (exercising the right to bear arms) and killing a man who is attacking him is self defense. One is a criminal action.. the other is not. But both involve the right to keep and bear arms and both involve the shooting of a gun. But restricting the right to keep and bear arms will NOT prevent anyone from being attacked... it only prevents them from defending themselves from an attack.

Now think carefully about that last underlined sentence because if a government wishes to attack the people through onerous laws ... or even worse... with action from military, or militarized police, then a disarmed population would be .... unable to defend themselves.

Oh... and in my not so humble and highly likely to be very unpopular opinion.... anyone who thinks rights are open to "interpretation" has already decided to kneel and kiss the ass of whoever is in charge of doing the "interpreting".

but, they matter only in the way - and to the extent - that politicians and judges and the public at large interpret them.
Does your freedom of speech give you an absolute right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? To libel or slander? So far, you are probably with me. Does it give you a right to blaspheme? Well, for better or for worse, no. Whether you or I think it should/shouldn't, the courts have never found any public value to protect blasphemy. And so, some kinds of speech are un-protected. Likewise, at no time did the courts recognize an absolute right to keep or bear arms by violent criminals or the insane.
In fact, it's quite clear that certain classes of people were excluded from the 2A protections. Indians, slaves, blacks. Read Dred Scott. The opinion made it quite clear that if Scott were found to be a citizen then he would have had the right to carry a gun wherever he went; and, we couldn't have that now could we? Discrimination against 2A rights were intended to be swept away by the 14A; however, it was not until McDonald that a black man's right to keep a pistol in his Chicago home was upheld.
Whether we like it or not, whatever we think are our "rights", they hang in the balance of the decisions of: the cop; our legislators; and, the 9 unelected judges of the Supreme Court. And so it has been since Marlbourough vs Madison. Short of another revolution (with an uncertain outcome) our sole means of redress is via our electing legislators and executives who will respect our interpretation of our rights.
To underestimate the complexity of the problem we face is the clearest path to defeat. We have only just recently established in Heller and McDonald that a citizen (presumably of-age) has an individual right - of some sort - to keep a handgun in his home. That it took nearly a century and a half for the US Supreme Court to recognize the 14A right extended to McDonald, and finally overturn Dred Scott in this small way, should give us some hint of the problem we face.
When you are arrested you will be disarmed and you will lose the means to your natural right of self-defense from other prisoners. No court will ever uphold your natural right as an "infringement". When your toddler wonders out your door onto the street carrying your six-shooter he will be disarmed. No court will ever uphold his natural right as an "infringement". Try handing out Bibles and Bushmasters at your local prison or insane asylum; see how far you get.
At this point, it is NOT settled law whether a US citizen not a resident of any State can buy a handgun in the US; nor, that a green-card holder has a right to be issued a CCP in a Shall-Issue State.
We are now on the threshold of discovering the extent to which the US Supreme Court will recognize the extent of any right to carry outside the home. So far, it has failed to step to the plate. It has refused to consider the matter in: DC; MD; NJ; NY. Eventually, it might consider the matter; but don't hold your breath. Mr. McDonald has waited a very long time just for the right to carry a handgun in his home!
The Heller and McDonald decisions were 5/4 votes. Now that Harry Reid has overturned the Senate's filibuster rule we remain (for 5 years) just a heartbeat away from both of those decisions to be reversed.
We have a lessen to learn from the Progressives. For over a century the Progressives have chipped-away little by little all semblance of our Constitution. We are not going to get any of our rights back by pontificating. If we succeed at all, we will get our rights back by exercising our rights at the ballot box.
We have to elect politicians who will protect our rights; not politicians who appeal to us with promises of pork. We have to pressure our politicians to vote for incremental protections. You want our Constitution back in its entirety? All at once? That simply is not going to happen. We will get our Constitution back bit by bit the same way it was taken away; bit by bit. We will do so one election at a time and one voter at a time.
If you won't, can't, or don't try to invest 2 hours of your time every 2 years in a well-cast ballot, then how do you expect to recover the Constitution simply by crying "rights"? There are far more voters crying "Entitlements!" who can get themselves to the polls and who can scare their neighbors into voting against our rights. The state of our union is no more acceptable to me than it is to any of the other members of this forum. So What? Who Cares? Does my Congressman care? My Senators? My Governor or President? Certainly not. Do any of your's care? Probably, in most cases, No. What will make them care? Just one thing: your vote.
We keep voting in the same people who don't care because we either: don't bother to vote; don't vote wisely; or, don't do enough to convince our neighbors to see things our way. Do we have the power? Of course; Colorado voters just recalled 2 state senators and a 3'rd resigned. These 3 politicians got the message. They remain unredeemed; but at least they are out of the Colorado legislature.
Mark

From the perspective of understanding that all rights are absolute.... any government agency, dept., or branch of government that puts any restrictions of any kind on any rights is guilty of the tyranny of..... "infringing". That is correct... any law that restricts any right is an infringement. And any infringement upon the rights of the people actually IS tyranny.

