House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[bigrebnc1775]

There are two ways I answer a post like this

Any laws not wrote on parchment with a quill should be made vold because they didn't have a pen or computer back at the signing of the Constitution

Next the only firearms protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

I love posts like these. Because it basically backs up my reading of the second amendment. That being..that gun ownership is mapped with military service.

But two key things your missing.
Weapons to be owned and maitained by those who carried them
1. "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Only weapons protected by the second amendment are military greade weapons
2."the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'

Add them together
Weapon ownership by the one who carries them and they must be military grade weapons of the kind in common use at the time. which also means upgrades to keep up with the times

Where did you go sallow?

 

[rightwinger]

Gay marriage will never be constitutional because no one has a right to be married.

They have a right to get Married in New York

It only makes sense that if you can go to a 7-11 in Arizona and get a handgun permit and have it be valid in New York, you should be able to get married in New York and have it be valid in Arizona

Show me in the Constitution that the government can regulate marriage? Where in the bill of rights is it written that a person has a right to marry? Since we must use well regulated has it was meant by the founders "As to be expected in working order" gay marriage is not as to be expected or in working order.

14th amendment

Read it and get back to me

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They have a right to get Married in New York

It only makes sense that if you can go to a 7-11 in Arizona and get a handgun permit and have it be valid in New York, you should be able to get married in New York and have it be valid in Arizona

Show me in the Constitution that the government can regulate marriage? Where in the bill of rights is it written that a person has a right to marry? Since we must use well regulated has it was meant by the founders "As to be expected in working order" gay marriage is not as to be expected or in working order.

14th amendment

Read it and get back to me

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They have a right to get Married in New York

It only makes sense that if you can go to a 7-11 in Arizona and get a handgun permit and have it be valid in New York, you should be able to get married in New York and have it be valid in Arizona

Show me in the Constitution that the government can regulate marriage? Where in the bill of rights is it written that a person has a right to marry? Since we must use well regulated has it was meant by the founders "As to be expected in working order" gay marriage is not as to be expected or in working order.

14th amendment

Read it and get back to me

I read it not a right to marriage anywhere in it.

 

[uscitizen]

My understanding is that in the context of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" doesn't necessarily mean a formal, organized militia - it can refer to all able bodied adults of a state that own firearms.

Yes, but that is an intrepretation. Not the exact meaning as it was written.
so a strict constitutalionist should stick with the strict meaning I would think.

Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I do not think the definition of militia has ever applied to individuals acting individually.

Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

However you do not support that approach to constitutional intrepretation when it says "To provide for the general welfare"?

If you use that intrepretative method on one part it must be applied to all parts or it is just cherry picking.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so liberals equate the right to protect yourself to the right to marry?

I say hell yeah let every cock suck faggot get married within 20 to 30 years gay will die out.
oh by all means get married but you will not have access to adoptions

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Show me in the Constitution that the government can regulate marriage? Where in the bill of rights is it written that a person has a right to marry? Since we must use well regulated has it was meant by the founders "As to be expected in working order" gay marriage is not as to be expected or in working order.

14th amendment

Read it and get back to me

I read it not a right to marriage anywhere in it.

Marriage is a right protected by the 9th amendment. The 14th amendment grants Congress the power to force states, through legislation, to not violate the rights of U.S. citizens.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

so liberals equate the right to protect yourself to the right to marry?

no. Only you have suggested that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

14th amendment

Read it and get back to me

I read it not a right to marriage anywhere in it.

Marriage is a right protected by the 9th amendment. The 14th amendment grants Congress the power to force states, through legislation, to not violate the rights of U.S. citizens.

bouncing around like a rubber ball.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I read it not a right to marriage anywhere in it.

Marriage is a right protected by the 9th amendment. The 14th amendment grants Congress the power to force states, through legislation, to not violate the rights of U.S. citizens.

bouncing around like a rubber ball.

I fail to see what's inconsistent with anything else I've said, maybe you can elaborate?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So if a state thinks slavery is ok they can have it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Marriage is a right protected by the 9th amendment. The 14th amendment grants Congress the power to force states, through legislation, to not violate the rights of U.S. citizens.

bouncing around like a rubber ball.

