Posted on 08/16/2010 8:00:56 AM PDT by Pessimist
My 2nd and last vanity (I promise!)
I'd be interested in hearing other's thought regarding the constitutionality of existing CCW laws.
Should a person be required to undergo training and pay licensing fees to ejoy a consitutional right?
Should I be allowed to put a sign on our building stating "No Equal Opportunity Allowed Inside"?
It’s not legal if you aren’t a citizen or are a felon.
I live in Pa also. I thought it was all alike. In my county it costs $25.00, you fill out a form and put three people’s names on it who will vouch for you being a good citizen. They’ve never even called anyone from my list. Then you get your picture taken and get a laminated card. Now the last time I got mine renewed was about three years ago so it could have changed since then.
As of this month, I don’t even need my CCW in Arizona.
You can’t know that by looking at someone, and you can’t check without probable cause. Possession of a firearm is not probable cause of a crime.
Nothing in the Amendment allows for "infringement". Dictating the means of carry is an "infringement".
The BoR over-rides your State Constitution. Your State can enact MORE protections for RKBA, but it cannot diminish those protections without violating the Supremacy Clause.
“...it costs $25.00, you fill out a form and put three people’s names on it who will vouch for you being a good citizen...”
They should have these requirements for voting in federal elections since voting in federal elections isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Can’t LEOs question people in AZ, without probable cause? I know VA is looking into something similar to that in AZ.
As a practical matter, current implementations of CCW (except in VT, AK, and my own AZ) are a form of de facto registration. That cannot be allowed.
Not according to the USSC. There is no “gun” exemption to the 4th amendment. They even went so far as to say that an anonymous man with a gun call is not PC to detain someone absent a report of an actual crime occuring.
If you’re interested in knowing just how successful OC’ers have been check out opencarry.org. People in states such as OH and PA have been especially active in this area of law and have won some great victories on both the federal and state courts.
Do you really want the police detaining someone and disarming them simply because they are exercising what is supposed to be a non-infringable right?
Felons can’t legally vote in federal elections. Should people be licensed and subject to random, discretionary background checks while standing in line at the poling place? What if their polling place is in a black neighborhood? There is no legal difference between the two scenerios other than public perception.
Well it has not stppped them from limiting your right. They have all sorts of restrictions on where, when and waht you can carry. So the supposed only restriction is not the only one.
Well, the "legal aspects" include under what circumstances and in what manner you can use that gun to defend yourself, and subsequently have little or no problem with the cops. "Legal aspects" isn't limited to bull$shit provisions like what percentage of its revenue must an establishment derive from food before you can carry in there and stuff like that.
Voters need to be registered. I did not say anything about disarming, just verifying their legality.
However, this view of carrying is reflective of the society in which it evolved, so its time may be limited. These days the societal norm is for an honest person to carry concealed, while open carry is a little surprising to see. I live in an open-carry state that is shall-issue for concealed. I know lots of people with CCW who use it, while outside of hunting I've only seen one person open-carrying in a public place, and he was fishing.
Heh, heh. Arizona this year passed a law finally recognizing the right to CC without the lord's permission, thus with no legal requirement for training, submitting yourself to registration, etc. Marktwain is active in AZCDL, which was formed in 2005 and largely responsible for the absolute wave of pro-rights gun legislation we've seen now that Janet NapoliReno's been exiled to Washington, as well as the defeat of the few anti-rights bills and poison-pill amendments to good bills that have been proposed.
Anyway, that same law or another one enacted this year vastly expands the options for training, and I don't believe the instructor has to be NRA certified any longer. The permit process is still in place because there are still a couple areas where you need a permit to carry, and for the convenience of those who want to use them for reciprocity with other states.
Our failure to throw them in jail (their passing such legislation violates USC Title 18 Sec 241/242) for doing so is how we got to where we are.
When your employer starts overstepping the bounds of what aspects of your life they may reasonably involve themselves in, is when the rule of "Better tried by 12 than carried by 6 kicks in". Just keep it in your car and keep you mouth shut. You don't work in some kind of facility where it would be criminal to have it in your vehicle, right? Just company policy? If a situation occurs at work so vile that you'd be justified in using that gun, and you do so, the last thing on anyone's mind will be the violation of company firearm policy.
And if the training were universal it couldn't be used as a de facto registration scheme.
Maybe because it's a Federal thing, or maybe it's not really being "upheld" as it hasn't been challenged yet?
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.