That's right - but a lot of things today are screwed up.
How are CHL permits Constitional?
How does the CHL requirement system not infringe on our Constitutional right to bear arms?
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
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.
Law abiding free men carry weapons openly, only the criminals carried concealed weapons. That probably accounts for the bias against concealed carry.
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.
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 lawfull.do 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 them.you 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
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 lawfull.do 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 them.you 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
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?
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?
Try living in WI, we can't carry at all
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Perfectly stated.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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Civil disobedience. It has a long, honored tradition. In fact, it was how the USA got started.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?
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.
"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.
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.What's your solution?
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.If they come to take away our guns, I'll stand with you. Okay?
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.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?
Back at ya.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.
The 400+ firearms that Bloomberg confiscated from gun stores in several states and the thousands illegally confiscated in New Orleans notwithstanding....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.
It isn't happening for several reasons. No one here is advocating "rooftop voting" or tarring and feathering local government officials.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.
Yeah, whatever.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Firearms Talk
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Southernguns
271 Replies
Notrighty
130 Replies
Oldoutlaw
127 Replies
Recommended Communities