Oh.. about that old BS argument about yelling "FIRE" in a theater? We all have the "right" to yell any damn thing we want in a theater... including the word "FIRE"... but we also will suffer the consequences of irresponsibly exercising our right to free speech by being thrown out if we disturb the movie .... or are arrested and held accountable for all the damages/injuries if there actually isn't a fire. Think about that for a moment... because if we don't have the right to yell "FIRE" and there is a fire... kinda doesn't make any sense now does it?

I do agree with you that the progressives have taken the long term view and have slowly eroded not only the Constitution but also the general public's understanding of what rights are and, much worse, what real FREEDOM is. But what got us here is exactly the kind of thinking expressed in your post after the part I put in blue.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Link Removed

Sometimes you just have to go and do what's right. Not because you can but because you should...

I am a free man...


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[MarkPA]

I. . . A simple reading of the document itself makes that clear. If there is any confusion about what it "means" then, instead of applying a present day or personal opinion based "interpretation", reading the Federalist papers can be instructional.

I whole-heartedly agree. I'd go on to recommend reading the "Anti-Federalist" papers as well. And, it's instructional to read the cases of SCOTUS; beginning, naturally, with Marlbourough vs. Madison. Most of us have really mixed feelings abut Marlbourough vs. Madison. And so, reference to Hamilton in the Federalist Papers is instructional where he anticipated that the courts would interpret the Constitution. Likewise, John Marshal opined in the Virginia Ratification Convention that SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution. Admittedly, this is scant authority, and I'm not completely convinced by it. Nevertheless, this is the way our system works.
If we want it to work better, then We the People have to elect Presidents who will appoint Justices of the Supreme Court who will do their duty to the Constitution as We would have them do that duty. We will have to elect Senators who will insist upon the President nominating Justices who will do their duty. And, we will have to elect all legislators who will be respectful of that Constitution.
If we fail to so elect, neither our legislators nor executives nor judges will do their duty; they will do exactly as they please.
Mark

 

[BluesStringer]

I whole-heartedly agree. I'd go on to recommend reading the "Anti-Federalist" papers as well. And, it's instructional to read the cases of SCOTUS; beginning, naturally, with Marlbourough vs. Madison. Most of us have really mixed feelings abut Marlbourough vs. Madison. And so, reference to Hamilton in the Federalist Papers is instructional where he anticipated that the courts would interpret the Constitution. Likewise, John Marshal opined in the Virginia Ratification Convention that SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution. Admittedly, this is scant authority, and I'm not completely convinced by it. Nevertheless, this is the way our system works.
If we want it to work better, then We the People have to elect Presidents who will appoint Justices of the Supreme Court who will do their duty to the Constitution as We would have them do that duty. We will have to elect Senators who will insist upon the President nominating Justices who will do their duty. And, we will have to elect all legislators who will be respectful of that Constitution.
If we fail to so elect, neither our legislators nor executives nor judges will do their duty; they will do exactly as they please.
Mark

"Marlbourough?" Did you maybe mean Marbury v. Madison? If that's what you meant to refer to, I am decidedly not one of the "most of us" who has "mixed feelings" about Marbury. In just 21 short years after the ratification of the Constitution, SCOTUS changed the face of our representative republic with only four votes into the oligarchy ruled by unelected judges it has been ever since.

If we're going to discuss how far afield government can go from an originalist reading of the Constitution, how about we leave out the part about electing the right Senators for the job since the constitutional method of seating Senators left the electorate out of directly choosing them in the first place, and the 17th Amendment which ostensibly "corrects" that founding "mistake" was never legally ratified?

