House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[bigrebnc1775]

You should try bring a gun on your next trip through airport security. If they stop you, tell them you're just exercising your rights.

An airport is private proprety they can have any kind of restriction they want to have.

Except that most airports aren't private property.

Hartsfield-Jackson and LAX is owned by the city.
BWI is owned by the state of Maryland.
Logan, JFK, and LaGuardia are owned by their local port authorities.
Dulles and Reagan are co-owned by Virginia and DC.

That is a small number that isn't most.

 

[Polk]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

Except that there is no Constitutional right to carry a gun anywhere you want.

 

[Polk]

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

Who knows? The 2nd Amendment is a grammatical mess. However, from the beginning, it referred to gun ownership for civilians. It was based out of English common law, but with less restrictions than the English had to deal with.

Actually, the grammar of the Second Amendment is rather clear, if you're

a) aware of 18th century usage
b) you're not trying to change it's meaning

 

[Polk]

An airport is private proprety they can have any kind of restriction they want to have.

Except that most airports aren't private property.

Hartsfield-Jackson and LAX is owned by the city.
BWI is owned by the state of Maryland.
Logan, JFK, and LaGuardia are owned by their local port authorities.
Dulles and Reagan are co-owned by Virginia and DC.

That is a small number that isn't most.

I chose those because they're well-known. The list isn't intended to be all-inclusive. So the question is still open. Is a public airport not allowed to restrict individuals from bring firearms in to the terminal?

 

[pgm]

An airport is private proprety they can have any kind of restriction they want to have.

Except that most airports aren't private property.

Hartsfield-Jackson and LAX is owned by the city.
BWI is owned by the state of Maryland.
Logan, JFK, and LaGuardia are owned by their local port authorities.
Dulles and Reagan are co-owned by Virginia and DC.

That is a small number that isn't most.

I think he was being lazy and didn't feel like going into every airport.

Busiest airports in the country:
Hartsfield-Jackson (Atlanta) - public
LAX (LA) - public
O'Hare (Chicago) - public
Dallas/Fort Worth - public
Denver International - public
JFK (NYC) - public
Phoenix Sky Harbor - public
McCarran Int'l (Las Vegas) - public
George Bush Intercontinental (Houston) - public
Charlotte/Douglas - public
Miami Int'l - public
San Francisco Int'l - public
Orlando Int'l - publc
Newark Liberty - public
Minneapolis-St. Paul - public
Detroit Metropolitan - public
Seattle-Tacoma Int'l - public
Philadelphia Int'l - public
Logan Int'l (Boston) - public
LaGuardia (NYC) - public
Washington-Dulles - public
BWI (Baltimore) - public
Salt Lake City It'l - public
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int'l - public
Honolulu Int'l - public/military
General Mitchell Int'l (Milwaukee) - public
Tampa Int'l - public
Ronald Reagan (D.C.) - public
Chicago Midway - public
San Diego Int'l - public

I was going to keep going until I found a private one, but I'm getting tired. There's 30. If you want more, I can keep looking.

 

[Polk]

Every commercial and reliever airport in Georgia (since that's my native state) is publicly-owned.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

Except that there is no Constitutional right to carry a gun anywhere you want.

Then what do "bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" mean exactly?

 

[pgm]

Actually, the grammar of the Second Amendment is rather clear, if you're

a) aware of 18th century usage
b) you're not trying to change it's meaning

It's over-punctuated if you use any historically accurate interpretation.

A well-regulated Militia, being necesasary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please diagram that sentence for me. If you drop the last comma, it's pretty easy to see the meaning--[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But as it is currently written, it makes very little sense grammatically. Is the subject "A well-regulated militia" or "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Is "shall not be infringed" the predicate or is it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that is the predicate.

 

[Missourian]

Actually, the grammar of the Second Amendment is rather clear, if you're

a) aware of 18th century usage
b) you're not trying to change it's meaning

It's over-punctuated if you use any historically accurate interpretation.

A well-regulated Militia, being necesasary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please diagram that sentence for me. If you drop the last comma, it's pretty easy to see the meaning--[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But as it is currently written, it makes very little sense grammatically. Is the subject "A well-regulated militia" or "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Is "shall not be infringed" the predicate or is it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that is the predicate.

Irrelevant claptrap.

This is decided law...the right to bear arms is an individual right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except that most airports aren't private property.

Hartsfield-Jackson and LAX is owned by the city.
BWI is owned by the state of Maryland.
Logan, JFK, and LaGuardia are owned by their local port authorities.
Dulles and Reagan are co-owned by Virginia and DC.

That is a small number that isn't most.

I chose those because they're well-known. The list isn't intended to be all-inclusive. So the question is still open. Is a public airport not allowed to restrict individuals from bring firearms in to the terminal?

