The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: endicom on September 12, 2017, 04:10:53 am
-
AmmoLand
David Codrea
Sept. 11, 2017
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Speaker Paul Ryan will not allow Congressional action on national concealed carry reciprocity to move bills forward, Rep. Thomas Massie told host Mark Walters Thursday on Armed American Radio. The reason given is Ryan thinks the timing isn’t right to consider H.R. 2909, the D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act, a supplement to state reciprocity provisions of H.R. 38.
More... https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/ryan-blocking-concealed-carry-reciprocity-congressman-tells-armed-american-radio/
-
The time is never right for Ryan to do anything productive......unless it is time to hit the bath houses to show the boys his muscles.
(http://i.imgur.com/Uqu2n.jpg)
-
And another betrayal by the republicans. There is truly no difference between the parties anymore.
-
Trump pushed for Ryan's Speakership shortly after being elected.
There are no excuses. They got what they voted for.
-
Me thinks Mr Massie is not telling the truth.
-
Me thinks Mr Massie is not telling the truth.
If not then he can explain what he meant.
-
I think it is time to move forward, primary and replace this RINO.
-
And I guess the timing wasn't right to repeal Obamacare either.
All we get from the Republican Party -- not just Ryan -- are excuses and promises they have no intention of keeping.
-
This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.
At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-
This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.
At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You're right. You shouldn't create any power you don't want used against you. But that is apparently not Ryan's argument.
-
You're right. You shouldn't create any power you don't want used against you. But that is apparently not Ryan's argument.
Exactly, If the Feds can tell California they have to accept Texas gun laws, they can (and eventually likely will) tell Texas to accept California gun laws.
-
And another betrayal by the republicans. There is truly no difference between the parties anymore.
Except that (at least some) Republicans respect federalism. Let each state decide for itself what gun laws it wants, consistent with the Second Amendment. Sounds conservative to me.
-
Exactly, If the Feds can tell California they have to accept Texas gun laws, they can (and eventually likely will) tell Texas to accept California gun laws.
Good point.
-
This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.
At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Constitution specifically enumerates (Article IV) in the full faith and credit clause, that states have to respect each other's "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." -AND- Per section 2, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Combine this with the above reference to the 2nd Amendment, I can not see how any state could constitutionally limit the 2nd amendment.
-
The Constitution specifically enumerates (Article IV) in the full faith and credit clause, that states have to respect each other's "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." -AND- Per section 2, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Provided a state or local law is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment, doesn't this mean that a traveler is obliged to abide by the local law? If Texas must respect New Jersey's laws, then the rights of a Texan traveling in New Jersey are not governed by Texas, but rather New Jersey. New Jersey, can, if it chooses, enter into a reciprocity agreement so that a Texan can lawfully conceal-carry while in New Jersey. But it should not be compelled to do so.
-
Provided a state or local law is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment, doesn't this mean that a traveler is obliged to abide by the local law? If Texas must respect New Jersey's laws, then the rights of a Texan traveling in New Jersey are not governed by Texas, but rather New Jersey. New Jersey, can, if it chooses, enter into a reciprocity agreement so that a Texan can lawfully conceal-carry while in New Jersey. But it should not be compelled to do so.
A state who's laws do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms is consistent with the 2A. States who's do not, isn't.
In spite of the progressive tendency to twist and equivocate where they do no like the conclusion, its simple, plain english.
-
This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.
At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?
-
This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.
At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says:
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
My initial reaction was not favorable for Ryan doing this, but after thinking about it for a minute I agree with what you've written.
-
If something like the 2A is legal on a federal level, then you should be able to travel state to state with it.
No different than the right to free speech in the 1A. It applies everywhere.
-
If something like the 2A is legal on a federal level, then you should be able to travel state to state with it.
No different than the right to free speech in the 1A. It applies everywhere.
On that very simple level I think you're correct. But I also think that each state has the right to set some rules on what they will and won't allow and the circumstances related to carry regarding amount of training required, etc.
-
On that very simple level I think you're correct. But I also think that each state has the right to set some rules on what they will and won't allow and the circumstances related to carry regarding amount of training required, etc.
I'm thinking more of traveling from state to state with a gun. I think there's a balance between the will of the State and that of the FedGov, but on this issue of reciprocity I tend to fall on the Fed side because it is enumerated in the Constitution.
It would be no different than New Jersey telling a Texas resident he doesn't have political protest free speech rights there. If Constitutional rights don't carry state to state then they're null and void. A Texas resident shouldn't be jailed because he took a gun legally thru a Jersey airport where it's illegal, yet he was just passing thru.
Now if he moved there and became a resident, that's a different matter.
-
Except that (at least some) Republicans respect federalism. Let each state decide for itself what gun laws it wants, consistent with the Second Amendment. Sounds conservative to me.
Unfortunately, that gets into a whole 'nother snarl over interpretation of the RKBA. What New York thinks vs North Dakota are different critters.
Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with.
I like the fundamental idea that if you are considered by your home state to be a rational and moral enough person to be carrying the means to dispense lethal force, that recognition should not end at the state line. You, as a person have neither changed in demeanor (well, except for some tourists I saw in my youth) nor proficiency, and should not be summarily criminalized for a mere change in location across some line which cannot generally be seen, and exists only on a map.
If Police, Peace Officers and members of the military can have that acknowledged, then surely those private citizens who have gone through the training, background checks, and proficiency tests can be similarly treated.
-
@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?
@verga
But there are limits on that "accept". For example, if you are pulled over in a state/commonwealth where there isn't a reciprocity agreement, you can be forced to sit in jail rather than get a ticket and be on your way. I recall hearing that many people were surprised to find out that their state had no reciprocity with Virginia, for example.
-
I'm thinking more of traveling from state to state with a gun. I think there's a balance between the will of the State and that of the FedGov, but on this issue of reciprocity I tend to fall on the Fed side because it is enumerated in the Constitution.
It would be no different than New Jersey telling a Texas resident he doesn't have political protest free speech rights there. If Constitutional rights don't carry state to state then they're null and void. A Texas resident shouldn't be jailed because he took a gun legally thru a Jersey airport where it's illegal, yet he was just passing thru.
Now if he moved there and became a resident, that's a different matter.
I'm not sure you can separate out permanent residents and visitor though. Not allowing guns at all, of course I'm against, setting "rules" for carry I am okay with and I'm good with States working things out themselves regarding reciprocity.
-
Unfortunately, that gets into a whole 'nother snarl over interpretation of the RKBA. What New York thinks vs North Dakota are different critters.
Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with.
I like the fundamental idea that if you are considered by your home state to be a rational and moral enough person to be carrying the means to dispense lethal force, that recognition should not end at the state line. You, as a person have neither changed in demeanor (well, except for some tourists I saw in my youth) nor proficiency, and should not be summarily criminalized for a mere change in location across some line which cannot generally be seen, and exists only on a map.
If Police, Peace Officers and members of the military can have that acknowledged, then surely those private citizens who have gone through the training, background checks, and proficiency tests can be similarly treated.
