How are CHL permits Constitional? - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > How are CHL permits Constitional?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2007, 10:00 PM   #11
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FALPhil View Post
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?
Perfectly stated.

For my part, I have grudgingly observed the laws in my state thus far. If the laws change out from under me, I have resolved to become a "criminal" through no action of my own; I will neither relinquish my firearms nor be chased from my home. I won't be alone, either.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 03:52 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

So what's YOUR solution? Defy the courts? Armed revolution? What? As the crime rate drops in CCW states, the citizens will demand CCW in their own states. It's already happening. If that's not good enough for you, I ask again--what's YOUR solution?

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 04:12 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Precisely right. Do you docilely apply for your CHL, and/or work to bring CCW to your state--or do you defy 218 years of Constitutional law and established precedent in favor of your own personal INTERPRETATION (sorry--like the Bible, the Constitution does not stand on its own; that's why the Constitution ITSELF established the Supreme Court) of the Second Amendment--and go nobly to prison? The American system is the best, and the oldest, in the world. I kind of like it, myself. Personally, I'm not willing to abandon it over whether or not I can purchase an unmodified M-16.

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 04:45 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Thumbs up get a grip

Let's get a little perspective here. Not so long ago, CCW laws were very rare indeed. Now, the MAJORITY of states have them, and more are sure to follow. Does anyone here debt that things are getting better?
You will NEVER see unrestricted access to ALL weapons for civilians--because the overwhelming majority of our citizens will not support it. And last time I looked, we all believed in government "by the people", so that's the way it SHOULD be. If you think a small minority of the people should be allowed to impose their will on everyone else, how are you different from quasi-communist liberals? They're just as sure they're right as you are. How else do we as a nation make these decisions?
The PEOPLE want some fairly reasonable restrictions on who can and cannot carry, and they--WE--get to decide that.
On Constitutional law, you ought to bear in mind that the Constitution itself put the power to interpret it in the hands of the courts. All the macho posturing in the world won't change that, whether you like it or not. You can't appeal to the Constitution and simultaneously declare that "we can't trust the courts'"--because that is precisely what the Constitution requires us to do! If you don't like what the courts are doing, the Constitution tells us what to do then, too.
You believe in the Constitution--ALL of it--or you don't. If you think you know better than the Founders--well, again, how are you different from a loony lefty?
Things are getting better. Stop fuming and work to make them better still--using the system we have now. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years. I'd lay down my life for it. Wouldn't you?

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)


Last edited by cnorman18; 07-30-2007 at 04:53 AM. Reason: asterisks appear in text for no reason
cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 11:41 AM   #15
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

The Judicial branch's mandate is to determine whether or not laws are Constitutionally sound which requires that judges understand the Constitution, or "interpret" it, as cnorman says. However, plain English is plain English and to throw up one's hands and say "oh well" when, for example, a judge decides 2A pertains to States' rights rather than individuals' rights is nothing short of stupid. When the courts openly and deliberately misinterpret the Constitution, yes, people should defy the courts. If memory serves, our Founding Fathers defied the British courts of their day.

Thankfully, the recent D.C. decision is a spark of hope: if it reaches the Supreme Court and it concurs with the ruling, state gun control laws will be contested and cut way back. THAT would be some good news.

As for Notdku's original question, it never hurts to come to the realization that it is wrong for states to deny someone a right or make them apply for permission to exercise a right clearly defined in the Constitution.

As for cnorman's rants...what can be said? Sure, we all know what the various branches of the government are supposed to do, yet we all have ample evidence each branch is betraying its collective oath in some respects at some times. Judges are not infallible and they're prone to leaning left or right; elevating them to the level of High Priest With Whom None Shall Argue is goofy.

