The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15, 2012, 04:16 PM   #1
2GunCorcoran
Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 41
why we need unconditional carry

Because the Constitution says so. The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed, and to bear means to carry.

You may not agree with the Constitution or think that it's outdated, but it is the LAW. For a politician to pass a law that says you may not carry (as in Illinois) or that you must pay a fee for the privilege of carrying (as in all but a handful of states) is just as illegal as it would be for that politician to use cocaine. Depriving a man of his Constitution rights, even under color of law, is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment and, in some cases, death.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...1----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...2----000-.html

This is not a state-by-state issue. The Constitution is not limited to Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont. It encompasses every square inch of American soil.

The Constitution is not perfect and never was. It even supported slavery at one time, but we have a process of amendment for that. If someone disagrees with the Constitution, he should try to have it amended instead of ignoring it.
__________________
"It's a hell of thing--killing a man: You take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have."

Last edited by 2GunCorcoran; January 15, 2012 at 05:54 PM.
2GunCorcoran is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 04:48 PM   #2
arch308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
I agree 100%. That is the reason I have never gotten a CCW. I don't feel it right to have to apply( and pay ) for a right already garaunteed by the U.S. Constitution.
I very seldom carry except in my vehicle as I can't afford the legal reprecussions if caught without a CCW. I wish I had the means to fight the system. At least we still live in the best country in the world and for the most part keep firearms whether we can carry or not. The firearms laws are at least getting better on the whole and I have hope for the future.
Join the NRA and VOTE!
arch308 is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 04:55 PM   #3
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,876
Remember, every law is presumed to be constitutional until the courts say otherwise. There are a few cases which address this very issue making their way through the courts as we speak and the two in IL look rather promising.

Also, remember that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not unlimited rights. The Supreme Court excplicitly said in their opinion in Heller that some regulation is Constitutional. For example, few people would argue that it is unconstitutional to prohibit people who have been convicted of certain crimes (most notably violent crimes) from purchasing and owning firearms. Unfortunately, SCOTUS did not explicitly say which regulations are permissable and which aren't . Hashing out which firearms laws are Constitutional and which aren't is a process which will have to work its way through the courts and will almost undoubtedly take years to complete, if it's ever completed at all.

While this can be frustrating, there is actually a very good reason for it. Part of the checks and balances system of our government is dividing power between the three branches of government. The legislative and executive branches have the power to make law but have no power to interpret the Constitution unless they change the Constitution itself through the amendment process (an incredibly difficult feat which is why it's only happened 27 times in over 200 years) The Judicial branch conversely has great power in that they can strike down any law brought before them as unconstitutional, but they have now power to make law and can only rule upon issues which are brought before them.

The Judicial Branch, and the Supreme Court in particular, is rather unique in that it is both the most powerful and most powerless branch of government. It is the most powerful in that short of a Constitutional Amendment, the word of SCOTUS is final and SCOTUS Justices are appointed for life and thus not subject to the ebb and flow of political tides. It is the most powerless in that the Supreme Court cannot simply strike down what they percieve to be a bad law as soon as it is passed, they can only do so if someone takes enough issue with the law to bring forth litigation and work it through all of the various circuit and appeals courts. All nine Justices can percieve a law to be the greatest threat to the Republic since 1861, but if no one else takes issue with the law there isn't much they can do about it.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 05:03 PM   #4
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I think the most important reason for the 2nd admendment is to prevent people from overthrowing the government and I think this is a minority opinion.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 05:20 PM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Also, remember that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not unlimited rights. The Supreme Court excplicitly said in their opinion in Heller that some regulation is Constitutional.
But the Supreme Court at one time also held that slavery was constitutional. The SCOTUS rarely reverses itself, but it has happened. If they once ruled something to be constitutional and decades later reverse -- what does that say about the Constitution? Does that mean the the act was constitutional for the time up to the first ruling, and for eighty years thereafter, but suddenly became unconstitutional as a result of a newer ruling? Or does it mean that the act was never constitutional?

I have been unhappy with the Heller decision, especially, for the reason that it states that some regulation is allowed, and further that all existing regulations are presumed to be constitutional -- meaning each and every one of them has to be challenged in court if we wish to rid ourselves of them.

I understand that the SCOTUS gets to tell us which laws they think are constitutional, but that doesn't mean the nine black robes (or a subset of five of them) are always perfect and infallible. Mr. Justice Scalia certainly wrote that some regulation is allowed under the 2nd Amendment -- but where in the language did he find that? The Founders knew the word "reasonable," and they actually used it in the 4th Amendment when prohibiting "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Do you see "reasonable" or "unreasonable" anywhere in the language of the 2nd Amendment? I don't. The 2nd Amendment IS an absolute prohibition against ALL government regulation of arms held by the citizenry.