But, as you point out, in some states there is no licensing, so not everyone would have gone through training, background checks, proficiency, etc.
-
I'm not sure you can separate out permanent residents and visitor though. Not allowing guns at all, of course I'm against, setting "rules" for carry I am okay with and I'm good with States working things out themselves regarding reciprocity.
It would be a simple matter of ID'ing them at an airport, bus terminal, train station, etc. To me it's a bit of legal gotcha for say Jersey or any state to require that Texas have their handguns registered there to be legal, if they're just passing thru on a two hour layover and the gun never leaves the suitcase.
-
@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?
But none of those items are forced by the feds. If the state chooses to recognize it fine. But you want the feds to force one state to accept the rules and laws of another state?
If California says you can marry your Donkey, should Texas be forced to call that a legal marriage?
If the feds want to enforce the 2nd amendment as written, that would be good. Otherwise, see the 10th amendment.
-
I'm thinking more of traveling from state to state with a gun. I think there's a balance between the will of the State and that of the FedGov, but on this issue of reciprocity I tend to fall on the Fed side because it is enumerated in the Constitution.
It would be no different than New Jersey telling a Texas resident he doesn't have political protest free speech rights there. If Constitutional rights don't carry state to state then they're null and void. A Texas resident shouldn't be jailed because he took a gun legally thru a Jersey airport where it's illegal, yet he was just passing thru.
Now if he moved there and became a resident, that's a different matter.
I don't see any way that would work. If you are a resident they could prevent you from having a weapon but if you are from outside, bring it in?
-
It would be a simple matter of ID'ing them at an airport, bus terminal, train station, etc. To me it's a bit of legal gotcha for say Jersey or any state to require that Texas have their handguns registered there to be legal, if they're just passing thru on a two hour layover and the gun never leaves the suitcase.
And every road crossing?
-
I don't see any way that would work. If you are a resident they could prevent you from having a weapon but if you are from outside, bring it in?
In traveling thru an airport, it would be a simple matter of ID and not leaving the luggage, and having a connecting flight you are waiting for that is out of state.
-
And every road crossing?
Same thing. Properly ID'd and cased.
-
In traveling thru an airport, it would be a simple matter of ID and not leaving the luggage, and having a connecting flight you are waiting for that is out of state.
I may be wrong, but I believe you can check a legal weapon in luggage and travel through connecting flights in another state that has differing rules without every having an issue. You don't actually get control of the weapon in that intermediate location so there is not issue.
-
Same thing. Properly ID'd and cased.
While traveling through heavily restricted states, the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1986 gives travelers a “safe passage” through restricted states if guns are unloaded and cased, or locked up, and kept inaccessible with the ammunition stored separately.
http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/gun-travel-transporting-handgun-united-states/
Some history:
NO SURRENDER--The Firearms Owners Protection Act
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110125/no-surrender
-
I may be wrong, but I believe you can check a legal weapon in luggage and travel through connecting flights in another state that has differing rules without every having an issue. You don't actually get control of the weapon in that intermediate location so there is not issue.
Not in Jersey or New York. They will arrest you and lock you up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/nyregion/lawful-handguns-departing-for-new-york-but-unlawful-upon-arrival.html
-
If something like the 2A is legal on a federal level, then you should be able to travel state to state with it.
No different than the right to free speech in the 1A. It applies everywhere.
"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."
@Free Vulcan
I think that is pretty damned clear. State laws that are counter to that are unconstitutional IMHO.
-
While traveling through heavily restricted states, the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1986 gives travelers a “safe passage” through restricted states if guns are unloaded and cased, or locked up, and kept inaccessible with the ammunition stored separately.
http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/gun-travel-transporting-handgun-united-states/
Some history:
NO SURRENDER--The Firearms Owners Protection Act
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110125/no-surrender
Maybe, but I still wouldn't risk traveling thru those states or cities. They seem to be able to arrest and jail you for it.
-
Not in Jersey or New York. They will arrest you and lock you up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/nyregion/lawful-handguns-departing-for-new-york-but-unlawful-upon-arrival.html
That is not a pass through, that is the destination.
-
But, as you point out, in some states there is no licensing, so not everyone would have gone through training, background checks, proficiency, etc.
So? I can't find in the Second where those things can be required. (I'm biased, I live in one of "those states.")
-
That is not a pass through, that is the destination.
As far as I know they don't discriminate. The TSA may not call the cops till you try to leave, but the state deems you illegal the second you enter their turf passing thru or not.
-
Exactly, If the Feds can tell California they have to accept Texas gun laws, they can (and eventually likely will) tell Texas to accept California gun laws.
^^^^^^This.
This is why I don't favor any National Reciprocity law. Big states like California and New York (and people in Philly who fear people waltzing around with guns) will end up dictating the rules for carrying in all 50 states. As a resident of AZ I would find that intolerable.
-
Except that (at least some) Republicans respect federalism. Let each state decide for itself what gun laws it wants, consistent with the Second Amendment. Sounds conservative to me.
If the states and the Republicans honestly respected Federalism like you claim...they'd respect the wording of the 2nd Amendment and all of this talk of gun laws would be completely unnecessary because the Constitution lays out in very clear language what the rules on firearms are for ALL of the states.
This is not one of those areas that falls under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Shall not infringe applies to every single state in the Union....no exceptions.
-
As far as I know they don't discriminate. The TSA may not call the cops till you try to leave, but the state deems you illegal the second you enter their turf passing thru or not.
Read the article you linked. Every arrest was when they tried to check a weapon they could not have at that location. It was either their original flight out, or their return flight out.
When you change plans at an airport for an intermediate stop, you don't go through security, you don't get touch your checked bags.
-
That is not a pass through, that is the destination.
NRA on their website warns that in NY and NJ even if you are passing through...if you have guns in your checked baggage the police have been pulling travelers aside and holding them on the state laws and ignoring the Federal law that is supposed to protect people traveling through the state from the tyranical gun laws imposed in come cities and states.
Special advisory for New York & New Jersey airports: Despite federal law that protects travelers, authorities at JFK, La Guardia, Newark, and Albany airports have been known to enforce state and local firearm laws against airline travelers who are passing through their jurisdictions.
In some cases, even persons traveling in full compliance with federal law have been arrested or threatened with arrest. FOPA's protections have been substantially narrowed by court decisions in certain parts of the country, particularly in the Northeast. Persons traveling through New York and New Jersey airports may want to consider shipping their firearms to their final destinations rather than bringing them through airports in these jurisdictions.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170731/flying-with-firearms-get-the-facts
-
NRA on their website warns that in NY and NJ even if you are passing through...if you have guns in your checked baggage the police have been pulling travelers aside and holding them on the state laws and ignoring the Federal law that is supposed to protect people traveling through the state from the tyranical gun laws imposed in come cities and states.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170731/flying-with-firearms-get-the-facts
Thank you for that information. Amazed. I guess I should not be. One more reason to stay as far away as possible from liberal hell holes.
