Permits to Purchase or Carry Arms are Infringements of Second Amendment Rights

AmmoLand ^ | May 30, 2021 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to obtain arms. Arms can be obtained in several ways. Those include: making your own arms; buying your arms from someone else; having your arms given to you; finding arms that have been lost or discarded; and stealing arms that belong to someone else.

The most common method of obtaining arms is to buy them. The right to buy arms is clearly included in the right to keep and bear arms as an ancillary right necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear them. Ancillary rights necessary to preserve the right to keep and bear arms have been recognized by the Supreme Court and inferior courts as necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

It follows, therefore, requiring a permit to purchase arms is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Under the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, if a statute implicates an action protected under the Second Amendment, the State has the burden of proving, with the historical record, such infringements were common and accepted just before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment; or, to a lesser extent, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Occasional statutes or local laws or laws of short duration are not sufficient to establish a law as common and accepted. Laws which affected only a small percentage of the population are unlikely to meet the historical test.  Governments in the late colonial and early republic era had the same concerns with disarming dangerous individuals as do governments today. They could have enacted laws requiring a permit to purchase firearms. The lack of such laws is evidence they were not widely viewed as acceptable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms,

[Delta 21]

The constitution says what it says. And doesn't say what it doesn't say.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[Taxman]

Ping

[Paal Gulli]

Don’t stop there. There is a 10% federal excise tax on all handguns and 11% on all long guns and ammunition, but it’s paid by the manufacturer (or importer), so you never see it on your receipt.

Explain to me how that isn’t the equivalent of a tax to exercise a constitutionally-enumerated right.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12173

[from occupied ga]

100% in agreement. The so called Brady background check is an infringement on the second amendment. If something is a right, then you don’t need the government’s permission to exercise it. If something is a privilege, then yes you do need to apply for the privilege.

There were no permits to purchase in 1791. There was no background check in 1791. There were no form 4473s. There were no waiting periods. To quote MLK “A right delayed is a right denied.”

[telescope115]

You have my congratulations and envy.🙂👍
I live in Illinois…home of the FOID card…

[telescope115]

Even if they had been clearer, the liberals would find some other excuses.

[Howie66]

The Second Amendment should be the only “permission slip” needed to carry a firearm. Everything else should be considered to be an unconstitutional infringement. I have always held this view.

[Howie66]

BINGO!

And Government should NEVER be trusted.