Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   Legal and Activism (
-   -   How are CHL permits Constitional? (

notdku 07-28-2007 08:22 AM

How are CHL permits Constitional?
How does the CHL requirement system not infringe on our Constitutional right to bear arms?

shipwreck 07-28-2007 02:54 PM

That's right - but a lot of things today are screwed up.

ScottG 07-28-2007 05:14 PM

Funny thing about concealed carry. If you read state constitutions, you'll see that many of the states that have similar statements about not infringing on the RKBA, also state it doesn't apply to carrying concealed weapons.

Law abiding free men carry weapons openly, only the criminals carried concealed weapons. That probably accounts for the bias against concealed carry.

notdku 07-28-2007 05:16 PM

I can't open carry in Texas and must have a CHL to conceal carry. I've always wondered how they passed that because it makes a person following the 2nd Amendment a criminal.

WILDCATT 07-28-2007 08:28 PM

Carry Legal????
IF YOU REALIZE that the requirement is unlawfull than you realize that the state does not care.they make a law if its not questioned than it is you get what I'm saying?all gun laws are unlawful are they not.when did it become a felony to have a gun if you have been convicted of a crime????
the constitution says citizens have right to possess fire arms it does not say[except for felons]I wonder if we should check to see if the continental army was in compliance.the army used to take any one and arm dont think they cared in ww1 do you??back to CCW,which was started to keep poliacal foes from resisting the bully boys yes and to keep blacks subservant to white masters.I wonder if the treatment of blacks had been differant after the civil war if there would be the problems we have know??? any comments
:confused: :confused: :confused:

bkt 07-28-2007 08:52 PM

The Second Amendment is our permit to own and carry arms.

How is charging people to process permits legal? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say people have to pay the government for the privilege of exercising their inalienable rights?

BLS33 07-28-2007 08:56 PM

Try living in WI, we can't carry at all :mad:

cnorman18 07-29-2007 01:48 AM

Get over it, guys
The Second Amendment means what the Judicial Branch says it means--period. That's established Constitutional law, too, like it or not. Some (phony) scholars say it only guarantees arms to the National Guard, a view beloved of liberals; fortunately, that makes sense to few REAL scholars, and even fewer judges. If that were a defensible view, then freedom of the press would only apply to state-run newspapers--and you won't see anyone supporting that position. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to LIMIT the powers of Government: the First Amendment to make sure the Government can't have a monopoly on information, and the Second to make sure it can't have a monopoly on force. That logic is irrefutable, and supported by the discussions among the Founders in the Federalist Papers that show how the Constitution came to be. The fact remains: the meaning of the whole Constitution, not just the Second Amendment, is in the hands of the courts, in particular the Supreme Court. What you must do, if you are concerned about the RKBA, is make sure we have a conservative President who will appoint conservative Justices, and a conservative Congress that will confirm them. That's the way our system works, and how it's intended to work. Personally, I'm glad the country has swung to the right enough that most states now have CHL laws. 20 years ago, here in Texas--in Texas!--you couldn't carry at all. I can't see complaining about CCW laws, not when you can now actually GET a CHL regardless of the whims of local law enforcement. That there should be SOME limits on the RKBA is a national consensus; I, for one, don't want general free access to RPGs and the like. Sorry. I don't feel too bad about felons being denied firearms, either. You want to legally carry a gun? Don't commit felonies. I don't believe in parole, either. Do the damned time. I think the situation we have now is the best ever. We should enjoy it, not gripe about how it OUGHT to be--and never, ever will.

BLS33 07-29-2007 05:36 AM

You do realize not all states are allowed to carry a concealed weapon? You may consider it the best it has ever been because you live in Texas but around here it definetly isn't the best ever. Putting complete trust into the courts of the U.S. isn't the smartest thing to do either. Yeah vote in who is in line with your views, but we all only have 1 vote, I want Ron Paul for president, is that going to happen? Nope. You can't just take whatever the supreme court dictates and live with it. You seem to have a bit of a defeatist attitude.

FALPhil 07-29-2007 07:46 PM

If the 2nd amendment were interpreted by the same criteria by which abortion is, and abortion is not even in the constitution, nor is the "right" to privacy on which it is based, not only would CCWs be nonexistent, but we could buy just about any infantry weapon in the corner hardware store and the federal government would be offering subsidies to help us purchase such weapons.

I disagree with cnorman. Words have meaning whether or not courts even exist, and the Bill of Rights is a collection of absolutes, which the courts are charged to enforce, not interpret. Rights exist whether or not governments choose to protect them or not. The question you have to ask yourself is, do I claim my rights in defiance of an unfriendly government or do I choose not to because the risk is to great?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.