@txradioguy
I read that article, clicked the link for the source article, all the cases were people flying from those locations, not through those location as an intermediate stop.
-
Thank you for that information. Amazed. I guess I should not be. One more reason to stay as far away as possible from liberal hell holes.
I stumbled across that a couple weeks ago as I was doing some research for my wife. She was flying to Idaho ahead of me and her connecting flight to Boise was at Chicago Midway. She was traveling with her guns and she was afraid that because of the draconian gun laws in Chicago they'd either take them or detain her. Thankfully there was no problem. But my jaw hit the floor when I read the NRA's warning about NY and NJ. Especially since IIRC New York was one of the states that insisted the 2nd Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights as a condition for their delegates ratifying the Constitution.
-
So? I can't find in the Second where those things can be required. (I'm biased, I live in one of "those states.")
I don't find it "infringing" for states to put the responsibility of some minimum level of training on the people who want to carry. Allowing the Fed Gov to set those requirements takes the rights of the States to do so. There are plenty of states that don't have the exact same language of rules but still have reciprocity with each other. I say let the States work it out.
-
Thank you for that information. Amazed. I guess I should not be. One more reason to stay as far away as possible from liberal hell holes.
@txradioguy
I read that article, clicked the link for the source article, all the cases were people flying from those locations, not through those location as an intermediate stop.
I thought it talked about somewhere in there the fact that some people were stopped just passing through New York not originating from the state traveling elsewhere.
-
I stumbled across that a couple weeks ago as I was doing some research for my wife. She was flying to Idaho ahead of me and her connecting flight to Boise was at Chicago Midway. She was traveling with her guns and she was afraid that because of the draconian gun laws in Chicago they'd either take them or detain her. Thankfully there was no problem. But my jaw hit the floor when I read the NRA's warning about NY and NJ. Especially since IIRC New York was one of the states that insisted the 2nd Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights as a condition for their delegates ratifying the Constitution.
I modified my response post. Those people were flying out of NYC. They were not only in the airport for a change of planes.
-
I thought it talked about somewhere in there the fact that some people were stopped just passing through New York not originating from the state traveling elsewhere.
NYC may not have been their total end destination, but it was where their flights started or stopped.
-
Read the article you linked. Every arrest was when they tried to check a weapon they could not have at that location. It was either their original flight out, or their return flight out.
When you change plans at an airport for an intermediate stop, you don't go through security, you don't get touch your checked bags.
Yes, but only because that's TSA rules. In a state like New Jersey or New York you are still illegal. You are not arrested because it is not looked at. But if for any reason things change, then you get smacked. Such as what happened with this guy:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/18/traveling-mans-gun-arrest-appealed-supreme-court.html
While I don't like states being overridden by the FedGov, I also don't like the states trying to expand their authority to residents of other states with traps and gotchas.
-
NYC may not have been their total end destination, but it was where their flights started or stopped.
Yeah I see that now that I read the Free Beacon article. The NRA piece on their website makes it look like people on connecting flights are being harassed for just passing through the state.
That being said it wouldn't surprise me if that starts happening sooner than later.
-
I don't find it "infringing" for states to put the responsibility of some minimum level of training on the people who want to carry. Allowing the Fed Gov to set those requirements takes the rights of the States to do so. There are plenty of states that don't have the exact same language of rules but still have reciprocity with each other. I say let the States work it out.
Minimum training rules is the primary reasons some states won't reciprocate with others. What I fear happening is big states like CA and NY will end up setting those standards for small states like AZ.
-
Minimum training rules is the primary reasons some states won't reciprocate with others. What I fear happening is big states like CA and NY will end up setting those standards for small states like AZ.
I think that more likely a concern if Fed Gov starts getting in on universal licensing.
-
I think that more likely a concern if Fed Gov starts getting in on universal licensing.
@RoosGirl
I have a CWP for Florida. IMO the real risk of this is the CWP becoming a firearm license. The extent of any reciprocity should be the same as with any other Constitutionally protected right, that the individual states cannot violate the rights of individuals. Under the current President a federal reciprocity might be helpful, but under another Obama it would have the potential of being an expansion of Chicago, MA, or NY type gun laws.
Do we need a license to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?
-
Yeah I see that now that I read the Free Beacon article. The NRA piece on their website makes it look like people on connecting flights are being harassed for just passing through the state.
That being said it wouldn't surprise me if that starts happening sooner than later.
@txradioguy
Unless you are a law enforcement officer or a pilot all firearms have to be in checked luggage. Unless you are flying international or switching to a non-major carrier then your luggage is transferred to the next airline. As such it is never in your possession. The real problem is theft of firearms by airport and airline employees.
-
But none of those items are forced by the feds. If the state chooses to recognize it fine. But you want the feds to force one state to accept the rules and laws of another state?
If California says you can marry your Donkey, should Texas be forced to call that a legal marriage?
If the feds want to enforce the 2nd amendment as written, that would be good. Otherwise, see the 10th amendment.
@thackney
Not forced by the Feds? Well no but it is required by the Constitution.
-
I think that more likely a concern if Fed Gov starts getting in on universal licensing.
That's the direction this is heading, and why I resist it. The very first thing the Fed will do is crack down on Constitutional Carry, which I am rather proud of here in AZ. If Mrs. Liberty wants to carry her .380 on her trips to Walmart, she can and without a by-your-leave from the state. Good thing too, because somebody was shot there a few years ago.
-
That's the direction this is heading, and why I resist it. The very first thing the Fed will do is crack down on Constitutional Carry, which I am rather proud of here in AZ. If Mrs. Liberty wants to carry her .380 on her trips to Walmart, she can and without a by-your-leave from the state. Good thing too, because somebody was shot there a few years ago.
@Cyber Liberty
IMO if someone can't be trusted with possession of a firearm they probably shouldn't be roaming the streets.
-
@Cyber Liberty
IMO if someone can't be trusted with possession of a firearm they probably shouldn't be roaming the streets.
I agree with that very much, but there are still many, many laws on the books that say otherwise. Even here in AZ it was only recently I became legal to carry in my car driving down a particular street in Tempe because it runs through a University. I always avoid it anyway because college kids are stupid on their bicycles.
-
@RoosGirl
I have a CWP for Florida. IMO the real risk of this is the CWP becoming a firearm license. The extent of any reciprocity should be the same as with any other Constitutionally protected right, that the individual states cannot violate the rights of individuals. Under the current President a federal reciprocity might be helpful, but under another Obama it would have the potential of being an expansion of Chicago, MA, or NY type gun laws.
Do we need a license to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?
I actually don't believe we should need a license from the state to carry at all, but that's where we are right now, so that is the angle I'm speaking through.
-
Anyway, one of the bills the article is talking about is to allow non-residents to carry in a state that allows residents to carry; basically national reciprocity. I say block that bill.
the second bill the article talks about is a rider for the first bill and specifically for the DC area. Why don't they just get their stuff together and get rid of their stupid gun laws in the District?
