Carrying with no license.. - Page 11
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Carrying with no license..

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2013, 12:15 AM   #101
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrumJunkie View Post
The 2A makes no provision for the type of weapon either but so many rail against any bans of a certain type of weapon. It's the we can only have a musket argument. If the 2A can and/or should protect modern weapons then why would the baring of them not be OK as well?
The 2A stands on it's own or does not. I for one am not too willing to allow the left's favorite tool of dating the text of the 2A to be the factor that allows laws that curtail our rights. It's not just about muskets and it's not about allowing states to infringe on my rights as explained in the BOR. If the 2A can be limited this way then every other right we are supposed to enjoy can be as well. Sure it happens but every instance of this should be fought against.
Fight against it? I agree wholeheartedly. Elect gun friendly representatives. Promote accurate news reporting. Boycott companies that are against firearm ownership. What we can't do under any circumstances is give the other side ammunition against our cause by ignoring the laws that are on the books right now. A good example is the guy the OP was writing about. He is a criminal. He just hasn't been caught yet.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:31 AM   #102
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Fight against it? I agree wholeheartedly. Elect gun friendly representatives. Promote accurate news reporting. Boycott companies that are against firearm ownership. What we can't do under any circumstances is give the other side ammunition against our cause by ignoring the laws that are on the books right now. A good example is the guy the OP was writing about. He is a criminal. He just hasn't been caught yet.
But that is exactly what Americans have been doing since we where colonists. We have stood up against what we seen as bad laws.

I'm not saying this guy wont or even shouldn't find trouble if caught breaking the law. Law is law after all weather or agree with it or not. It's why I asked about open carry in the beginning of the thread. I don't know what state the OP and his friend are in.
What I do believe is that we should all be willing to stand up and fight just like we have since the beginning over unjust laws that limit our rights. Especially when the same Constitution is being invoked to curtail them.

You said earlier that the 10A allowed the states to curtail ones right to self . I disagreed on the grounds that the BOR covers this so there is no power to be shifted ot the states or the people.The only thing invoking the 10A does is allow the powers that be to infringe on as right that states plainly shall not be infringed. The 10A does not work here.

We can not look to be grateful of the scraps the feds as well as the states are willing to give us. Saying the state permit system is and should be just AOK is relegating our right to protection to a privilege. One that can be pulled as easily as a drivers license. And that's just plain wrong. I don't believe it is OK to have to ask permission to use my rights.
__________________

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

DrumJunkie is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 12:36 AM   #103
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 120
Liked 39 Times on 21 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default Constitution 103

It is almost time to break out the popcorn. But instead, a little lesson on the constitution.

We know the 2nd and 10th amendments. Back in the day, it was not understood the constitution and its bill of rights restricted states at all, the states considered it to restrict and govern only the conduct of the federal government. The document left a lot of grey area on the subject of its jurisdiction over states which was eventually settled by the supreme court. It does, the document protects the citizen from his state and local government as much as it protects his rights from the federal government.

Consider the wording of the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As ratified, the first seems obviously written to protect states' rights, and the second, the rights of the individual.

Lets focus on that second part, keep, that is obvious, and bear. What does bear mean, what did it mean in the late 18th century?

The verb usage of the word means, among other things: "to be equipped for furnished with"

Are laws that infringe on my right to be equipped or furnished with my firearm somewhere outside my home constitutional?

Before we get to far, lets not forget the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one is easy, "nor prohibited by it". Given that we know that the bill of rights applies to the states, I would say that the states are prohibited from infringing on one's right to be equipped or furnished with their firearm when they are say, going to the movies.

Our government has the right to protect the public, doesn't it? Of course it does, but within the rules set forth by the people. They can't bust down a drug dealer's door just because they think it is a good idea, a warrant is required by the 4th amendment. The mere fact of being armed is not a threat to the public, if that were the case, they would be the biggest threat of all (yeah, they are, but that is another subject).

Now, lets get to the real criminals. Do felons give up their constitutional rights? I believe they do, but not everybody thinks that way, and the supreme court is, well, confused about the subject and has been for generations. I stick to my principles on the subject, their rights are gone, right to freedom, speech, religion, firearms, privacy, all gone. How else can the state ever justify imprisoning someone? So, form my point of view, felons can be prohibited from owning firearms.