Point being that not only has SCOTUS been overstepping its bounds since (at least) Marbury, the Constitution such as it was after Lincoln all but burned it to ashes, hasn't been what The People contracted for when they ratified it on June 21, 1788 almost since that very day, and it has been completely and devastatingly usurped now to the point that anyone who bases the assertion of their liberties on that document anymore, is basing it on semi-ancient mythology. The Constitution that we're discussing here doesn't exist anymore. The only thing that remains of it resides not in a hermetically-sealed glass case in the National Archives, but in the hearts of Patriots like Bikenut, Firefighterchen, CharlesMorrison and many others on this site who haven't chimed in on this thread, but who still know from where their liberty comes; God. Some may not call the source of individual liberty "God," but if they believe as I and the aforementioned Patriots do except for the name of the source, they believe that the source is natural, unalterable and unalienable by other men, whether the intent be for "good" or evil.

The words, "...shall not be infringed" are absolute. "...Shall make no law..." are absolute. A criminal who usurps those limitations on their own power will never be considered by me as a valid judge of how I must live my life. They can deny me the free exercise of my rights by overpowering me, but only God can give them, and only God can take them away. No man will ever have my acquiescence to their usurpation of power and authority. All they will ever have from me is contempt and (at least) passive resistance.

Blues

 

[MarkPA]

". . . But past this point all you have managed to do is to point out what infringements people have come to accept... and what excuses were used to get people to accept those infringements. And, perhaps most importantly, that people have been indoctrinated into having the willingness to allow someone or something to have the power to tell them what they will be "allowed" to do when it comes to their rights (never forget that the opposite of "allowed" is.. NOT ALLOWED!)...without even questioning whether or not any entity within the government has the authority to put any kind of any restriction upon anyone's rights. Why do I say that? The rest of your entire post reflects a perspective that the government has the power to tell us all what is allowed and what is not allowed. "
Alas, you are correct. And, occasionally, this has worked out pretty well. We seem to have pretty well protected the rights of speech and the press. Many other rights - probably most - have been trampled-upon. Here, you and I are not far apart. Where we differ is how to recover respect for our rights. We the gun-keeping-&-bearing community have neglected our 2A rights for about 3/4 of a Century and have just begun to try to get them back over the last 1/4 of a Century. One State legislature at a time; one SCOTUS case at a time.
How did we lose our 2A rights (to say nothing of all our other rights)? One election at a time. One judge at a time. One case at a time. How will we succeed from here? In one massive awakening of the nation? Maybe ObamaCare will have that effect; I hope so. But, I'm not counting on it. I think we will turn the tide - ONLY - by getting our friends and neighbors to bit-by-bit realize the pickle they have gotten themselves into; and, then, how to gradually unwind this mess.

"The plain and simple fact is that everyone is born with ALL of the rights that are inherent with being a living breathing thinking human being. And it has always been governments with the desire to rule over the commoners that want to restrict rights... because a man with rights is a man who cannot be ruled over."
Absolutely true again. Now, explain to your neighbor that his toddler has both:
- a God-given natural right to his life; and also,
- an implied right to the means of an effective self-defense.
As does every person arrested and thrown in jail, convicted and imprisoned, or adjudged insane and committed to an asylum.
I fear he will not easily be persuaded. He will be scared out of his wits and into the arms of the seemingly more sensible Brady-Bunch.

I would rather tell your neighbor that his toddler has a natural God-given right to self-defense and just as soon as he is able to begin to bear the responsibility I'd gladly teach him to use the means of an effective self-defense. I myself began to learn to use guns at 13; as do many other youngsters. Some so young are trustworthy enough. Generally, society seems to agree that 18-year-olds are ready for military service and are likewise permitted to buy their own guns. Parents often allow their 16 and 17 year-old children to hunt and drive cars without supervision. Doesn't see quite as scary - does it?

Of course, no one wants anyone convicted of a violent felony to buy a gun, or even handle a gun unsupervised. We even have serious reservations about the insane, violent or not. Yet, we have to be judicious here. Just because a single mother living in a bad neighborhood was convicted of a non-violent crime, we ought to be just a little bit hesitant about depriving her of the means of an effective self-defense, and the defense of her children. Sounds pretty reasonable, don't you think?