I fail to see what's inconsistent with anything else I've said, maybe you can elaborate?

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So if a state thinks slavery is ok they can have it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

bouncing around like a rubber ball.

I fail to see what's inconsistent with anything else I've said, maybe you can elaborate?

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So if a state thinks slavery is ok they can have it?

No. The 13th amendment clearly forbids it.

I can tell you've studied the Constitution.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, but that is an intrepretation. Not the exact meaning as it was written.
so a strict constitutalionist should stick with the strict meaning I would think.

Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I do not think the definition of militia has ever applied to individuals acting individually.

Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

However you do not support that approach to constitutional intrepretation when it says "To provide for the general welfare"?

If you use that intrepretative method on one part it must be applied to all parts or it is just cherry picking.

bump for those who missed this.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

Wow - a consistent conservative.

Something I will never understand why do gun gabbers think people have a safety net around them when they leave home? Where the people who were killed by Jered Longhner at home?

BigReb... obviously they do not have a safety net. I support the 2nd Amendment completely. You and I have the RIGHT to own a firearm and to use it in defense of our families or ourselves. But, I think that a state has the right and obligation to tell it's citizens HOW they can carry that firearm outside of your house. Inside your home, I think that a state is out of bounds by telling citizens it cannot own firearms. In it's recent decision I think the Supreme Court made it clear that Chicago cannot tell it's citizens that a person cannot own a firearm inside of a man's home. I think that is basic. A man's home is HIS and the state or federal government better have a real good reason to intrude into that area.

But out in the street? In Texas and Oklahoma and in other states, they have determined that it is desireable for citizens to be allowed to carry concealed weapons. I agree with that. It has had a positive effect on crime and in society in those areas. I think that New York has the ability to limit how a person can carry a firearm in their jurisdiction, IF the public votes and makes that determination in the ballot box. They can't take away the basic right, but they can modify some of the rules for that right. I think that is a basic state's rights issue.

Gun grabbers are ignorant and both you and I know that. They have this European view that society should be regulated by the government and partner, that isn't going to work here. I am an American and I am a FREE man. I will not and I do not stand in line well. I am responsible for MYSELF and I do not do what someone else wants because THEY have determined its best for me. I am not and I will not be a sheep. My M-4 and Colt Double-Eagle ensures that my family and I are safe. No one will take that away.... PERIOD!

 

[Ernie S.]

Feds don't have authority over interstate reciprocity of licenses.

Window dressing and focus shifting

US Bill of Rights, amendment 2:

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.

Protecting that right is clearly the duty of the federal government.
Those "rights" not enumerated in the Constitution revert to the states.
10th amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mmmmmm... the federal government "mandating" that each state shall honor the gun permits of another state? I have to say that this does NOT give me warm fuzzies. I don't like the federal government mandating issues that states should have the ONLY jurisdiction over. You know I'm a conservative and you know that I absolutely support the 2nd amendment. But, I have to tell you that I am for LOCAL control of most issues. Education, abortion, and the list goes on and on. Included on that list is the ability of the state to mandate how a firearm can be carried. I do not think that someone walking down the street of New York City with a magnum strapped to his hip would be a good idea. I do not think that the citizens of New York City would like this and quite frankly if they want to limit that aspect, I think it should be their right within their state constitution.

A person in their own home in New York City, that is different. I think that the 2nd Amendment advises that a citizen can own a firearm and I think that common law will determine that citizens right to defend himself and his family from harm with that weapon. I would even support a federal law that prohibits any civil litigation over a maggot killed by a private firearm if the local District Attorney calls it a good shoot. You kill a worthless piece of manure who is trying to do you and your family harm, then I think that you are home free.

But no, I have to say that I am not in favor of another freakin federal law. If your for a state's right to have sole jurisdiction over certain issues, I don't know how you can support this.

the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the federal constitution just as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. and all those rights are recognized across state lines.

No state should be able to deny a citizen any right specified in the constitution.

So what's a well REGULATED militia?

What's a militia without weapons?

