Posted on 12/27/2023 4:52:14 AM PST by marktwain
In 2023, Constitutional Carry (permitless) was restored to 26 states. Vermont always had Constitutional Carry. Those states make up 65% of the land area of the United States of America. According to John Lott, those 27 states contain 44% of the population of the United States. When will a majority of the people in the United States enjoy permitless carry, as well as a majority of the states?
It is highly likely Louisiana will join the Constitutional Carry Club in early 2024. Louisiana’s inclusion will increase the percentage of the land area with constitutional carry from 65.3% to over two-thirds, with 66.7% of the land area. Louisiana increased the percentage of the population to 45.4 percent. The estimated population in 2023 is about 340 million people. 4.6% of 340 million is 15.6 million people. There are several states that are candidates for Constitutional Carry, which could be combined to place the population of people in states where a permit is not required for over 50% of the population of the USA.
One of the most likely of those states is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania passed Constitutional Carry, with significant margins in its legislature, in 2021. Anti-Second Amendment Governor Tom Wolf vetoed Senate Bill 565. A Republican governor in Pennsylvania and a Republican legislature would very likely pass a Constitutional Carry bill. Pennsylvania has a population of about 12.96 million people in 2023. Pennsylvania would put the United States very close to a majority of the population living in permitless carry states. There have been significant voting irregularities in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia. It is difficult to prosecute people for election fraud when one political party controls all the levers of power in a city or state.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
“It’s a Constitutionally guaranteed Right.”
I have had this observation for many years that people think if it is a right by the Constitution, then it is unchangeable. Can a felon own and carry a gun? Can a mentally instable person carry one, or should? The only right that man cannot change is conception which is determined by God. After that, the term right turns into privilege. Man supplies those. And to me it is no different that getting a driver’s or bus/cdl license, a pilot’ license, a license to spread insecticides or many other things that fall under the need for society safety.
Personally I don’t want someone out there driving a loaded Mack truck that can go up to 90K pounds at 60 MPH with me out there. I want them recognized as qualified so they don’t keep going because they were traveling too close and fold me up like fresh laundry.
Indescriminiately is defined as “...in a random manner; unsystematically.” (Oxford Dictionary)
So what you are saying is that it is okay for anyone to have a weapon on the street just bcause the Constitution says so. I know you know better than that. Should a mentally unstable person have one?. Should a person who has already been convicted of felony assault or murder have one? How are you going to know without checking? Like I said, it’s a two sided sword. Should everyone have access to weapons indescriminately? That was my question. And I don’t think so.
wy69
I don’t think you are asking the right question.
The real question is, “Who has the burden and what is the standard of proof”? I am not convinced that any mechanism short of incarceration has any effect on violent crime whatsoever.
Recently an unarmed liberal in San Francisco watched “helplessly” as about a dozen criminals kicked a person into unconsciousness. Some would celebrate the fact that no gun was involved.
It's a right not a 'privilege'. Says so right there in the 2nd Amendment. Of course you know that, but are attempting to misuse language to support your agenda.
You misspelled "Right". Bearing arms is no mere "privilege".
The rest of your post could have been written by Sarah Brady, Pete Shields, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Barack Obama, or Diane Feinstein. For example. And it could have been written in the 1980s. Or the 1960s. And it would have been smarmy nonsense then, just is it is now. The difference between now and then is that we have many years of data from States with Constitutional or Shall Issue carry showing that you are just making up problems that don't exist.
Any citizen that is free to walk around among us has a God Given right to be armed. The 2nd Amendment grants nothing to us. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a "pre-existing right" that predates the Constitution itself and is not dependent upon that instrument in any way.
If you start grant exceptions to the state to determine who should be "allowed" to defend themselves you are marching down a long and dark road to hell. There are many out there who think that anyone "MAGA" is insane, along with anyone who knows that there are only two genders. Personally, I think Trannies are mentally defective, and unstable to the extreme, but I wouldn't attempt to disarm them. The solution to the small subset of humanity that is criminal or unstable is universal arming of those of us who are not.
Your attempts to justify gun control are not only wrong, but dangerous in the extreme to the honest citizens of this Republic.
The estimated population in 2023 is about 340 million people. 4.6% of 340 million is 15.6 million people.
His math is based on faulty information. The Census Bureau just released their 2023 population estimate and the US number is 334,914,895. Off by about 5 million.
“So what you are saying is that it is okay for anyone to have a weapon on the street just bcause the Constitution says so.”
You’re either being deliberately obtuse or you’re stupid. My money is on the latter.
Constitutional rights can only be taken away after due process of law. A person who is dangerous to themselves or others through mental incompetence can be adjudicated so. Felons have already been adjudicated.
If a person hasn’t been stripped of their rights by due process of law they should have access to firearms.
Period.
L
You have to give every soldier that graduated basic training a free pass because they had to learn gun safety and how to shoot there. Yes some of them are scary just to watch them hold a weapon.
No one with an IQ of less than 87 is accepted in the military. and I think there already laws in place to handle everything else.
The service is being more proactive in screening heavy operators and helping them figure stuff out before they get out.
Everything is so FUBAR now. They have shredded the 2Am with so many infringements I am in favor of being very liberal when it comes to handing out guns. If someone doesnt want one they can give it to me.
“I am in favor of being very liberal when it comes to handing out gun.”
Let me know when you do so I can hide. Given a couple of hours a year to qualify or do it again, doesn’t make you street legal. In combat you shoot what moves downrange. Some habits are hard to break. I could see some nut go into a free shoot in Times Square.
And I’ve got to admit when volunteers got light and the body snatchers had to dig, that IQ you mentioned was stretched a little some times normally not up. One of the reasons I was ready to retire. And I wouldn’t try to cadre a range as the last time I shot there were two different morons turned the weapons. Unfortunately, they were not side by side. And another guy actually discharged his weapon and shot the roof over the guy next to him. He was invited to leave with help. And the guy left was wasted.
wy69
“Constitutional rights can only be taken away after due process of law.”
The second amendment states:
“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.”
If you read this statement and tell me the right cannot be infringed, then anyone can have a weapon. The laws they made to stop that are not in the form of a Constiutional Amendment so documents like the Gun control act of 1968 are an unconstitutional action if strict adhereance to the 2nd Amendment is followed as it says “shall not be infringed.”
Webster says infringed is “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. If they can deny you, you don’t have a right anymore.
You might want to decide which way you want to go. Either you follow the Constitution or you adhere to the federal and state laws that remove the privilege of owning a gun. So, like I said, the guns, like almost everything else, are regulated by man and are not neccessarily consistent to the Constitution as written. Man changed that.
wy69
I was correct to bet on the latter in my response to you.
L
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.