-
@txradioguy
Unless you are a law enforcement officer or a pilot all firearms have to be in checked luggage. Unless you are flying international or switching to a non-major carrier then your luggage is transferred to the next airline. As such it is never in your possession. The real problem is theft of firearms by airport and airline employees.
I worried about that on this trip...as discreetly as I could when I arrived in Boise and then back here in Louisville I checked my weapons cases I had in my checked luggage after I picked it up to make sure my pistols were still in there.
-
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with."
A good example is Vermont. For a while, it was the only state with (I guess what is called) "Constitutional Carry". No permit required, just pass the federal background check and buy what you want.
BUT... the downside is that a Vermonter has no "carry ID" to offer in -other states- as proof of his/her qualifications to carry. No documentation by which to establish reciprocity.
I'd like to make a suggestion. Feel free to knock it down if you wish.
In the field of business, there is the "Uniform Commercial Code" through which the federal government set standards by which all the states might use to formulate business law and policies. Stands to reason -- there is public benefit by ensuring that business can be conducted freely across state lines with as little friction as possible.
Instead of a federal "reciprocity" law, might it be possible for Congress to enact (for lack of a better term) a "uniform weapons carry code"? A set of recommendations, based upon sound Second Amendment principles and court rulings (such as Heller), that could serve as a "model code" for the states?
Not mandatory on the states, but it would certainly brand anti-Second-Amendment states such as New Jersey and California standouts as distinguished from other states which respect gun owners' rights. Perhaps it might serve as additional law that the courts would be bound to respect in instances where the anti-2nd states tried to further erode the standing of gun owners.
Just a thought.
Shoot holes in it if you wish.
Fire away!
-
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with."
A good example is Vermont. For a while, it was the only state with (I guess what is called) "Constitutional Carry". No permit required, just pass the federal background check and buy what you want.
BUT... the downside is that a Vermonter has no "carry ID" to offer in -other states- as proof of his/her qualifications to carry. No documentation by which to establish reciprocity.
I'd like to make a suggestion. Feel free to knock it down if you wish.
In the field of business, there is the "Uniform Commercial Code" through which the federal government set standards by which all the states might use to formulate business law and policies. Stands to reason -- there is public benefit by ensuring that business can be conducted freely across state lines with as little friction as possible.
Instead of a federal "reciprocity" law, might it be possible for Congress to enact (for lack of a better term) a "uniform weapons carry code"? A set of recommendations, based upon sound Second Amendment principles and court rulings (such as Heller), that could serve as a "model code" for the states?
Not mandatory on the states, but it would certainly brand anti-Second-Amendment states such as New Jersey and California standouts as distinguished from other states which respect gun owners' rights. Perhaps it might serve as additional law that the courts would be bound to respect in instances where the anti-2nd states tried to further erode the standing of gun owners.
Just a thought.
Shoot holes in it if you wish.
Fire away!
Not a bad concept, but here's the other rub. If I took my Sig from my home state with the full capacity magazine into a state that limits magazines to ten rounds, I'd have a different compliance issue, and would be able to be charged. The AR-15 in Wyoming with a 30 round mag in the well, becomes a liability in COlorado where those are banned as "high capacity magazines" (What drove Magpul out of CO).
There are a host of infringements out there, from the minor to the insane, and they vary from state to state. Even now, those issues exist for the traveler who has reciprocity, and they wouldn't go away with permit requirement normalization nor even full faith and credit.
-
What I fear happening is big states like CA and NY will end up setting those standards for small states like AZ.
@Cyber Liberty
I can see a day when those states you mention try and place restrictions on magazine capacity and other such nonsense on the military units within their borders, not just National Guard, but Reserve and Active Duty.
Could you imagine Soldiers at Fort Drum, NY or at the National Training Center in California being restricted to single fire only 10 round magazines in their rifles and pistols for training purposes?
We all chuckle at that happening now...
-
@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?
I was thinking of that the other day.
I moved from VA to FL many years ago. One day I transferred my license and insurance.
13 years later I go to renew my FL license and am told that I cannot, as VA has suspended it. Seems when they heard I cancelled (replaced) my VA insurance they mistakenly ASSUMED I was driving without insurance, charged me and fined me. None of which I ever heard of until I went to renew my FL license.
So, if CCW reciprocity is not different, under what circumstances would VA be able to deny my right to carry in FL like they did with my DL? Would I have to have had a VA CCW first? What I if was in VA, say yesterday (I was), in possession of a handgun (I was, but it was lost on the way home), and they didn't like the color of the case or some other stupid technicality?
CCW should NOT be the same as DL. DL is broken. VA should be able to suspend my VA DL (which I don't have), and not honor (after due process) my FL DL in VA. But they should have no right to say I can't drive in FL on a FL DL because VA made a mistake (or any reason I can think of). [They should also not be allowed to extort an "admin fee" to clear their mistake from my record after I proved that I had continuous coverage].
-
Well, if he can get enough other clownsmen together, like they did when they ousted Bonehead, then they can change the rules to take power away from the speaker. The onus is on them. Otherwise he is just part of the problem.
-
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with."
A good example is Vermont. For a while, it was the only state with (I guess what is called) "Constitutional Carry". No permit required, just pass the federal background check and buy what you want.
BUT... the downside is that a Vermonter has no "carry ID" to offer in -other states- as proof of his/her qualifications to carry. No documentation by which to establish reciprocity.
I'd like to make a suggestion. Feel free to knock it down if you wish.
In the field of business, there is the "Uniform Commercial Code" through which the federal government set standards by which all the states might use to formulate business law and policies. Stands to reason -- there is public benefit by ensuring that business can be conducted freely across state lines with as little friction as possible.
Instead of a federal "reciprocity" law, might it be possible for Congress to enact (for lack of a better term) a "uniform weapons carry code"? A set of recommendations, based upon sound Second Amendment principles and court rulings (such as Heller), that could serve as a "model code" for the states?
Not mandatory on the states, but it would certainly brand anti-Second-Amendment states such as New Jersey and California standouts as distinguished from other states which respect gun owners' rights. Perhaps it might serve as additional law that the courts would be bound to respect in instances where the anti-2nd states tried to further erode the standing of gun owners.
Just a thought.
Shoot holes in it if you wish.
Fire away!
"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."
I'd suggest the DOJ file suit against any state, county or city which fails to adhere to the above. Jumping through hoops to placate the communists in Chicago or Baltimore is never gonna work.
-
"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."
I'd suggest the DOJ file suit against any state, county or city which fails to adhere to the above. Jumping through hoops to placate the communists in Chicago or Baltimore is never gonna work.
Be careful what you wish for. The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia. The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia. A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense. For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful. We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority, held the gun right to be an individual one.
-
Be careful what you wish for. The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia. The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia. A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense. For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful. We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority, held the gun right to be an individual one.
Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.