It's the peoples' right to bear arms so as to make a militia possible

 

[martybegan]

Wow - a consistent conservative.

Something I will never understand why do gun gabbers think people have a safety net around them when they leave home? Where the people who were killed by Jered Longhner at home?

BigReb... obviously they do not have a safety net. I support the 2nd Amendment completely. You and I have the RIGHT to own a firearm and to use it in defense of our families or ourselves. But, I think that a state has the right and obligation to tell it's citizens HOW they can carry that firearm outside of your house. Inside your home, I think that a state is out of bounds by telling citizens it cannot own firearms. In it's recent decision I think the Supreme Court made it clear that Chicago cannot tell it's citizens that a person cannot own a firearm inside of a man's home. I think that is basic. A man's home is HIS and the state or federal government better have a real good reason to intrude into that area.

But out in the street? In Texas and Oklahoma and in other states, they have determined that it is desireable for citizens to be allowed to carry concealed weapons. I agree with that. It has had a positive effect on crime and in society in those areas. I think that New York has the ability to limit how a person can carry a firearm in their jurisdiction, IF the public votes and makes that determination in the ballot box. They can't take away the basic right, but they can modify some of the rules for that right. I think that is a basic state's rights issue.

Gun grabbers are ignorant and both you and I know that. They have this European view that society should be regulated by the government and partner, that isn't going to work here. I am an American and I am a FREE man. I will not and I do not stand in line well. I am responsible for MYSELF and I do not do what someone else wants because THEY have determined its best for me. I am not and I will not be a sheep. My M-4 and Colt Double-Eagle ensures that my family and I are safe. No one will take that away.... PERIOD!

While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.

To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.

Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.

 

[uscitizen]

Something I will never understand why do gun gabbers think people have a safety net around them when they leave home? Where the people who were killed by Jered Longhner at home?

BigReb... obviously they do not have a safety net. I support the 2nd Amendment completely. You and I have the RIGHT to own a firearm and to use it in defense of our families or ourselves. But, I think that a state has the right and obligation to tell it's citizens HOW they can carry that firearm outside of your house. Inside your home, I think that a state is out of bounds by telling citizens it cannot own firearms. In it's recent decision I think the Supreme Court made it clear that Chicago cannot tell it's citizens that a person cannot own a firearm inside of a man's home. I think that is basic. A man's home is HIS and the state or federal government better have a real good reason to intrude into that area.

But out in the street? In Texas and Oklahoma and in other states, they have determined that it is desireable for citizens to be allowed to carry concealed weapons. I agree with that. It has had a positive effect on crime and in society in those areas. I think that New York has the ability to limit how a person can carry a firearm in their jurisdiction, IF the public votes and makes that determination in the ballot box. They can't take away the basic right, but they can modify some of the rules for that right. I think that is a basic state's rights issue.

Gun grabbers are ignorant and both you and I know that. They have this European view that society should be regulated by the government and partner, that isn't going to work here. I am an American and I am a FREE man. I will not and I do not stand in line well. I am responsible for MYSELF and I do not do what someone else wants because THEY have determined its best for me. I am not and I will not be a sheep. My M-4 and Colt Double-Eagle ensures that my family and I are safe. No one will take that away.... PERIOD!

While I agree with most of this, my concern comes from the fact that in cities like new york and chicago, the bans on concealed carry are not applied fairly. If you are a police officer or an offical of the govenment you can pretty much get a carry permit, and a house permit without going through all the hoops a regular citizen has to. They even have a check mark next to "retired police officer" on the application, thus implying that a retired officer has an easier time getting one than a normal citizen.

To me, if a juristiction wants to limit concealed carry on the streets, they have to apply the rule to EVERYONE. that means cops have to check thier service weapons at the precinct, and show cause to get a concealed carry and home permit, just like everyone else. Same with city employees, bodyguards for elected officals, etc.

Any other system turns me into a second class citizen, excluded from a franchise that some people get soley due to thier job with the city.

by working for the govt they are part of the "militia".

 

[pgm]

Don't come to New York.

You'll spend a year or two in Jail.

Yeah, 2nd amendment rights do not matter there.

Thank Rudy Giuliani.