This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
Posted on 04/26/2017 10:10:15 AM PDT by SerpentDove
And where is the right to drive a car in the Constitution?
Perhaps you'd like there to "be some minimal requirements" on the free exercise of religion? How about the right to peaceably assembly to petetion the government for redress of grievances? How about some "minimal requirements" on VOTING?
And finally, we in the FREE STATES have been carrying openly without "minimal requirements" for decades, and in some cases, SINCE STATEHOOD.
Some people just have the desire to tell others what to do, I guess.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
In Vermont we have ‘minimal requirements’ - one has to be at least 16 years of age to carry concealed. If younger, they must also carry a note from Mom or Dad stating they have permission.
How much should meeting such requirements cost and who should pay? Who is the beneficiary of such requirements? Isn't it mostly those who fear being harmed by irresponsible gun carriers?
When I attended the eight grade one of the hurdles facing the students was the necessity of passing the "Constitution Test". The school recognized a responsibility to educate students sufficiently in the functioning of the government that it would withhold qualification to attend high school to those who failed to learn the material.
I think our schools have the same responsibility to teach gun rights and gun safety to our youth. If they can't learn the basics of safe gun handling at age 10, then they need to be held back or given extra attention so that they can become responsible citizens.
If that is what you have in mind, then I agree.
If, instead, you support training certificates, psychological testing, good-moral-character testing, and "good cause", to which I was subjected, then I disagree.
So, what is your proposal and what minimum income would be needed to meet such requirements?
“Amazing that it took a law.”
Yes, it seems to me that all that’s really required is for the Texas Legislature to repeal all of their current laws regarding guns excepting the ones related to those people who are ineligible by reason of criminal acts or mental impairment, and to mandate all local laws and ordinances to be null and void as well. Still, good on Texas for however they accomplish getting into compliance with The Bill of Rights.
Zero chance of passing. Nice symbolic gesture though.
With a Republican Governor, and a Republican majority in both our House and Senate, we can't get these kinds of bills passed here in Oklahoma. Bunch of back-stabbing, money-mishandling, Chamber of Commerce luvin' cucks up here. (Oh, we have some good ones, but we have a lot who only run as Republican because they know they'd never get elected otherwise, but people don't pay enough attention to what they DO once they get in office. Grrr...)
Kansas already had this.
There will be blood in the streets! .. /sarc
Michigan is working on this, but it’s been an uphill battle.
CC
YOU WILL NEED A LAWYER EVEN MORE! I still have my windshield sticker showing I have lawyer on call.
Michigan is working on this, but it’s been an uphill battle.
CC
And Missouri... At last count, there were 12, I think.
“And where is the right to drive a car in the Constitution? “
Please no flames I am being polite.
The right to drive would be, I think; be strongly implied in the “Free Association” clause. The ability to go where you want, how you want and to be in the company you want is a constitutional issue. You have a right to travel and move from place to place. That strongly implies a right to drive if you want to.
Now, look at the entire 2nd amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
It would appear to me that the first part of the amendment would mean that the state has the responsibility to ensure that citizens carrying fire arms have some sort of organization or training because they are - by default - part of a “well organized militia.”
It isn’t just that the right “may not be infringed” it is the “well organized” as well. You could make, I think. using the first 1/2 of the amendment, a good argument that the state could require all gun owners to attend drill sessions for civil defense purposes - or have at least minimal training in safety and shooting skill.
You could also make, I think, a good case that the state could keep a list of all the people with weapons in case the militia needed to be called out in an emergency.(But not a list to be used to persecute gun owners)
Where it becomes problematic is when the state refuses to allow citizens to join that “Well regulated militia” or makes it so onerous or burdensome that the right to own and carry a firearm is infringed.
It also becomes problematic when the state restricts the type of firearm owned though some of that stems from when the constitution was approved there was no standard caliber for the long rifles and pistols. I could see a state saying “We want our militia organized with 5.56 rifles, 12 gage shotguns and 9.0mm pistols. You can own any other type of weapon you want but if you have only one type of firearm it needs to be one of those” provided the rational was that in an emergency ammunition would be provided to the militia by the state.
The question should be are steps taken to organize the militia onerous and punitive or overly restrictive? I can see a fee similar to a diver license being appropriate being charged that registers the gun owner with the state militia and proves they have at least minimal training in firearm use and safety.
Notice also: The state has a constitutional mandate to have a militia of all citizen with firearms because it is “necessary to a free state” Thus states like California, New Jersey and New York that effectively do not allow citizen to carry fire arms are in violation of the constitution because you could make a very persuasive argument every citizen in good standing should be part of the well regulated militia - thus universal gun ownership.
Constitutionally you can’t say “shall not be infringed” without saying “A well regulated militia” first.
And you are Constitutionally ignorant. It says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." The foregoing phrase is the REASON for the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It does not say "unless you are part of an organized militia, you can't bear arms." Unless there are armed people, you can't create an organized militia, because there are no trained, armed citizens from which to form a militia.
Good grief. I thought this was FREE REPUBLIC, not DU.
Ok for me but not for thee. Got it.
Strangely mine don't go off unless I pull the trigger. I carry locked and racked always. Still won't go off unless I pull the trigger.
A list is a list all it takes is someone willing to use it. Besides you ignored the comma argument that most gun grabbers get into.
This one’s for you Mari! I know you’re looking down with a big smile on your face and a coke in your hand. Miss you lady
I've begun to wonder lately!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.