How about these new laws about mental health and protective orders. Starting with the latter, seriously, anyone can get a protective order against anyone at any time without even stretching the truth very far. In fact, if the complainant notes that the defendant owns firearms, it is almost guaranteed to be granted. Lets talk about the 4th & 5th amendments here (no, not the part of the 5th about remaining silent, the part about "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). As for mental health, that one is tougher, but we can still go back to the 5th amendment, if, as a matter of law, given deserved due process, you have been judged to be mentally unfit and a danger to the public, perhaps. Many laws today have a take the guns and ask questions later approach, where is the due process in that?

So, are state laws against carrying your firearm unconstitutional, of course they are. Unless you want to ignore the meaning of the word bear, previous supreme court decisions on weather the constitution protects individual rights from state and local governments, and general common sense.

Many of us know the history of these gun laws. Typical never let a crisis go to waste when we can use it to grant the government more power.

If you are carrying, get to the back of the bus and stay there, that is your place as determined by your masters.

__________________
JosephMD is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 01:05 AM   #104
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,689
Liked 1557 Times on 937 Posts
Likes Given: 357

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephMD View Post
It is almost time to break out the popcorn. But instead, a little lesson on the constitution.

We know the 2nd and 10th amendments. Back in the day, it was not understood the constitution and its bill of rights restricted states at all, the states considered it to restrict and govern only the conduct of the federal government. The document left a lot of grey area on the subject of its jurisdiction over states which was eventually settled by the supreme court. It does, the document protects the citizen from his state and local government as much as it protects his rights from the federal government.

Consider the wording of the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As ratified, the first seems obviously written to protect states' rights, and the second, the rights of the individual.

Lets focus on that second part, keep, that is obvious, and bear. What does bear mean, what did it mean in the late 18th century?

The verb usage of the word means, among other things: "to be equipped for furnished with"

Are laws that infringe on my right to be equipped or furnished with my firearm somewhere outside my home constitutional?

Before we get to far, lets not forget the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one is easy, "nor prohibited by it". Given that we know that the bill of rights applies to the states, I would say that the states are prohibited from infringing on one's right to be equipped or furnished with their firearm when they are say, going to the movies.

Our government has the right to protect the public, doesn't it? Of course it does, but within the rules set forth by the people. They can't bust down a drug dealer's door just because they think it is a good idea, a warrant is required by the 4th amendment. The mere fact of being armed is not a threat to the public, if that were the case, they would be the biggest threat of all (yeah, they are, but that is another subject).

Now, lets get to the real criminals. Do felons give up their constitutional rights? I believe they do, but not everybody thinks that way, and the supreme court is, well, confused about the subject and has been for generations. I stick to my principles on the subject, their rights are gone, right to freedom, speech, religion, firearms, privacy, all gone. How else can the state ever justify imprisoning someone? So, form my point of view, felons can be prohibited from owning firearms.

How about these new laws about mental health and protective orders. Starting with the latter, seriously, anyone can get a protective order against anyone at any time without even stretching the truth very far. In fact, if the complainant notes that the defendant owns firearms, it is almost guaranteed to be granted. Lets talk about the 4th & 5th amendments here (no, not the part of the 5th about remaining silent, the part about "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). As for mental health, that one is tougher, but we can still go back to the 5th amendment, if, as a matter of law, given deserved due process, you have been judged to be mentally unfit and a danger to the public, perhaps. Many laws today have a take the guns and ask questions later approach, where is the due process in that?

So, are state laws against carrying your firearm unconstitutional, of course they are. Unless you want to ignore the meaning of the word bear, previous supreme court decisions on weather the constitution protects individual rights from state and local governments, and general common sense.

Many of us know the history of these gun laws. Typical never let a crisis go to waste when we can use it to grant the government more power.

If you are carrying, get to the back of the bus and stay there, that is your place as determined by your masters.
Yea, right. Why don't you bring your theory to the Supreme Court. Be sure to tell them the part about people being committed to mental institutions for being a danger to themselves or others, have the right to bear arms.