Now if I could just get five of the back robes to agree with me ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 06:07 PM   #6
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
Because the Constitution says so.
No. This is incorrect and don't you believe it. The correct terminology for your position and not the Constitution should be, because we citizens say so.

The Constitution is not for the People, it's a document that is supposed to be a reference sheet summarizing the limitations of Government, and is for the Government. We are the People and do not need a scrap of paper to have rights. The Government (is supposed to) works for us and our rights and civil liberties are unquestionable.

That the Government has peverted the Judicial system and executive branches is total proof that they have declared war against the People of these united States. They have everyone so confused that you don't even know if you have rights or where they come from.

Knowledge is power and hell no, the truth does not change with time. HA!

Edward429451 is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 09:01 PM   #7
michaelcj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2011
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Posts: 116
General rule is that state laws may be more restrictive than federal but not more lenient. This includes 2nd amendment laws/rights.

But those state laws are always subject to review and action by the "Supremes".

MikeJ
michaelcj is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 11:24 PM   #8
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcj
General rule is that state laws may be more restrictive than federal but not more lenient. This includes 2nd amendment laws/rights.
Mike, you are mixing apples (criminal law) and oranges (civil law).

Under federal civil rights, they are the minimum. States have had and do have greater respect for the rights of their citizens. Does that include all rights? No. Does that include all States? Again, no.

As far as the OP goes, there is no right that is absolute. None.

The Constitution was written as the controlling document for how the central government was to operate and limited its authority to those express things within that document.

The Bill of Rights was not made to limit or expand on State authority or personal liberties.. It was written expressly to constrain the federal government from areas within which it was not to operate, by means of "further declaratory and restrictive clauses."1

Can the Federal (or State) Government forbid you from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded environment? No. But they can pass criminal laws against inciting to riot. They can pass civil laws placing all damages (liability) on you for the riot.

Just as Time, Place and Manner laws can regulate speech, in just such a manner, the States and Feds can and have placed entirely constitutional restrictions on the manner of carry of arms.



1 Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 11:33 PM   #9
michaelcj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2011
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Posts: 116
Al, sorry about the "fruit salad"... I believe that I agree with you. I am one of the "terrible people" who believe that the Constitution was a bedrock and framework on which to build a society... and that the framers were smart enough and foresighted enough to recognize that a document written in the 1780s may need some tweaking over the next several centuries. I believe, all in all, the tweaking with a few exceptions has been valid, although too slow in some cases... too ideological in some others... and just plain nuts in a few.
But then were are but mere mortals and pretty damned flawed at that.

I don't see the restrictions re firearms to be out of line at all... and as a devoted shooter still see some room for improvement, or at least effective enforcement of the rules we have on the books. Perhaps the fact that I have to answer calls from dispatch and head into "weapons unknown" situations colors my opinions somewhat.

Mike J

Last edited by michaelcj; January 15, 2012 at 11:39 PM.
michaelcj is offline  
Old January 15, 2012, 11:57 PM   #10
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Mike J, making you feel more secure on the job is not more important that giving the rest of us the right to make ourselves secure.

With all due respect for your profession, and I say that with no sarcasm, you are not capable of protecting all of us, all of the time. I am not impugning your willingness to try, simply pointing out that it can't be done.

I should ask you why you think it's ok to deny me the right to defend myself, in any way, shape or form. How is that "reasonable?"
MLeake is offline  
Old January 16, 2012, 12:06 AM   #11
michaelcj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2011
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Posts: 116
MLeake, would never dream to deny you your ability to defend yourself. I would however suggest the ideas of having some rules and regulations is the right of any society. If there are no rules then that freedom applies to all including those who would harm with malice, don't have the common sense to be responsible, etc> So as a society we try to strike a balance that weighs the rights of the individual against the common good of the society at large. That is a sometimes difficult line to walk and no society ever does it perfectly.

With out the above we are not a society / or a nation / or a country, we are simply a "geography"populated by individuals whose only constriction is self interest.

Mike J
michaelcj is offline  
Old January 16, 2012, 12:16 AM   #12
SHNOMIDO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 423
I think we need to amend the second amendment to

own and carry arms.

keep and bear are period language for ideas that we refer to as own and carry now.

If it read own and carry, there would be a lot less confusion on the anti gun side exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

Can you imagine someone in boston, 1800AD getting arrested for walking out of his door, through town, and to the stables, with a musket on his back?
SHNOMIDO is offline  
Old January 16, 2012, 12:28 AM   #13
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Mike J, sorry, I guess that seemed like an attack on you. I was responding to your concern over "weapon unknown" as justification for gun control, which may not have been how you meant it.