-
Last Summer;
NRA endorses Paul Ryan in primary race, backs him after House duel over gun control
AP
By Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 19, 2016
The National Rifle Association endorsed House Speaker Paul Ryan for re-election to his congressional seat Tuesday, saying the “lifelong outdoorsman and avid hunter” can be trusted to stave off gun-control measures favored by President Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, earned an A-plus from the association for his voting record in favor of Second Amendment rights.
The NRA, which also endorsed soon-to-be GOP nominee Donald Trump, said Mr. Ryan backed a series of legislative proposals to promote firearms dealers, hunters and everyday gun owners, including a concealed carry reciprocity law that lets American with concealed handgun permits transfer that right into other states that allow concealed carry.
Continued: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/19/nra-endorses-paul-ryan-primary-race-backs-him-afte/
I'd like to hear more about this whole situation. I'm not just going to necessarily take the word of one congressman on this.
-
Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.
He's not. Ask him if he favors outlawing carrying in Philly, where he lives. He's consistently stated he should be able to outlaw that.
-
Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.
I didn't read it that way.
I read "the Constitution doesn't affirm the individual's right to bear arms" (using the lame "militia" stunt), and "the SCOTUS needs to alter what the Constitution says for it to apply to the individual".
-
Be careful what you wish for. The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia. The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia. A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense. For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful. We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority, held the gun right to be an individual one.
@Jazzhead
Not if you know the english language and understand sentence structure.
But then our illustrious SC has ignored the 2nd for decades and has created rights where none exist. They cannot be trusted.
-
Last Summer;
I'd like to hear more about this whole situation. I'm not just going to necessarily take the word of one congressman on this.
That is wise.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I can see a day when those states you mention try and place restrictions on magazine capacity and other such nonsense on the military units within their borders, not just National Guard, but Reserve and Active Duty.
Could you imagine Soldiers at Fort Drum, NY or at the National Training Center in California being restricted to single fire only 10 round magazines in their rifles and pistols for training purposes?
We all chuckle at that happening now...
What are they doing at Ft. Carson?
-
I didn't read it that way.
I read "the Constitution doesn't affirm the individual's right to bear arms" (using the lame "militia" stunt), and "the SCOTUS needs to alter what the Constitution says for it to apply to the individual".
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
@Cyber Liberty
:shrug: Hard for me to understand liberal beliefs.
-
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
@Cyber Liberty
:shrug: Hard for me to understand liberal beliefs.
They have to twist the meanings of their own beliefs to avoid being run out of town on a rail when people find out they're barking moonbats.
-
Be careful what you wish for. The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia. The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia. A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense. For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful. We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority, held the gun right to be an individual one.
PURE UNADULTERATED MANURE> The plain language of the Second Amendment says The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed. There is nothing making active or past duty Militia service a condition of that Right. The militia (The Army, in its entirety, as defined by Barclay's Dictionary, London ca 1820) will secure whatever it wants by force of arms and needs no such guarantees. It is the People who need a safeguard when words fail to secure their Rights against a rogue military, whether that be State of Federal. If you pursue the issue in the Federalist you will discover that each state had a Militia (an army), and there was to be a standing Federal Army, large enough in size to interdict if two or more states got into a squabble, but not so large as to prevail against the militias of several states, or the overwhelming numbers of the armed populace, whether they had the benefit of Martial training or not..
The only reason there is any complication or discussion whatsoever on the issue of reciprocity, is that the Second Amendment has been violated some 20,000 times, placing infringements on the Right. Had The Second Amendment been strictly adhered to, we wouldn't even be talking about permits, reciprocity, magazine capacity, or any of it. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms would not be Infringed, period.
-
It appears Ryan has been accused, called out on doing this with this issue before.
One month ago: http://www.conservativehq.com/article/26074-weak-kneed-ryan-stalls-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity
I even found an article from last year mentioning Ryan. There is a lot on this issue to read on.
-
Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.
I've stated time and again my view that the RTKBA is an individual right derived from the individual, natural right of self defense. I've stated time and again my support for the Heller decision. But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does. The plain language of the Second Amendment includes a predicate clause that refers to the exercise of defense collectively. It took the SCOTUS to affirm the individual right - and it did so by the narrowest of majorities.
That's why it's hard to fault those who defend Trump's lack of accomplishment by pointing to the Gorsuch appointment. That appointment was huge - the individual right to RTKBA, like the right to abortion, effectively depends on the composition of the Supreme Court.
-
@Jazzhead
Not if you know the english language and understand sentence structure.
But then our illustrious SC has ignored the 2nd for decades and has created rights where none exist. They cannot be trusted.
It's the illustrious SC that affirmed the right as an individual one, notwithstanding the predicate clause.
-
and again my support for the Heller decision. But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does.
You were doing so well until you put that in there.
-
What are they doing at Ft. Carson?
Not sure...what have you read?
-
You were doing so well until you put that in there.
It certainly does illustrate a significant difference in philosophy most of us have with this person. He thinks rights are bestowed by Government, not by a Creator. This has long been a linchpin in his arguments on this forum: What the courts giveth, the courts taketh away.
-
I've stated time and again my view that the RTKBA is an individual right derived from the individual, natural right of self defense. I've stated time and again my support for the Heller decision. But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does. The plain language of the Second Amendment includes a predicate clause that refers to the exercise of defense collectively. It took the SCOTUS to affirm the individual right - and it did so by the narrowest of majorities.
That's why it's hard to fault those who defend Trump's lack of accomplishment by pointing to the Gorsuch appointment. That appointment was huge - the individual right to RTKBA, like the right to abortion, effectively depends on the composition of the Supreme Court.
Many, certainly not all, read the predicate clause as the justification for the individual right. Militia were formed by individuals that stepped forward to help overthrow an unjust government. But without the individuals, prior to the step up, being armed and self-trained, they would not be useful for the purpose of a Militia.
It does not read that the arms are only for Militia use.
-
I've stated time and again my view that the RTKBA is an individual right derived from the individual, natural right of self defense. I've stated time and again my support for the Heller decision. But don't be fooled - the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right - the SCOTUS does. The plain language of the Second Amendment includes a predicate clause that refers to the exercise of defense collectively. It took the SCOTUS to affirm the individual right - and it did so by the narrowest of majorities.
That's why it's hard to fault those who defend Trump's lack of accomplishment by pointing to the Gorsuch appointment. That appointment was huge - the individual right to RTKBA, like the right to abortion, effectively depends on the composition of the Supreme Court.
Silly man.
What guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the millions of such arms in the hands of the People.
No handful of aging folks sitting in a building in Washington DC have the power to take it nor give it.
We have it and we aren't giving it up.
That was what the founders fully intended, and it is still working.
A well regulated (controlled) Militia (army), being necessary to the security of a free State (from all enemies, foreign and domestic), The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.
