House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
- Thread starter bigrebnc1775
- Start date
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
The federal government gave the states power over anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution. The states should not be able to hinder any citizen exercising that right.
OODA_Loop
Account Terminated
Dems are pushing it for political sleight of hand douchbaggery.
pgm
Member
Unless you're going to start mandating that people carry guns, I don't see how you can guarantee that there will be another gun-carrying civilian at the scene.
Using the Holocaust Memorial shooting was a pretty shallow and blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion on my part, so I apologize for that. Let me back up.
To answer the original question, People should not necessarily be allowed to take a firearm wherever they choose to because there is an interest in protecting those who are not carrying firearms from irresponsible users. There is also an interest in protecting sensitive areas. In this case, I am referring to areas where public officials are and areas that are high-density with no outlet for escape.
So, now I'll ask you a question. Is there no location that should be deemed reasonable for a state to restrict firearms - even to those who are licensed to carry such firearms?
The examples I will offer as areas of reasonable restriction are government buildings, subways, schools and private property.
OODA_Loop
Account Terminated
Dems are pushing it for political sleight of hand douchbaggery.
J.E.D
Gold Member
- Jul 28, 2011
- 14,159
- 2,232
- 280
- Banned
- #227
Since guns are not outright banned in any state, states are not hindering anybody's right to bear arms. Different states have different gun laws. Each state's gun laws should be respected. Don't tell me that you have the right to openly carry in my state without training or a permit just because you can do so in your state. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Gun permits are denied all the time. One must pay annually for permits.
Do you support having to pay for a permit to practice your religion or to speak out loud?
Conservative
Type 40
Which would be why a bipartisan bill was introduced.
I feel there should be a nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly, as the right to keep and bear arms was given in the 2nd amendment. Since it was given to the federal government, gun policies should be set by the federal government.
J.E.D
Gold Member
- Jul 28, 2011
- 14,159
- 2,232
- 280
- Banned
- #231
Apples and oranges. Requiring permits does not hinder gun ownership. While religious people do kill people, religion does not; therefore, I do not support having to get a permit to practice your religion. People with guns do kill people; sometimes it's malicious; sometimes it's by accident because they aren't conscientious gun owners. People should pay annually for gun permits. If you want to own a deadly weapon, you should have a permit for it and you should take gun safety courses.
Last edited:
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #232
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #233
The T
George S. Patton Party
What ever happened to reciprosity between States like Driver's licenses?
The FED shouldn't be involved at all.
The FED shouldn't be involved at all.
pgm
Member
I never said it did.
The T
George S. Patton Party
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Actually the right of the individual to bear arms wasnÂ’t determined until 2008 with the Heller ruling, and incorporated to the states in McDonald last year.
This has nothing to do with ‘enumerated powers,’ rather it has to do with the 14th Amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. It’s the same principle as compelling the states to acknowledge privacy rights, search and seizure rights, and due process rights.
It depends on how the courts rule on various gun laws, certain measures deemed to preempt the Second Amendment should be struck down, regardless the majority position of a given state, since whether one may be entitled to a given right is not determined by popular vote.
ThatÂ’s not how it worksÂ…
States may enact any gun restrictions they want, provided they understand such measures may be struck down as un-Constitutional at some future date. The issue in the OP has to do with the supremacy of Federal laws, having nothing to do with the Second Amendment per se.
That’s what will be determined by the courts – do permits constitute an undue burden upon those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The analogy of requiring a permit to practice one’s religion is on point.
A permit to carry a concealed weapon is appropriate because to do with without a permit is a felony. It is un-Constitutional, in my opinion, to require an American to have a permit to open carry, purchase, or otherwise possess a firearm. Such requirements are predicated on a presumption of guilt, if you will – Americans are not required to prove they won’t abuse a given right in order to exercise that right.
Unlike the right to speech and religion, the case law with regard to the Second Amendment has yet to be written. But although certain restrictions are appropriate – with regard to minors, the mentally ill, felony convictions, immigration status, etc - any other restrictions with regard to purchase permits, waiting periods, and design restrictions, clearly conflict with the Second Amendment.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #239
I am not the only one who took it that was what you meant.
and here are your replies leading up to that comment.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Are We On the Verge of a Breakthrough on the SAVE America Act?
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