I am fine with the concept of a nation of laws. That said, I do not think most gun control laws are reasonable. Loss of rights for violent felons, ok... Enhanced penalties for use of firearms in commission of felonies, ok.

But otherwise, I think we should have constitutional carry, with shall-issue with national reciprocity as a poor but possible compromise. I do not think there should be a registry of any sort in any state. I do not think there should be magazine capacity bans, etc.

Radical that I am, I think the "War on Drugs" should be scaled way back, saving billions of dollars and freeing up lots of jail space. That, in turn, would allow us to lock up violent felons for long, full terms, instead of letting them out early to make room for pot dealing single mothers.

I think we should be a nation of laws, but I think we have too many laws, in general, and too many stupid laws, in particular.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 16, 2012, 12:42 AM   #14
SHNOMIDO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 423
couldnt agree more mleake

maybe there would be less crime if violent criminals served more than 40% of their sentence.

NOPE that cant possibly be the answer. Its these darn front grips and flash hiders. Gotta ban those. And theres no possible way someone can shoot more than 10 people with a 10 round magazine. Because it takes so long to reload...
SHNOMIDO is offline  
Old January 16, 2012, 01:12 AM   #15
michaelcj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2011
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Posts: 116
MLeak, after 35 years of doing what I do I have a fairly thick skin and rarely take things personal, and certainly didn't take your comments as a personal attack. for the rest:

I believe that the "war on drugs" has not been workable or effective. At the same time as one who has dealt with all sides of the issue I have to say that complex systemic problems rarely have simple solutions. Simple legalization may help some but is no solution on it's own. Prisons are over crowded with folks who may have done much better with treatment oriented sentences. But the costs are still there and will be if we fill the beds with more violent offenders, or property crime offenders, or sex offenders. More effective spending is necessary but spending none the less.... yet it seems that there is a fairly large segment of the society that wants to have the problem solved and at the same time doesn't want to fund the folks who are tasked to do it, or fund any government at all.

Which gun regulations exactly are you most concerned about?

A system to check that a felon or mentally ill person is not purchasing and possessing?
A restriction to carrying in government building?
restrictions to carrying in drinking establishments?
restrictions on college sophomores carrying in the class rooms or dorms?
age restrictions on owning or carrying handguns or firearms at all with out adult supervision?
license limit on owning fully automatic firearms?

I believe that the restrictions regarding the CCW "trans-state" issues have more to do with the states themselves, or is the recommendation to have the feds tell all the state they have to honor the other?... [could see a "states rights" issue here]

Magazine capacity? If 10 won't do it then probably 15 or 20 aren't going to be of much help. [Sorry I can't buy into the zombie scenarios, although apparently Hornady has]

I guess my point was and is that the laws have to apply to all, or to none.

This would be much easier to discuss around a table with a cup of coffee.. so I'll leave it here for now.

Mike J
michaelcj is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 07:39 PM   #16
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,876
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Also, remember that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not unlimited rights. The Supreme Court excplicitly said in their opinion in Heller that some regulation is Constitutional.
But the Supreme Court at one time also held that slavery was constitutional.
And it took a Civil War and Constitutional Amendment (the 13th) to change that. Actually, in the most technical sense, slavery was constitutional until the passage of the 13th Amendment. It is no secret that the issue of slavery was huge sticking point during the Constitutional Convention and that while many of the founders would have preferred to abolish it, the did not because they feared doing so would prevent ratification.

Just because something is or is not constitutional, it doesn't mean that it is or isn't right. Slavery was no doubt an evil and pernicious institution and the founders' failure to abolish it is one of the few black marks on the Constitutional Convention. However, because the founders understood that no man-made document is perfect and that time and circumstance may require changes to the Constitution, they built in the Amendment process in order to address such issues as need arises.

Quote:
If they once ruled something to be constitutional and decades later reverse -- what does that say about the Constitution? Does that mean the the act was constitutional for the time up to the first ruling, and for eighty years thereafter, but suddenly became unconstitutional as a result of a newer ruling?
For all practical purposes, yes that's exactly what it means. When SCOTUS makes a ruling on a particular issue, that ruling becomes the authoritative word on the matter unless/until either SCOTUS reverses the ruling or the Constitution is amended. As an example, racial segregation was technically constitutional and perfectly legal, though wrong and immoral, before and after Plessy v. Ferguson until that decision was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education.