At issue was not the training of the Army, but the control of it, especially in thirteen States which had been subject to the whim and depredations of Military Governors and their troops. The spectre of an Army taking control of the civil government and ignoring the unalienable rights of the citizenry was so livid in the minds of the Founders that the next Amendment dealt with forcibly quartering troops in private homes--an issue not raised again until the War Between the States and later the Patriot Act and NDAA.
-
Not sure...what have you read?
I haven't. It was a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I would think that as long as the magazines stay on base, the locals can't do squat (US property, not CO within the fences, and subject to UCMJ, not CO law) but I might be mistaken.
-
The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia.
@Jazzhead
No, it doesn't.
It frames the reason for the right's protection in terms of a militia.
-
Silly man.
What guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the millions of such arms in the hands of the People.
No handful of aging folks sitting in a building in Washington DC have the power to take it nor give it.
We have it and we aren't giving it up.
That was what the founders fully intended, and it is still working.
A well regulated (controlled) Militia (army), being necessary to the security of a free State (from all enemies, foreign and domestic), The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed.
At issue was not the training of the Army, but the control of it, especially in thirteen States which had been subject to the whim and depredations of Military Governors and their troops. The spectre of an Army taking control of the civil government and ignoring the unalienable rights of the citizenry was so livid in the minds of the Founders that the next Amendment dealt with forcibly quartering troops in private homes--an issue not raised again until the War Between the States and later the Patriot Act and NDAA.
I do not agree the term Militia refers to the army. Both terms were used at the time of writing to describe separate groups.
http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago
-
I haven't. It was a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I would think that as long as the magazines stay on base, the locals can't do squat (US property, not CO within the fences, and subject to UCMJ, not CO law) but I might be mistaken.
No you are correct they can't do anything...right now...as long as that stuff stays within the confines of Ft. Carson.
I was merely hypnotizing on a day in the near future when the states like California and New York WILL sue the government to force the installations in their states to comply with state gun laws as far as guidelines on magazine capacity caliber's allowed and rate of fire.
-
It's the illustrious SC that affirmed the right as an individual one, notwithstanding the predicate clause.
@Jazzhead
The illustrious SC has shown itself to be corruptible and biased on many occasions over the years. We have the right regardless of what the SC says, because the SC did not create the right. Nor does the government.
Our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights. The Constitution and associated Amendments are simply an attempt to prevent the government from infringing on those rights. They put those protections in place because governments have shown themselves to be untrustworthy throughout history.
The power is of the People, not the Government. We the People need to remember it.
-
No you are correct they can't do anything...right now...as long as that stuff stays within the confines of Ft. Carson.
I was merely hypnotizing on a day in the near future when the states like California and New York WILL sue the government to force the installations in their states to comply with state gun laws as far as guidelines on magazine capacity caliber's allowed and rate of fire.
@txradioguy @Smokin Joe
A lawsuit wouldn't get very far. Look at alcohol consumption as a comparison. Military bases generally mirror the local laws where booze is concerned but they don't have too. They can set their own rules within the boundaries of Federal Law and Military Law.
I'd like to see them try though. It would be fun to watch.
-
I do not agree the term Militia refers to the army. Both terms were used at the time of writing to describe separate groups.
http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago
At the time a standing Army was not something they expected or anticipated. Hence the militia which was comprised of every able bodied man up to around 44 yrs old.
-
At the time a standing Army was not something they expected or anticipated. Hence the militia which was comprised of every able bodied man up to around 44 yrs old.
I don't agree the didn't expect or anticipate. Read the sections of the Federalists papers in the link above. They viewed the militia as a check on any standing army.
-
Many, certainly not all, read the predicate clause as the justification for the individual right. Militia were formed by individuals that stepped forward to help overthrow an unjust government. But without the individuals, prior to the step up, being armed and self-trained, they would not be useful for the purpose of a Militia.
It does not read that the arms are only for Militia use.
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the prosperity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Would that mean only the educated and those with voting rights would have the right to read books?
-
I don't agree the didn't expect or anticipate. Read the sections of the Federalists papers in the link above. They viewed the militia as a check on any standing army.
Sorry, they didn't expect a standing army like we have today. At the time it was unnecessary except for use by tyrants.
-
@Jazzhead
Our Creator gave us certain inalienable rights. The Constitution and associated Amendments are simply an attempt to prevent the government from infringing on those rights.
I don't disagree with respect to many of the Constitution's enumerated rights which derive from "natural" rights, but the Second Amendment doesn't fit that pattern because of the predicate clause. The natural right - the right given to us by the "Creator" - is the right to individual self-defense, of home and hearth. That's not what the Second Amendment protects. It protects the right to keep arms in the context of collective defense, of service in the militia.
It was the SCOTUS that, over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right based derived from the inherent or natural right of self-defense. Keep in mind the facts - D.C. attempted to effectively ban all handguns, an essential tool for protection of the home.
The loss of this individual right is but one SCOTUS justice away. A different Court can easily, and plausibly, limit the 2A to arms borne for service in the well-regulated militia.
-
I'd like to see them try though. It would be fun to watch.
@driftdiver yeah it will be fun to watch.
My fear is they will do as all Liberals do and forum shop...find a judge that will agree with them...and it will be done in a state where the 9th Circus has jurisdiction.
I know it's all supposition at this point...but if there's one thing I've learned about Liberals over the years it's to never say never when it comes to the crazy things they might try.
-
I don't disagree with respect to many of the Constitution's enumerated rights which derive from "natural" rights, but the Second Amendment doesn't fit that pattern because of the predicate clause. The natural right - the right given to us by the "Creator" - is the right to individual self-defense, of home and hearth. That's not what the Second Amendment protects. It protects the right to keep arms in the context of collective defense, of service in the militia.
It was the SCOTUS that, over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right based derived from the inherent or natural right of self-defense. Keep in mind the facts - D.C. attempted to effectively ban all handguns, an essential tool for protection of the home.
The loss of this individual right is but one SCOTUS justice away. A different Court can easily, and plausibly, limit the 2A to arms borne for service in the well-regulated militia.
@Jazzhead
Its an individual right despite what all the liberals wish. I know the common theme is to redefine American traditions, laws and morals and you've been more successful than expected but it doesn't change the reality.
The loss of ANY protected right is just one vote away. The difference in this case is they cannot win a war with every American gun owner. Their only chance of success is to divide and conquer.
-
@driftdiver yeah it will be fun to watch.
My fear is they will do as all Liberals do and forum shop...find a judge that will agree with them...and it will be done in a state where the 9th Circus has jurisdiction.
I know it's all supposition at this point...but if there's one thing I've learned about Liberals over the years it's to never say never when it comes to the crazy things they might try.
@txradioguy
They never fear going to far and they never stop. They'll accept any compromise as long as its a step in their favor, even a tiny one.
Conservatives are still holding out for the grand slam.
-
Many, certainly not all, read the predicate clause as the justification for the individual right. Militia were formed by individuals that stepped forward to help overthrow an unjust government. But without the individuals, prior to the step up, being armed and self-trained, they would not be useful for the purpose of a Militia.
It does not read that the arms are only for Militia use.
