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"?
Oh, sorry, you said “permit to buy” and I read “4473”. That’s why I was calling it a federal thing. I forgot NC had an actual permit to purchase.
Unfortunetly, we have no way of putting anyone in jail. The courts, police and government is writiing the rules, judgements and processes to suit themselves.
I work on a military base, and they inspect vehicles coming and going.
You do know that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in order to prevent the infringement of the rights of freed slaves, don't you?
You do know that one of the rights infringed was the right to keep and bear arms?
You do know that most infringements were passed to disarm minorities and were rarely enforced against white people?
Should the day arrive when a court needs to determine whether a state has a "compelling interest" in dictating that carrying of arms be licensed, the courts will be able to look to those three states and will recognize that no such compelling interest exists.
BTW, what base? They don't seem to search anyone going in or out when I go on base as a contractor, except they have you drive through this tunnel which has sensors for I have no idea what, and no inspection at all when leaving. (Definitely not recommending carrying on base, just curious).
Of course not.
Please note how many on this thread will completely ignore your specific question.
“Checking out” people is a detention. In order to detain someone the police need probable cause that a crime is occuring. There is nothing special or unique to the practice of carrying a gun that gives the police any more authority to detain someone then they would otherwise have if the person were not armed.
I don’t want people detained without PC for carrying a gun any more than I want to be pulled over while driving the speed limit just so the cops can check me out to see if I have a drivers license, despite not commiting a traffic infraction.
Do you think that the cop checking an open carrier out would not disarm them? Would you also like to have the serial number of the gun run while the person is being checked out?
Voting is less of a right than carrying a firearm but is widely regarded as being unquestionable. Even asking for ID to vote is considered too burdensome for many. Why would that be the case for a non-constitutionally protected “right” and not for one that is protected by a constitutional amendment?
All rights are infringed to some extent. It's a question of whether that infringement goes too far in the balance between an orderly society/public safety vs. the individual right. I don't really have a problem with regulating a practice that was not common at the time of the founding, and that is in no way needed to protect one's self or otherwise exercise our 2A rights.
And I consider the prohibition of modern selective-fire assault rifles to be an unconstitutional infringement, so I generally have a pretty expansive view of our rights.
Which one states specifically about concealed carry, and which one doesn't and leaves it up to interpretation? The US Constitution doesn't specifically forbid the government from making laws about concealed carry, but the NC Constitution specifically allows it as the one important exception.
For concealed, or overall?
So the supposed only restriction is not the only one.
That's true. Even when it's obvious, and even when there's a ruling that enforces it, they still ignore it if it doesn't fit their authoritarian agenda.
But the other ones aren't protected by a clause saying "shall not be infringed". Their corresponding wording says "congresss shall make no law" or "you have this or that right" or something like that, so gun rights are according to the wording entitled to a higher level of protection from infringement than other rights.
Bullspit. Spoken like a liberal talking point. Justifying blatant infringement in the name of some ephemeral "public good".
The Good of the Individual IS the "public good".
Regulating the discharge of firearms in a crowded City is one thing. Telling me I need YOUR permission before I can holster my Witness 10mm in a CQC holster under my suit coat is something you have no legitimate power to "regulate".
You State law violates this by saying "we bloody well infringe on whatever type of 'bearing' of arms we don't like..."
The US Constitution expressly forbids "infringing" our Right, making your argument silly.
I over simplified it, Devil Dog, but yes, you are correct on the signatures and photo (mug shot). But that’s only the first time you go for it. You don’t need any signatures for the renewal. I got mine when they first went “shall issue”.
But I did NOT know they raised the basic price (basic was 19.00 when I last renewed, but I got the hard plastic version at 40.00). It’s up for renewal next year; wonder when they raised the price (probably Fast Eddie Rendell’s doing)...
“CCW in Arizona...”
Very cool...
Are you able to bear arms without government permission? If you live in an open-carry state, then yes, right not infringed. You want to exercise your right in a way that wasn't even normally acceptable to the Founders.
I like CCW too. But the question here is whether that manner of exercising your 2A right can be subject to regulation, not prohibition. I say yes, since historically it is an exceptional method of carrying. OTOH, that handguns are the de-facto standard for defense (as supported by SCOTUS), requiring a fee and background check for a handgun purchase permit should not be constitutional since it 1) puts an extra burden on a basic individual right and 2) disallows the possibility of an emergency purchase, thus in cases disallowing the exercise of that right. Neither of these applies for CCW. You can still buy a gun and open carry without a permit, thus you can exercise your right.
How absolute do you think that is? Where is the limit? If you're arrested for armed robbery should you be allowed to keep your gun with you in the back of the cop car after being arrested? Keep it with you through booking, holding (let's assume you didn't make bail) and during the trial? You haven't been convicted of a felony through all of this, that right has not been lost just because you were arrested and indicted. It is an infringement of the 2A right of the innocent-until-proven-guilty accused to remove that gun from your possession, but we do it in the interest of public safety. While you were found not guilty of armed robbery, you got convicted of a misdemeanor over unpaid parking tickets and sentenced to 7 days in jail. Do you get to keep your gun while in jail? A non-violent misdemeanor doesn't take away your RTKBA. Your 2A rights were again infringed upon.
I know it is an extreme example, but different people have their limits, will set that bar at different heights. Some do anything in order to gut the 2A, such as what Chicago's doing right now with its new gun laws, others want just those few necessary restrictions in order to maintain the public peace and safety. There's a lot of space between the two.
I still need one for when I am not in Arizona.
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.