Peppy
Wholenote
Guitar gear guru at Milano Music Center
Posts: 180
|
Post by Peppy on Mar 23, 2022 8:10:48 GMT -5
Arizona is constitutional carry but I have my CCW card in addition. Year in, year out Arizona is ranked number one for gun owners/gun rights. Guns & Ammo for one source. (Despite opinions to the contrary Texas usually ranks no more than number ten or so.) I sure like living here the past several decades. The city I live in is probably the epicenter. Mesa. Gun shops, gun ranges galore. Home of the greatest pistol shooter of all-time, Rob Leatham. (I met Rob at the post office a week after I moved to Mesa from Too Stoned (Tucson). He lives two miles directly south of me.) And yes, I have my CCW permit. Have had such since September 1999.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyMeister on Mar 23, 2022 8:44:18 GMT -5
From an outside persepctive, you have a National document stating people have the right to bear arms, and then the government saying "we leave it up to 50 other mini governments to figure this crap out for themselves". Outside? Are you a foreigner? lol! JK! That's a valid point and the common debate regarding gun control. FWIW, my position is that one of the primary responsibilities of the government is common defense and national security to protect its citizens. Gun control, or the absence thereof, falls into that category.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 23, 2022 12:08:25 GMT -5
From an outside persepctive, you have a National document stating people have the right to bear arms, and then the government saying "we leave it up to 50 other mini governments to figure this crap out for themselves". Outside? Are you a foreigner? lol! JK! That's a valid point and the common debate regarding gun control. FWIW, my position is that one of the primary responsibilities of the government is common defense and national security to protect its citizens. Gun control, or the absence thereof, falls into that category. Outside meaning someone who doesn't own guns, want guns, or think too often about guns when I'm not on this site. It just seems silly to me to have a Court charged with interpreting the Constitution, and then that Court taking the 2nd Amendment (which must be a pretty important one if its the 2nd one), and then saying nah, we're going to leave it to the States to interpret.
|
|
|
Post by Lesterstrat on Mar 23, 2022 18:38:53 GMT -5
I would just like to remind everyone to please don’t forget to surrender your gun(s) to the proper authorities should you enter the town limits of Big Whisky. Little Bill will kick the you no what out of you if you don’t.
Carry on!
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 23, 2022 19:43:53 GMT -5
It just seems silly to me to have a Court charged with interpreting the Constitution, and then that Court taking the 2nd Amendment (which must be a pretty important one if its the 2nd one), and then saying nah, we're going to leave it to the States to interpret. The Constitution says anything "NOT" mentioned is the responsibility of the States. This is definitely "mentioned" I'll refrain from comment.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 23, 2022 19:48:40 GMT -5
It just seems silly to me to have a Court charged with interpreting the Constitution, and then that Court taking the 2nd Amendment (which must be a pretty important one if its the 2nd one), and then saying nah, we're going to leave it to the States to interpret. The Constitution says anything "NOT" mentioned is the responsibility of the States. This is definitely "mentioned" I'll refrain from comment. Exactky, which makes the Supreme Court taking a pass on it a pretty strange move. It’s your purview to interpret the Constitution, so just do it.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 23, 2022 20:25:22 GMT -5
It’s your purview to interpret the Constitution, so just do it. Yes, but wouldn't that violate our no politics or hot button policy? I'd love to debate this but think it would become a hot button topic.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 23, 2022 20:36:58 GMT -5
Probably would go beyond legal into political, I would imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Mar 23, 2022 20:41:28 GMT -5
Just don’t let the squirrels arm themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 23, 2022 20:48:53 GMT -5
Just don’t let the squirrels arm themselves. I go the other way on that, make it a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyMeister on Mar 24, 2022 6:50:25 GMT -5
The bottom line of 2A is '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. It seems pretty simple.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyMeister on Mar 24, 2022 6:52:18 GMT -5
Just don’t let the squirrels arm themselves. I'm presently wearing a tee the kids bought me that says 'The Squirrel Whisperer'. I've trapped six of them within the last month at the bird feeder. They're vermin.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 24, 2022 7:26:19 GMT -5
The bottom line of 2A is '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. It seems pretty simple. Exactly, but the Supreme Court does not see it as such and never has. And they are the sole body that has the power to interpret it. I personally believe you can’t have it both ways. You have a rule of law that is pretty simple and clear; if you don’t want to enforce it on its face, then it should be changed. I cannot even fathom the absolute crapstorm that would ensue, which is probably why it’s been handled the way it has been.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 24, 2022 7:29:06 GMT -5
What is it? 24 States now allowing concealed carry without a permit? It won't be long until there are 33. At that point we can amend the 2A to get rid of that stupid preamble.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 24, 2022 7:38:31 GMT -5
In US VS Miller the SC decided that a sawed off shotgun has no military value and as such is not protected by the 2A.