As far as states rights, that ship sailed in 1865. If you don't believe it, look at what the Supreme Court said to California last week, or what the told Alabama and George Wallace in the 1960s.
__________________
Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 01:39 AM   #105
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,089
Liked 2014 Times on 1191 Posts
Likes Given: 971

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall View Post
I agree and if we all decided to pick and choose What laws to follow, than you would basically have no law!! Do we really want to even imagine that??
Yes we do.
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 02:55 PM   #106
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,089
Liked 2014 Times on 1191 Posts
Likes Given: 971

Default

By the way aren't we glad there were people who agreed with me in the 1700's in this country!!!! Or we would probably not be having this enlightening discussion!!!

__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 05:59 PM   #107
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 58
Liked 18 Times on 10 Posts
Likes Given: 65

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
By the way aren't we glad there were people who agreed with me in the 1700's in this country!!!! Or we would probably not be having this enlightening discussion!!!
Geez, Jim...they agreed with you in the 1700's?

How old are you my man?
__________________
mikemc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 11:08 PM   #108
disappointed & disgusted, But DETERMINED...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrFootball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern Arizona(Fmr. NYC & L.I.)
Posts: 8,016
Liked 3269 Times on 2223 Posts
Likes Given: 708

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau
This is the exact point I have been trying to get across. The government (progressives) have 'broken our spirit' (indoctrinate and conditioned us) because we are MORE 'afraid' of the government than we are of criminals. WHO'S THE VICTIMIZER HERE????
I think the unaddressed "1200 pound" Mastodon in the room is the fact that No matter which party is in Power(and I'm no fan of either side these days BTW!) , at the time of the Newtown Incident, we would have the same "knee-Jerk" reactions to safe Firerarms Ownership as we do now/DID then,...because we will always have people trying to take away freedoms based on "the Greater Good" for all...
All I can say is "this is not the country that I gave 11.5 years of my life in service to", and lost a cousin & many friends via there Service....
__________________
askdrfootball@gmail.com

"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather in a lack of will." Vince Lombardi

"No One, and I MEAN NO ONE Craps on me and Gets away with it!!! Those days are gone...
DrFootball is online now  
JimRau Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 11:14 PM   #109
disappointed & disgusted, But DETERMINED...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrFootball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern Arizona(Fmr. NYC & L.I.)
Posts: 8,016
Liked 3269 Times on 2223 Posts
Likes Given: 708

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nixfix
Imagine a society where everyone ignores the laws they don't agree with. It would not be a place I want to live. The reason there are laws is to permit the majority of people within a society to live together in peace. If the majority is too far out of line with someone's expectations, he/she can move somewhere else.

For the purpose of this discussion, there are states that require no CC permit.
And I live in One of them, yet I chose to acquire a CCW anyway, Which BTW, Does NOT allow me to Carry concealed in certain situations anyway. some of these places are Where a Violent attack is MOST likely to happen! So i try and avoid those places, and When I can't, I Lock Our(mine & Mz. Green's) Guns in the Safe in our Truck...(like when I was Covering an Arena FB game in Phx.)
__________________
askdrfootball@gmail.com

"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather in a lack of will." Vince Lombardi

"No One, and I MEAN NO ONE Craps on me and Gets away with it!!! Those days are gone...
DrFootball is online now  
JimRau Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 12:50 PM   #110
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,089
Liked 2014 Times on 1191 Posts
Likes Given: 971

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemc View Post
Geez, Jim...they agreed with you in the 1700's?

How old are you my man?
Immortal I am!

Just remember ladies and gents, "ALL good relationships are based on TRUST, all bad relationships are based on a lack of trust"!!
What kind of 'relationship' do you currently have with 'your' government??????????
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!


Last edited by JimRau; 07-01-2013 at 12:52 PM.
JimRau is offline  
DrumJunkie Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
C&R license marc29th Curio & Relic Discussion 115 12-29-2012 01:27 AM
ffl license hoyte NFA/Class 3 & FFL Discussion 2 09-18-2012 01:15 AM
Getting your CCW license? canebrake Florida Gun Forum 3 06-19-2012 04:55 PM
How to get C&R license synical Curio & Relic Discussion 2 01-05-2012 05:10 PM
CC License? WannaGator Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 11 06-18-2010 12:20 AM