__________________

Last edited by bkt; 07-30-2007 at 11:47 AM.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 11:47 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FALPhil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
So what's YOUR solution? Defy the courts? Armed revolution? What? As the crime rate drops in CCW states, the citizens will demand CCW in their own states. It's already happening. If that's not good enough for you, I ask again--what's YOUR solution?
Civil disobedience. It has a long, honored tradition. In fact, it was how the USA got started.
__________________
FALPhil is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 03:01 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Okay. So I ask again: What's your solution? "Defy the courts" sounds very brave and tough--but what does it MEAN, in REAL-LIFE, PRACTICAL terms? Do you think the majority of Americans are going to rise up to support you when you violate the laws we have right now? You're going to wait a long time in prison for that to happen. Are you advocating the same course the Founders took--armed revolution and overthrowing the present government? That means dumping on the Constitution, by the way... Are things THAT bad?
"No, but if they DO get that bad..." Fine. If they come to take away our guns, I'll stand with you. Okay?
Have we gotten so fond of griping and fulminating about the anti-gunners that we don't notice when things are finally going our way?
If you're advocating armed revolution--which is the only logical alternative to what I'M advocating, which is working within the excellent system we have now--sorry, I don't have any more use for you than I do for islamist terrorists. If that's NOT what you're saying--then what, EXACTLY, do you recommend that we do?
Maybe we ought to spend less time and energy worrying about those gun confiscations that will never come (the people will never support THAT, either--outright gun bans were voted down 2 to 1 in MASSACHUSETTS, for God's sake), maybe we ought to notice when things are going well and work to keep them going well.
This is what I mean by macho posturing. It's easy to shake your fist and declare your resistance against a ban that ISN'T HAPPENING. Yes, we have to be vigilant; I'm not a trusting fool. But for RIGHT NOW, talk about "resistance" and "defiance" is just so much chest-pounding. As you pointed out yourself, the D.C. Decision is GOOD news. For my money, the news would have to be very bad indeed before I start advocating dumping the Constitution. I find it ironic and amazing the people here don't realize that that's what they're doing when they elevate their own personal interpretation of the Second Amendment above what our constitutionally mandated courts have determined. The fact is, the Supreme Court has never DIRECTLY addressed the meaning of the Amendment. It has deliberately avoided the question, choosing to leave those matters up to the States. If the present Court were to take up the question, it would probably rule in our favor; that can't be said for a future Court if the Democrats get into the White House in '08.
That takes is back to what I said in the first place: our energy is best spent working for candidates who support our views, and not indulging our Red Dawn fantasies.

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 06:34 PM   #18
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
What's your solution?
That depends on the future course of events and whether or not the generally despicable behavior at all levels of government changes for the better or worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
If they come to take away our guns, I'll stand with you. Okay?
They did. It was an outrage: several thousand firearms were illegally seized and/or destroyed by government officials. Almost no one who isn't into guns knows about it, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
Have we gotten so fond of griping and fulminating about the anti-gunners that we don't notice when things are finally going our way?
Hey, if things are going well for you where you live, that's great. They still suck up where I am. As bad as it is here, it's worse in other parts of the country. And politicians at all levels are trying to impose more gun control laws, not repeal them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
If you're advocating armed revolution--which is the only logical alternative to what I'M advocating, which is working within the excellent system we have now--sorry, I don't have any more use for you than I do for islamist terrorists.
Back at ya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
If that's NOT what you're saying--then what, EXACTLY, do you recommend that we do?
Maybe we ought to spend less time and energy worrying about those gun confiscations that will never come (the people will never support THAT, either--outright gun bans were voted down 2 to 1 in MASSACHUSETTS, for God's sake), maybe we ought to notice when things are going well and work to keep them going well.
The 400+ firearms that Bloomberg confiscated from gun stores in several states and the thousands illegally confiscated in New Orleans notwithstanding....

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
This is what I mean by macho posturing. It's easy to shake your fist and declare your resistance against a ban that ISN'T HAPPENING.
It isn't happening for several reasons. No one here is advocating "rooftop voting" or tarring and feathering local government officials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
That takes is back to what I said in the first place: our energy is best spent working for candidates who support our views, and not indulging our Red Dawn fantasies.
Yeah, whatever.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 07:23 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

You seem to disparage working within the system to improve things--"Yeah. Whatever," isn't exactly a ringing endorsement--and yet you still don't care to answer my question: What do YOU think we should DO, HERE and NOW? "That depends" isn't an answer. It's a dodge. If you've got a better course of action than supporting conservative candidates, let's hear it. I'll even settle for what you think ought to be done about the seizures you mentioned. So far, all I've seen is--well, impotent fulminations and complaints.
So there it is. I've said what I think we need to do, right here, right now. Got a better idea? I'm all ears.

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 07:41 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

So you plan to deliberately and publicly violate the law with the intention of accepting the penalties thereof, in order to draw attention to the injustice of those laws and cause a shift in public opinion and thereby forcing changes to those laws? That's what "civil disobedience" means. Good luck with that.
Or do you just mean ignore the law and hope you don't get caught? The difference is profound. One is a courageous public stand, even if in this case it's doomed to failure. The other is called a "crime".
I'll stand by what I said: if you want the laws changed, work for candidates who will change them. As I've been saying for a while now, if you have a better (or more genuinely American) way to go, let's hear it.
This is the system our forefathers fought and died for. I think maybe we ought to USE it.

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Indiana Permits right winger Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 8 07-24-2009 01:28 AM
States that recognize CCW permits ONLY if you are a resident? CastleKing Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 1 03-25-2009 02:14 PM
Concealed carry permits in the North East (crossing state lines). CPT Ethanolic Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 12-09-2008 11:11 AM
Concealed and Carry Permits On The Rise Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 09-25-2008 11:54 AM
Some got Florida concealed weapon permits training on toy guns sculker The Club House 3 05-01-2008 08:21 PM