Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut
However, next time I see John Thune (he’s a friend of my uncle’s and my cousin works for him) I will be sure to tell him that a Constitutional carry is a better idea.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not but I'd appreciate that! I think we MUST change out conversations with politicians regarding our RIGHTS in regard to guns. They all have forgotten that they are our employees not our bosses.

19 posted on 07/19/2011 8:59:49 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: 2nd amendment mama

I agree.

The right to carry concealed is something I have to jump through hoops for in MA. And, as of yet, my local police chief doesn’t think I am worthy of the unrestricted Class A LTC.

Since 90% of my work time is spent on college campuses, it would be pretty much moot to start with, it is not something I am fighting. Every year, I make another, respectable, application. They want me to spend another $800 on a CCW class. I think that is prohibitive.


22 posted on 07/19/2011 9:21:42 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: 2nd amendment mama

I wasn’t being sarcastic at all, I meant it and I will.

I am very pro 2A, so much so that I would like to be able to protect myself in every state, including the Socialist Republic of California when I am traveling.


28 posted on 07/19/2011 9:45:11 AM PDT by reaganaut ("I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Well, consider that many states have restrictions on the infringement (read “regulate”) or abridgement.
As an example:

New Mexico Constitution, Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet the courts have ‘rules’ prohibiting firearms in their buildings which they warn will prosecute violators... my question: under what law would they be prosecuted considering “NO LAW SHALL ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SECURITY AND DEFENSE”?

North Dakota Constitution, Art 1, Section 1.
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

and
Section 20. To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

And yet ND has concealed carry laws/licensing.

South Dakota Constitution, Article 6, § 24. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

And yet firearms are denied (read ‘illegal’ to bear) in courthouses, city buildings, and state buildings.

So, it takes little effort at all (especially in this area) to show that the government is acting illegally, and least we forget most of the States have something like this in their Constitution:
“All political power is vested in and derived from the people: all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.”
Which is a direct reference to the Declaration of Independence:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”


45 posted on 07/19/2011 12:51:52 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson