CONSTITUTIONAL Carry - Should Constitutional Rights need permitting?

[BasicHumanUnit]

Inarguably, the Constitution CLEARLY states the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Florida Supreme Court Rules the Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Open Carry

Still, in spite of these flaws, Thursday’s decision is undoubtedly a major defeat for gun rights activists. It arrives just weeks after a 4th Circuit decision holding that the Second Amendment does not protect assault weapons, and less than a year after the 9th Circuit found that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry, either. (That practice, too, has been widely banned since the nation’s founding.) Because the Supreme Court clearly has little appetite to expand Heller

and McDonald, these decisions will probably stand as the last word on the subject for now. And gun safety advocates can rest easy knowing that whatever few legislative achievements they can eke out in this political environment are unlikely to be toppled by the judiciary.

Yet in most states where concealed or open carry is :allowed", permits are required.
On a population density basis, In more states than not, the personal carrying of a weapon is not even allowed.

If that is not Infringement, then what is?

Gun Grabbers continue to proclaim that their intent is not to disarm America, yet incrementally, and by open admission, that is in fact the ultimate objective.

I am not arguing FOR Open Carry, but rather that PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS are not Constitutional or even if they are, are not supportive of the Spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was not conceived with personal protection in mind. Rather, it was written in the context of ensuring that average citizens were capably equipped (armed) to deter or counter malicious government activity.

With that in mind, if the government can so completely ensure that citizens cannot carry weapons, then it can also ensure that in times of tyranny against the people it has a tried and true readily available mechanism to "lawfully" prosecute and vilify those who would resist such tyranny. It is nearly impossible to Conceal Carry a long gun. Therefore in times of government malice, where the 2nd Amendment would certainly be needed, such laws would facilitate the ability of the government to find and detain citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights by simply proclaiming that ANYONE seen with a gun is a criminal and shall be arrested, detained or killed.

THAT is , in my opinion, the underlying danger in giving government total authority to delegate "permission" to carry weapons, concealed or not.

In my opinion here's how it SHOULD work......

1). Government has no authority to dictate to LAWFUL citizens having no criminal history and no history of mental defect, the right to bear arms. As long as ALL eligible citizens have equal right and equal access.

2). Government SHOULD, however, retain the authority to delegate areas in which the carry of weapons is not allowed. Such as sporting events, municipal buildings and other such public places where someone in a defective mental state might be drawn to commit violent acts.

3). Instead of PERMITS to carry concealed, the public shall be GRANTED their Constitutional Right to Bear Arms and citizens (without permit) and may carry concealed except in those areas as outlined above for reasons outlined above.

In such a scenario, law Enforcement still has the capability of arresting anyone found to be carrying a concealed weapon upon discovery of criminal record etc. Specifically, the issuing of permits by a State does not in any way ensure that criminals or those intending harm are not carrying weapons.

Unfortunately, in a FREE society, there will always be those sick individuals who have lost their minds and do evil things and people will be harmed. But overall, Constitutional rights are omnipotent and the security of the many outweigh the safety of the few. Permitting laws do the opposite by allowing government authority to water down Constitutional Rights.

Again, we see where government assumes it's job is to decide on the Constitutionality of rights, while unnecessarily limiting rights.

I believe that Concealed Carry PERMITS should be reconsidered and eliminated. At the end of the day permits for Constitutional Rights actually only serves two ends.....

1). Revenue for the state
2). Diminishes the 2nd Amendment

And finally, once government is given the authority to issue permits for Constitutional Rights, where will it end? How long before permits are required to exercise free speech?

 

[TNHarley]

I cant wait for us to create a system to give out permits for speech and due process

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is not one single federal gun law that is legal under the Constitution.

 

[Justin Richardson]

Gun Grabbers continue to proclaim that their intent is not to disarm America, yet incrementally, and by open admission, that is in fact the ultimate objective.

There is a simple answer to that:
They know it is the law and in the Constitution. They are just getting around the law. By having their Congress try to pass laws in their favor. So, they can turn around and tell us, "It is now the law". In which if one of them happens to get shot or killed - they quickly go and "hide" behind the Constitution.

The left are good at these things. It is all they really know how to do anything, period.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I cant wait for us to create a system to give out permits for speech and due process

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Kamala Harris pledges executive order on gun control if Congress doesn't act in her first 100 days
Kamala Harris pledges executive order on gun control if Congress doesn't act in her first 100 days

While this MIGHT just be an election ploy, there are plenty who will completely expect her to follow through.

But for all we know, she may be totally serious.

Ms. Harris has long tried to play the role of fence walker, portraying herself as a "marksman", who HAS shot a gun......but from the other side of her mouth, using common gun grabber rhetoric to inflame, incite and encourage the gun grabbers to do more.

[Quote - Kamala Harris]
“I’ll tell you what I think should have happened, is that they should have closed the chambers and Congress on this — House and Senate side," Harris said. “All you members go in there — only you — and spread out the autopsy photos of those babies, and require them to look at those photographs. And then, vote your conscience.”
In another urge for smart gun safety laws, Harris said something similar after the Parkland school shooting last year. “When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding," she told MSNBC. "This cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical."
[/QUOTE]

Even IF this is just an election political maneuver, do we really want elected officials who consider our Constitutional Rights to be used and manipulated as tools for their personal benefit?

Considering she absolutely walks the Progressive line on nearly every topic and that she is a woman AND black, I expect she will rise to the top of the Democrats nominee list in 2020 as others drop out.

Not only is she opposed to open carry and concealed carry, I believe she is opposed to individual ownership of ANY type defensive weapon. it's just too unpopular for her to come out of the Gun Grabber closet and say so.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There's really only a very, very small group of people in DC who understand the Constitution, notwithstanding the oath they took to defend it. Very few. I can count em on one hand.

I have zero respect for the rest of em.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And they have ZERO respect for US, collectively. They are beholden to infinitely deeper pockets