It doesn't mandate that result but it does muddy the waters because it leaves it open to that interpretation
-
I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread. The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.
-
@txradioguy
They never fear going to far and they never stop. They'll accept any compromise as long as its a step in their favor, even a tiny one.
Conservatives are still holding out for the grand slam.
Yup...I agree completely.
-
I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread. The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.
@Cyber Liberty
No the troll doesn't have people on ignore, he just doesnt respond. cmon man we love ya, well most of the time
-
@Jazzhead
Its an individual right despite what all the liberals wish.
That's what you think, that's what I think, that's what the current SCOTUS thinks. I'm just saying that the Second Amendment's predicate clause renders the matter ambiguous. That ambiguity makes the composition of the SCOTUS an essential matter - change the Court and the individual right could disappear.
-
@Cyber Liberty
No the troll doesn't have people on ignore, he just doesnt respond. cmon man we love ya, well most of the time
Correct - I've never put anyone on ignore. Not my style. But I tend to be in the minority, so I'm selective in who I choose to respond to.
-
I do not agree the term Militia refers to the army. Both terms were used at the time of writing to describe separate groups.
http://theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago
I have a copy of Barclay's English Dictionary, London, ca 1820 (King George III's Son is Regent in the line of succession in the back). In that, 'Militia' is defined as "The Army, in it's entirety". The definition is pulled from a dusty volume.
But when I read that, it changed the way I saw the Second Amendment. As we so often do, people were arguing on the meaning of the words based on today's English usage, not the usage of the time. Words like "State", "Militia", etc. have different meaning and nuance in their usage today.
Each sovereign State had an army at the time, referred to as Militia. The term 'Army', not only designated a size of troop unit (like corps or regiment, for example), which usage persists today, but was used in some instances to delineate between a professional standing army and the armies of the various States which were on a call-up basis, commonly in the colonies referred to as 'militia', and who made their living other than by soldiering.
The common implication in modern usage is that militia are less well trained and equipped as the standing army which is a professional military.
There have been numerous convolutions over the meaning of "regulated" as well, some saying it means "trained". However, in the common usage, a regulator controls, regulations control, to regulate is the act of controlling. Keeping a military is certainly part and parcel of having a Free State (Free Country), but keeping a military from overrunning that free country from within is equally vital to keeping that State (country) free.
Whether the Federal (professional) Army was to be involved, or the State Militia (army), not only was having them for the purpose of the defense of a free state (from enemies without) vital, but being able to defend against them if they went rogue under some ambitious commander who would use them to impose tyranny was equally important.
Like fire, an army can be a great servant, but something that can be utterly destructive if it gets out of hand.
The preponderance of arms in the hands of the People, by sheer force of numbers alone, even without martial training, was seen as the ultimate check to the misuse of power--at any level.
For that reason, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was seen as sacrosanct and not to be infringed.
Now, re-read it. 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.
It makes perfect sense in the above context, and without extraordinary definitions or convolutions of logic, and continues to make sense today.
The only problem is, that by longstanding convention, the Right has been incrementally infringed upon, removing the Right from entire classes of arms (currently in common infantry use) which are rare among the populace only by virtue of long standing infringements and might otherwise not be novel or unusual to possess, and from various and sundry geographic locales, making the Right a de facto privilege in practice.
-
I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread. The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.
@Cyber Liberty
Why anyone here still chooses to argue with this troll is beyond me! I have no time for it!
-
No you are correct they can't do anything...right now...as long as that stuff stays within the confines of Ft. Carson.
I was merely hypnotizing on a day in the near future when the states like California and New York WILL sue the government to force the installations in their states to comply with state gun laws as far as guidelines on magazine capacity caliber's allowed and rate of fire.
Maybe they can get the states to come in and check for UXO on the ranges, too .... Just saying... :nometalk:
-
At the time a standing Army was not something they expected or anticipated. Hence the militia which was comprised of every able bodied man up to around 44 yrs old.
Actually, a Standing (Federal) army was the crux of the discussion. Recall, the Federalist Papers predated the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
-
I don't disagree with respect to many of the Constitution's enumerated rights which derive from "natural" rights, but the Second Amendment doesn't fit that pattern because of the predicate clause. The natural right - the right given to us by the "Creator" - is the right to individual self-defense, of home and hearth. That's not what the Second Amendment protects. It protects the right to keep arms in the context of collective defense, of service in the militia.
It was the SCOTUS that, over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right based derived from the inherent or natural right of self-defense. Keep in mind the facts - D.C. attempted to effectively ban all handguns, an essential tool for protection of the home.
Kindly consider that for over 200 years it went unchallenged that "...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms..." meant just that. Right of the People. What led to the ruling wasn't the presence of the Right, but the audacity to infringe upon it.
The loss of this individual right is but one SCOTUS justice away. A different Court can easily, and plausibly, limit the 2A to arms borne for service in the well-regulated militia.
So, that would imply I can keep that M-79 and bandolier of ammo in the hall closet? Or the SAW? An M-2? without any of the current infringements? Demand might make the price spike a little but when it settles down the select fire versions of arms that cost in the thousands now, should be available, new, for a tenth of the current price, and no permit required.
-
I don't disagree with respect to many of the Constitution's enumerated rights which derive from "natural" rights, but the Second Amendment doesn't fit that pattern because of the predicate clause. The natural right - the right given to us by the "Creator" - is the right to individual self-defense, of home and hearth. That's not what the Second Amendment protects. It protects the right to keep arms in the context of collective defense, of service in the militia.
It was the SCOTUS that, over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right based derived from the inherent or natural right of self-defense. Keep in mind the facts - D.C. attempted to effectively ban all handguns, an essential tool for protection of the home.
The loss of this individual right is but one SCOTUS justice away. A different Court can easily, and plausibly, limit the 2A to arms borne for service in the well-regulated militia.
No it does not. It specifically states the right is for the people. The Militia is only a justification for that right, not the ownership of the right. The people need to be armed and able to bear those arms, in case they are needed. It is not limited to only those already existing in a military function, but all those able bodies that may be needed.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Why anyone here still chooses to argue with this troll is beyond me! I have no time for it!
He's pretty much the only one arguing at this point, so I don't have time for it either.
-
Unsubscribe! :)
-
He's pretty much the only one arguing at this point, so I don't have time for it either.
Arguing? About what? I'm really just trying to point out that the individual right is precarious because it rests on the interpretation of a SCOTUS majority. The ambiguous wording of the 2A is to blame.
-
No it does not. It specifically states the right is for the people. The Militia is only a justification for that right, not the ownership of the right.
Understood, but that's not the only interpretation. My concern is the "militia" is an outdated concept; we rely on professional armies now. With the rationale of the predicate clause gone, it is hardly a stretch to winnow away at the right itself - unless it is firmly established as an enumerated right based on the right of individual self-defense.