"There seems to be a disconnect between understanding that rights are absolute...and that people can be held accountable for irresponsible or criminal actions while exercising those rights. A man shooting a gun (exercising the right to keep and bear arms) and killing another man is murder... but a man shooting a gun (exercising the right to bear arms) and killing a man who is attacking him is self defense. One is a criminal action.. the other is not. But both involve the right to keep and bear arms and both involve the shooting of a gun. But restricting the right to keep and bear arms will NOT prevent anyone from being attacked... it only prevents them from defending themselves from an attack."
It's all very well that you think that "rights are absolute"; and, perhaps, an overwhelming majority of the members of your rod & gun club agree with you. Now, can you find a judge - a single judge - anywhere in the land - who agrees with such a blanket statement? On the 2A, I suspect you will be hard-pressed to find one, let alone a small minority. Do you think that an illegal alien - arrested for a violent crime - has a right to bear arms to his cell and keep them there? Admittedly, he has a right to life; at least until the hour appointed by the Governor for his execution after conviction for a capital offense. His right to life is unqualified (except by a death warrant) but his implicit right to the means of an effective defense is most certainly circumscribed for the duration of his confinement.
I recommend the book D.C V. Heller ad Recent Gun Cases" by Dittmer. It's pretty dry reading; but it makes clear the 2 centuries of case law that we are up against.
There is no point in arguing that everyone - including children, prisoners, felons and the insane have 2A rights. No judge will take such an assertion seriously; none of our neighbors will take it seriously. We are much better off arguing from the other end of the spectrum of laws and cases. Why did a DC judge rule that an American living in Canada has no right to buy a handgun because he is a resident of none of the 50 States? Why does this decision make any sense at all? Why have some States ruled that green card holders do not have a right to a CCP even though they Shall-Issue to Citizens? Other States cheerfully Shall-Issue to green card holders. (My wife was pushing our children in strollers after living in the US for 21 years as a green-card holder - before becoming a citizen. Why refuse her a CCP?)

". . . if a government wishes to attack the people through onerous laws ... or even worse... with action from military, or militarized police, then a disarmed population would be .... unable to defend themselves."
Absolutely dead-on! I heartily recommend "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Balko. After reading it you will no longer be worried about the 2A; you will wonder how the courts shredded the 4A while you weren't looking. Try explaining your rights under Heller and McDonald to the SWAT team while they have an M-16 pointed at your head, your wife's and your children's heads (they shot the dog as soon as they broke down your door). Do you understand that the difference between a no-knock raid and a knock-and-announce raid? It's the 20-seconds between the first drop of the battery ram and the last drop when they break thru your door. Just about any pretext will do to get a lawful warrant; and, sometimes, they don't need a warrant at all.

"Oh... and in my not so humble and highly likely to be very unpopular opinion.... anyone who thinks rights are open to "interpretation" has already decided to kneel and kiss the ass of whoever is in charge of doing the "interpreting"." That will be the SWAT team. They WILL break-down your door. They will shoot you if they "feel" threatened. And, almost certainly, the judge WILL give them "qualified immunity". Oh; wrong address? Never mind; but you are still dead.

Our problem, my fellow citizens, is that the People have neglected the defense of their rights for about a century too long. We need to begin the long slow process of persuading our neighbors that our legislators, executives and judges have already stripped us of almost all our rights and that it is high-time we start to pay attention. Then, we have to begin to work our neighbors back from where they are to where our minds are, one-slow-step-at-a-time.

To illustrate, if a cop in your neighborhood can carry a gun then why can't an Army officer carry a gun at Ft. Hood? Why can't a Navel officer carry a gun at the Washington Navel Yard? If a retired cop can carry a gun nation-wide then why can't a civilian with equal knowledge of the law, training and skill do so? If a prosecutor or a judge can carry a gun withOUT the training or demonstrated skill of a cop why can't a mother with plenty of training and demonstrated skill do so? If Donald Trump can carry in NYC (without much training or demonstrated skill) then why not a mother? If you and I can carry a gun in a Shall-Issue State why can't you and I carry a gun in a Won't-Issue State? If 3% of the civilians in 30-some Shall-Issue States have been carrying guns for 10 - 25 years, where did all the blood-in-the-streets disappear to? If your mugger/rapist/home-invador has a gun why do you think you should be deprived of a gun? Do you trust your home invader more than you trust yourself? Once our neighbors start working out the answers to these questions we will start to make some progress. This is the place to start a conversation that will consolidate our gains and enable us to make more inroads in the Won't Issue States.
Strutting down main street in camouflage carrying a Bushmaster crying out that every man-woman-and-child has a natural right to an M-16 isn't going to be a particularly effective opening play. I say this from a tactical perspective, not because I have any fondness for Congress closing the machine gun registry. That one amendment is patently the most UN-Constitutional act of Congress that I can think of.
I'd prefer to make some progress toward a national-change-of-thinking. I don't want to turn-off my neighbor's willingness to listen with the first words out of my mouth. (Regardless of what I am thinking, I am under no obligation to say what HE is NOT YET prepared to listen to.)
Mark