Constitutional Carry, no permit to carry a gun.

[Auld Phart]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

really?

so, the 'right' of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, as mentioned in the 2nd, is wrong?

 

[Pop23]

The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(people shall bear arms for a well regulated militia) it was to fight off the British, and even other states as we seen in the civil war and to keep the slaves in order.

It does not say the militia has the right, which it would if that were the intent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some states require a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm, some do not – neither states are ‘wrong.’

Indeed, this isn’t right/wrong issue; in fact, it’s not an ‘issue’ at all.

‘Constitutional carry’ is contrived nonsense, having nothing to do with the Constitution, Second Amendment, or the law.

 

[USNavyVet]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.

 

[yiostheoy]

In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, refers to the legal carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit.[1][2][3] The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia

---------------------------------------------------
States with green (12 I count) do not even need a permit to carry.

Constitutional Carry and Permitless Carry In Depth Overview

-------------------------------------------------------------

I never knew some states didn't even need a permit, so any drug addicted, robber and nutcase can buy a gun.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Alaska have constitution carry as far as I know.

Not sure if any others do.

 

[yiostheoy]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

However the SCOTUS justices according to Scalia's write-up in Heller are torn between the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment -- States' Rights.

 

[yiostheoy]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

frigidweirdo you certainly do seem frigid.

 

[yiostheoy]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

Keep and bear arms

Own and carry arms

no militia service required

Why does the sentence include the word militia?

... "militia" is an anachronism.

Scalia explains in Heller that it does not mean anything.

However Ginsberg bases her dissent on it anyway.

 

[Pilot1]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

^^^^This. Thread winner, and more states are adopting Constitutional Carry. Oklahoma just sent a bill to their Governor for signature to make that law. It will most likely be signed.

 

[miketx]

In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, refers to the legal carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit.[1][2][3] The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia

---------------------------------------------------
States with green (12 I count) do not even need a permit to carry.

Constitutional Carry and Permitless Carry In Depth Overview

-------------------------------------------------------------

I never knew some states didn't even need a permit, so any drug addicted, robber and nutcase can buy a gun.

You state that any drug addicted, robber and nutcase can buy a gun, but before that you talk about not needing a permit to carry a gun. What does one have to do with the other? You don't have to go buy a gun if you already have one. Eventually most states will get to this point except the commie states like CA, NY, and IL. It's make crime drop even lower. Now, if you don't want drug addicts and nuts buying guns then perhaps you should stop supporting politicians who do everything in their power to help those people avoid punishment.

 

[Pilot1]

Arizona, Arkansas, and Alaska have constitution carry as far as I know.

Not sure if any others do.

Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and soon Oklahoma, all have permit less Constitutional carry, so thirteen so far, and more added every year.

 

[SavannahMann]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

Keep and bear arms

Own and carry arms

no militia service required

Why does the sentence include the word militia?

The Militia at the time, by law, was every able bodied free man. Any and all were able, and expected, to come together and defend the community, state, or nation. So if we limited it to the Militia today, using the expanded definition to include women, then it would be...... Everyone.

 

[toobfreak]

In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, refers to the legal carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit.[1][2][3] The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia

---------------------------------------------------
States with green (12 I count) do not even need a permit to carry.

Constitutional Carry and Permitless Carry In Depth Overview

-------------------------------------------------------------

I never knew some states didn't even need a permit, so any drug addicted, robber and nutcase can buy a gun.

If you follow the map year by year, for those who think he are heading for a gun ban, you better check the trend again. Except for a few backward states like Ca, NY, Md, etc., you have no issue getting a carry permit, even if you need one at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, refers to the legal carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit.[1][2][3] The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia

---------------------------------------------------
States with green (12 I count) do not even need a permit to carry.

Constitutional Carry and Permitless Carry In Depth Overview

-------------------------------------------------------------

I never knew some states didn't even need a permit, so any drug addicted, robber and nutcase can buy a gun.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Alaska have constitution carry as far as I know.

Not sure if any others do.

Every state has ‘Constitutional carry.’

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

Keep and bear arms

Own and carry arms

no militia service required

Why does the sentence include the word militia?

Why does the amendment state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

The right belongs to the people not the militia

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(people shall bear arms for a well regulated militia) it was to fight off the British, and even other states as we seen in the civil war and to keep the slaves in order.

It does not say for the militia.

It is the right of the people. Period.

 

[Auld Phart]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

Keep and bear arms

Own and carry arms

no militia service required

Why does the sentence include the word militia?

The Militia at the time, by law, was every able bodied free man. Any and all were able, and expected, to come together and defend the community, state, or nation. So if we limited it to the Militia today, using the expanded definition to include women, then it would be...... Everyone.

The Militia at the time, by law, was every able bodied free man.

Only between the ages of 16-45.

(57 in ne state, can't remember which one)

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.

Actually I understand perfectly.

The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.

You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.

 

[USNavyVet]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.

Actually I understand perfectly.

The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.

You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.

You just keep doubling down on your stupid assertion. The 2nd Amendment is written in English so I have to assume English is a 2nd language for you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

That is exactly what the second Amendment allows for.

Glad to see some states taking our Constitution seriously.

Actually no, it doesn't.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.

It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.

It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....

But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.

Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.

Oh, well.

Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.

Actually I understand perfectly.

The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.

You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.

Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?

Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?

Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?

You have some research to do.......................