Has the 2A community ever seriously considered trying to amend the 2A to explicitly state the right in terms of an individual right derived from a natural right (that is, making it read more like the Constitution's other enumerated rights)? I think that's the best way of insuring the individual right recognized by Heller isn't taken away in the future when the Dems manage to pack the Court.
-
Understood, but that's not the only interpretation. My concern is the "militia" is an outdated concept; we rely on professional armies now. With the rationale of the predicate clause gone, it is hardly a stretch to winnow away at the right itself - unless it is firmly established as an enumerated right based on the right of individual self-defense.
Has the 2A community ever seriously considered trying to amend the 2A to explicitly state the right in terms of an individual right derived from a natural right (that is, making it read more like the Constitution's other enumerated rights)? I think that's the best way of insuring the individual right recognized by Heller isn't taken away in the future when the Dems manage to pack the Court.
Up to the point that the professional army no longer serves the will of the people. Just as at the time it was written, the 2nd Amendment provides for the citizens to protect themselves from their own government. As some of the federalist papers pointed out. It is not just for foreign invasions. It was also a check on the military application of federal force on its own population. Those people the wrote and signed it had just completed that action.
-
Understood, but that's not the only interpretation. My concern is the "militia" is an outdated concept; we rely on professional armies now. With the rationale of the predicate clause gone, it is hardly a stretch to winnow away at the right itself - unless it is firmly established as an enumerated right based on the right of individual self-defense.
Has the 2A community ever seriously considered trying to amend the 2A to explicitly state the right in terms of an individual right derived from a natural right (that is, making it read more like the Constitution's other enumerated rights)? I think that's the best way of insuring the individual right recognized by Heller isn't taken away in the future when the Dems manage to pack the Court.
Not to many of us.
Myself, I would not support an act to change the 2nd Amendment. The US Constitution intentionally used checks and balances in many areas to limit power. This is also one of them, and it should not be forgotten.
-
Up to the point that the professional army no longer serves the will of the people. Just as at the time it was written, the 2nd Amendment provides for the citizens to protect themselves from their own government. As some of the federalist papers pointed out. It is not just for foreign invasions. It was also a check on the military application of federal force on its own population. Those people the wrote and signed it had just completed that action.
Understood, but all of that just reinforces the view that the predicate clause is part and parcel of the right, and in fact limits the right. Roamer says his right to own guns derives from a natural right conveyed by the Creator - but the plain text of the 2A contradicts that.
-
Understood, but all of that just reinforces the view that the predicate clause is part and parcel of the right, and in fact limits the right. Roamer says his right to own guns derives from a natural right conveyed by the Creator - but the plain text of the 2A contradicts that.
We don't agree. The ability of the people to stand against an army is what gained our freedom from the king. It keeps our freedom from those that would be king. It must remain with the people and not with the government for that purpose. It doesn't limit the people for other uses; it defines the use must be separate from the government for that purpose.
The 2A doesn't contradict the gun right conveyed by the creator to the individual. The 2A limits the government to not be the only one with arms. It limits the government from having too much power.
Government limits are not only established by strict limit, but by also giving power to other parties. Much of our constitution is intentionally written this way. It wasn't meant to make it simple and easy. It was intentional to make it difficult for government to change.
-
The 2A doesn't contradict the gun right conveyed by the creator to the individual. The 2A limits the government to not be the only one with arms. It limits the government from having too much power.
It may not contradict that natural right of individual self-defense, but it doesn't protect it in the same way that, say, the First Amendment protects the rights of free speech, religion and assembly. It is the only right limited by a predicate clause - and while I understand your position based on history from over two centuries ago, that predicate clause represents a true obstacle to the protection of the natural right, especially given that citizen militias are seen by most as a thing of the past.
My view is that the 2A's terms are flawed and fail to protect the natural right, and that a Constitutional amendment is a good idea so that the natural right isn't beholden to a transient SCOTUS majority. Indeed, one could reasonably take the position that the individual right of self-defense is as beholden to the SCOTUS as the abortion right is. It lacks true support in the Constitution, and for that reason I think a clarifying amendment would be most useful.
-
It may not contradict that natural right of individual self-defense, but it doesn't protect it in the same way that, say, the First Amendment protects the rights of free speech, religion and assembly. It is the only right limited by a predicate clause - and while I understand your position based on history from over two centuries ago, that predicate clause represents a true obstacle to the protection of the natural right, especially given that citizen militias are seen by most as a thing of the past.
My view is that the 2A's terms are flawed and fail to protect the natural right, and that a Constitutional amendment is a good idea so that the natural right isn't beholden to a transient SCOTUS majority. Indeed, one could reasonably take the position that the individual right of self-defense is as beholden to the SCOTUS as the abortion right is. It lacks true support in the Constitution, and for that reason I think a clarifying amendment would be most useful.
It is not a limit. There is no "only" or similar limitation in that clause. A justification is not a limit. It is not a reasonable position to add words that are not there. The only way to take that position is to ignore the rest of words actually written down: "the people" "shall not be infringed".
-
No it does not. It specifically states the right is for the people. The Militia is only a justification for that right, not the ownership of the right. The people need to be armed and able to bear those arms, in case they are needed. It is not limited to only those already existing in a military function, but all those able bodies that may be needed.
No, it is not clear. It states that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "The people" is a collective term, and does not unambiguously refer to each individual within that collective. The Second Amendment is, on this point, ambiguous, and it is thanks to the Supreme Court's clarification that it is now held to be an individual's right.
-
No, it is not clear. It states that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "The people" is a collective term, and does not unambiguously refer to each individual within that collective. The Second Amendment is, on this point, ambiguous, and it is thanks to the Supreme Court's clarification that it is now held to be an individual's right.
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
It is not a limit. There is no "only" or similar limitation in that clause. A justification is not a limit. It is not a reasonable position to add words that are not there. The only way to take that position is to ignore the rest of words actually written down: "the people" "shall not be infringed".
A justification can quite easily imply a limitation: to the extent the justification does not apply, then there is an argument that the right does not apply, either.
If it had read "protection from wild animals being necessary to a free state, the right of the people ...", then it would be pretty clear that where no such protection was needed, the right would not attach. Thus, there would be a good argument that the right only attached in places where wild animals might be found loose, and therefore did not apply in, for example, cities.
-
No, it is not clear. It states that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "The people" is a collective term, and does not unambiguously refer to each individual within that collective. The Second Amendment is, on this point, ambiguous, and it is thanks to the Supreme Court's clarification that it is now held to be an individual's right.
Correct, an individual, with due process, can have that right removed. The people as a group, have the right. It is not limited to specific groups, such military.
-
A justification can quite easily imply a limitation: to the extent the justification does not apply, then there is an argument that the right does not apply, either.
If it had read "protection from wild animals being necessary to a free state, the right of the people ...", then it would be pretty clear that where no such protection was needed, the right would not attach. Thus, there would be a good argument that the right only attached in places where wild animals might be found loose, and therefore did not apply in, for example, cities.
In this specific amendment and wording, it only becomes a limit if you add words not there and ignore the words actually written.