Yet now several States are arguing that high capacity magazines are only usefull for military.....
|
|
Jim622
Halfnote
Posts: 83
Age: 58
|
Post by Jim622 on Mar 24, 2022 7:59:18 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, how would define it? Carrying without a permit being required. But doesn’t that kind of go with the Constitution. It seems kind of appropriate name to me. Out of curiosity, How are you seeing as not fitting.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 24, 2022 8:29:26 GMT -5
Carrying without a permit being required. But doesn’t that kind of go with the Constitution. It seems kind of appropriate name to me. Out of curiosity, How are you seeing as not fitting. Because the Supreme Court has held that a State requiring permits is Constitutional. The Constitution doesn’t say you have a right to carry without a permit, and the Supreme Court, created by the Constitution and given the sole authority to interpret it, says it doesn’t give you that right (or rather that requiring a permit doesn’t infringe upon that right) and that the States can decide for themselves. Again, not saying whether the Supreme Court is right or wrong in their interpretation, but it can’t be disputed as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by LeftyMeister on Mar 24, 2022 8:33:52 GMT -5
The Constitution doesn’t say you have a right to carry without a permit That's been debated ad nauseum with the words, "...shall not be infringed'.
The SCOTUS is wrong about this one. They've been wrong many times because they're human. Slavery is a classic example.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 24, 2022 8:38:21 GMT -5
Because the Supreme Court has held that a State requiring permits is Constitutional. Do you have a case that says this? I can only think of the Heller decision and that basically says a State or City cannot require a permit. "" U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.""
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Mar 24, 2022 12:09:56 GMT -5
I can only think of the Heller decision and that basically says a State or City cannot require a permit. That's actually not the ruling. Heller didn't challenge the licensing requirement -- it was about D.C. denying him a license. "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The License/Permit issue is still on the table.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 24, 2022 12:45:22 GMT -5
The License/Permit issue is still on the table. The "must issue" is what I was referencing. The State or City in this example cannot arbitrarily deny the permit.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Mar 24, 2022 13:18:12 GMT -5
The "must issue" is what I was referencing. The State or City in this example cannot arbitrarily deny the permit. Correct -- in this example, specifically D.C. can't. To date, a case has not been heard by the SCOTUS using Heller as a precedent to challenge similar restrictions in NYC, Boston, and Chicago, for example. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is expected to be heard this year. If it goes our way it may offer some relief to those of us who don't live in free states, but it's certainly not going make Constitutional Carry the law of the land.
|
|
Tequila Rob
Wholenote
Posts: 688
Formerly Known As: Guitar Fool
|
Post by Tequila Rob on Mar 24, 2022 13:30:36 GMT -5
In these states that have passed the Constitutional Carry law does it mention anything about taking some form of training like for a Concealed Carry permit?
I sure hope so...
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 24, 2022 13:57:00 GMT -5
In these states that have passed the Constitutional Carry law does it mention anything about taking some form of training like for a Concealed Carry permit? I sure hope so... I don’t think so, and that would be one of my main gripes about it. Basic training is something I think anyone who owns a gun should have. I think most people would take that training in some form, but there’s plenty of people that would not of it isn’t required.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 24, 2022 13:59:14 GMT -5
Because the Supreme Court has held that a State requiring permits is Constitutional. Do you have a case that says this? I can only think of the Heller decision and that basically says a State or City cannot require a permit. "" U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home."" No, I don’t practice Constitutional law so I don’t have any precedent. It’s just obvious; states are required to have permit laws and they haven’t been struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in ruling that same can be handled at the State level, holds it to be Constitutional. Again, whether right or wrong, which I’m not debating.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 24, 2022 14:07:17 GMT -5
The Constitution doesn’t say you have a right to carry without a permit That's been debated ad nauseum with the words, "...shall not be infringed'.
The SCOTUS is wrong about this one. They've been wrong many times because they're human. Slavery is a classic example. It has been debated, and the Court has NOT held that the language of 2A means no State can require a permit. They may well be wrong in some people’s opinions, but technically they’re never “wrong” until they decide they are, as they are the only body that is permitted to interpret the Constitution. Until they say “we were wrong, it’s changed now”, they’re “right” lol.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Mar 24, 2022 14:09:13 GMT -5
^^ Constitutional Carry "laws" don't generally include restrictions -- that's pretty much the point of all this. The bills simply repeal the unconstitutional (in the opinion of the people of the respective state) restrictions that were previously imposed.
Every new gun sold in the U.S. comes with a safety and instruction manual just like every other potentially dangerous tool you can buy at Home Depot.
|
|
Tequila Rob
Wholenote
Posts: 688
Formerly Known As: Guitar Fool
|
Post by Tequila Rob on Mar 24, 2022 14:16:12 GMT -5
In these states that have passed the Constitutional Carry law does it mention anything about taking some form of training like for a Concealed Carry permit? I sure hope so... I don’t think so, and that would be one of my main gripes about it. Basic training is something I think anyone who owns a gun should have. I think most people would take that training in some form, but there’s plenty of people that would not of it isn’t required. I agree....my instructor was ex law enforcement and ex military. His attention to detail was extraordinary.....one of the things he said that really stuck with me was "if you intend to draw your weapon with the intent to use it, you'd better make damn sure your life is in danger or a lawyer will eat you up in court"..
when you work your butt off all of your life to enjoy retirement, the last thing you'd want to do is blow it, because you made a spur of the moment decision...
the only time I carry is when my wife and I go on a walk.....its the one time I feel most vulnerable....
I sincerely hope those in these concealed carry states realize the responsibility involved..... So far Florida hasn't gone this route
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Mar 24, 2022 14:28:52 GMT -5
It’s just obvious; states are required to have permit laws Where did that come from?
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 24, 2022 15:15:04 GMT -5
It’s just obvious; states are required to have permit laws Where did that come from? Where DID that come from, one of my posts? It’s got an obvious error on it if so.
|
|