Quote:
I understand that the SCOTUS gets to tell us which laws they think are constitutional, but that doesn't mean the nine black robes (or a subset of five of them) are always perfect and infallible. Mr. Justice Scalia certainly wrote that some regulation is allowed under the 2nd Amendment -- but where in the language did he find that? The Founders knew the word "reasonable," and they actually used it in the 4th Amendment when prohibiting "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Do you see "reasonable" or "unreasonable" anywhere in the language of the 2nd Amendment? I don't. The 2nd Amendment IS an absolute prohibition against ALL government regulation of arms held by the citizenry.
No, SCOTUS is not infallible and there have been some very poor rulings throughout U.S. History (as far as 2A is concerned, I personally think United States v. Miller was disgraceful given the historical events surrounding it). However, there is indeed a way, albeit a very difficult one, to override SCOTUS should they make a bad decision: the Amendment Process.

No matter how clear you, I, or anyone else believes the language of the Constitution to be, the founders knew that it would be read different ways and debated, that's why we have the Judicial Branch of out government to begin with. After all, if the language of the constitution were as cut and dry to everyone as it appears to you, we would have no need for SCOTUS to interpret it.

As to a limited versus unlimited right, it is commonly understood, and has long been the position of SCOTUS, that one person's rights end when they begin to infringe upon those of another. For example, while the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, or petition of the government, certain expressions of those rights would infringe upon the rights of others and, as such, may be regulated or prohibited. While I have the freedom to practice a religion of my choice, I do not have the right to harm other people in the name of my religion.

Likewise, while I have the right to keep and bear arms, I do not have the right to do so in a manner that needlessly endangers other people. For example, I have the right to own a handgun, but I do not have the right to own an unstable chemical weapon. That is, of course, an extreme example and most of the debate over what restriction is constitutional and what is not is not so clear cut. Some would say that the carrying of a concealed handgun constitutes a needless endangerment to the rest of the population and, as such, stringent regulation or outright ban of machine guns passes constitutional muster. Others, myself included, would disagree and feel that the carrying of a concealed handgun by law-abiding individuals represents little or no threat to public safety and, as such, stringent regulation or outright prohibition of said practice is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of that very argument are equally convinced that their position is the correct one and neither side is able to change the other's mind, hence it becomes necessary for the Judicial Branch of the government to step in, interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law(s) in question, and settle the debate.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 09:46 PM   #17
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret laws and determine whether or not they are Constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd is not without limitations, so whether or not you agree their rulings are the law of the land.

Frankly I am glad that the 2nd is not without limitations. However, a court with a majority of justices appointed by Obama would greatly restrict the 2nd even further. Just one additional Obama justice would put the laws in chaos.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *┬ÂLet us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 10:34 PM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret laws and determine whether or not they are Constitutional
Well, that and Marbury.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 10:38 PM   #19
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Yeah, Madison really let a can of worms open up with that case, didn't he?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 07:48 AM   #20
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,207
I believe in the 2nd amendment having the right to keep and bear arms. I believe it is a necessity in today's world. You have to be able to protect yourself, with all the crime and drugs, the robberies and home invasions. I have many friends in law enforcement and they all have the same feelings that law abiding citizens have the right and should be armed to be able to protect themselves because in their own words, we cannot be everywhere at the same time all the time. At the same time when they stop a vehicle for traffic violations they have no idea who is in the vehicle and if they are an armed law abiding citizen or a criminal that is armed. They face the unknown every day. If I am ever stopped for a vehicle violation or traffic violation, or any other reason the first thing I would do is lower my driver window and place both hands out in view of the officer and tell him I am armed and have a ccw permit. Their job is tough enough without surprises.
rebs is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 08:47 AM   #21
2GunCorcoran
Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 41
I've noticed several replies mentioned that "felons" may not buy guns. The law they refer to defines felon as anyone who has been convicted of a "crime" punishable by more than a year in prison. I'm so glad the government doesn't let felons like the one in the picture buy guns.
__________________
"It's a hell of thing--killing a man: You take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have."
2GunCorcoran is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 09:00 AM   #22
2GunCorcoran
Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Posts: 41
why we need mandatory reciprocity

Because the Constitution says so.

Quote:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
I don't like the Constitution, but it is the law. If you don't like it, we have an amendment process for that.
__________________
"It's a hell of thing--killing a man: You take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have."
2GunCorcoran is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 10:43 AM   #23
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
You don't like the Constitution?

That's rather un-American. Are you an American citizen?
johnbt is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 10:50 AM   #24
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
Why would that make you glad? Or did you forget to include a winky smiley in your post.
johnbt is offline  
Old January 18, 2012, 10:52 AM   #25
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Based on the cyrillic character before the numbers, I'm guessing that's a political prisoner in a gulag, and he's being ironic.
MLeake is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13568 seconds with 7 queries