So I misspoke then again an authority isn't really owned by the government a quasi-governmental body established to operate the airport
Who owns airports?
A: Most U.S. commercial service airports are typically owned by local or state governments, either directly or through an authority (a quasi-governmental body established to operate the airport). While Congress established a "privatization program" in 1997 under which the airport ownership would be transferred to a non-governmental entity, no airports currently participate in this program. However, The Branson Airport (in Missouri) became the first privately financed and operated commercial service airport in the United States when it opened in May, 2009.

Airports Q & A

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

Who knows? The 2nd Amendment is a grammatical mess. However, from the beginning, it referred to gun ownership for civilians. It was based out of English common law, but with less restrictions than the English had to deal with.

Actually, the grammar of the Second Amendment is rather clear, if you're

a) aware of 18th century usage
b) you're not trying to change it's meaning

I know that well regulate means to be in working order to be as expected.

 

[pgm]

Irrelevant claptrap.

This is decided law...the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Congratulations on completely misinterpreting the intent behind that post.
The original post: Why does the 2nd Amendment talk about a well-regulated militia?
Me (in a gist): Because it's a grammatically terrible sentence. From the beginning it has meant an individuals right.
Reply to that: It's not a grammatically terrible sentence.
Me: Yes, is is. Here's why.
Your reply: What you said is wrong. It's about an individual's right.

Why does everyone on this board assume anyone who has something to say slightly different has an opinion opposite of theirs?

 

[Missourian]

Irrelevant claptrap.

This is decided law...the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Congratulations on completely misinterpreting the intent behind that post.
The original post: Why does the 2nd Amendment talk about a well-regulated militia?
Me (in a gist): Because it's a grammatically terrible sentence. From the beginning it has meant an individuals right.
Reply to that: It's not a grammatically terrible sentence.
Me: Yes, is is. Here's why.
Your reply: What you said is wrong. It's about an individual's right.

Why does everyone on this board assume anyone who has something to say slightly different has an opinion opposite of theirs?

Because I can't read your mind, only your posts.

Had you actually said "From the beginning it has meant an individuals right" in your post, there would have been no misunderstanding.

 

[Polk]

Actually, the grammar of the Second Amendment is rather clear, if you're

a) aware of 18th century usage
b) you're not trying to change it's meaning

It's over-punctuated if you use any historically accurate interpretation.

A well-regulated Militia, being necesasary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please diagram that sentence for me. If you drop the last comma, it's pretty easy to see the meaning--[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But as it is currently written, it makes very little sense grammatically. Is the subject "A well-regulated militia" or "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Is "shall not be infringed" the predicate or is it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that is the predicate.

It's hard to the modern reader because it uses a style later writers, thankfully, dropped. It's written using an absolute ablative phrase. Basically, it's using a modified clause that's connected to the rest of the sentence, but in an unclear manner. The first two segments modify the main thrust at the end, but the relationship is intentionally unclear.

 

[Polk]

Actually, the grammar of the Second Amendment is rather clear, if you're

a) aware of 18th century usage
b) you're not trying to change it's meaning

It's over-punctuated if you use any historically accurate interpretation.

A well-regulated Militia, being necesasary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please diagram that sentence for me. If you drop the last comma, it's pretty easy to see the meaning--[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But as it is currently written, it makes very little sense grammatically. Is the subject "A well-regulated militia" or "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Is "shall not be infringed" the predicate or is it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that is the predicate.

Irrelevant claptrap.

This is decided law...the right to bear arms is an individual right.

That doesn't mean it's an absolute right (go read Heller more closely). Also, it's only absolute as long as the court determines the ruling is valid. The case law has been different in the past, and could be again in the future.

 

[pgm]

Because I can't read your mind, only your posts.

Had you actually said "From the beginning it has meant an individuals right" in your post, there would have been no misunderstanding.

Here is what I said at the beginning:

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

Who knows? The 2nd Amendment is a grammatical mess. However, from the beginning, it referred to gun ownership for civilians. It was based out of English common law, but with less restrictions than the English had to deal with.

I can't restate my original post every time. If you're not sure the original intent, why pounce? Either go back and find it or ask me. Nothing in what I said was inherently attacking the 2nd Amendment on anything other than grammar.

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

It's hard to the modern reader because it uses a style later writers, thankfully, dropped. It's written using an absolute ablative phrase. Basically, it's using a modified clause that's connected to the rest of the sentence, but in an unclear manner. The first two segments modify the main thrust at the end, but the relationship is intentionally unclear.

"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."

The absolute ablative phrase is "being necessary to the security of a free State," right? The part that is grammatically unclear is the comma between "Arms" and "shall." To make things more confusing, in the version the states ratified (rather than the version passed by Congress), there is no comma there.

You're saying that it's meaning is left intentionally unclear. I think that backs up my point. It's not a well-written sentence, which has led to confusion on its meaning over the years.

 

[Contumacious]

It's over-punctuated if you use any historically accurate interpretation.

A well-regulated Militia, being necesasary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please diagram that sentence for me. If you drop the last comma, it's pretty easy to see the meaning--[Because] a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But as it is currently written, it makes very little sense grammatically. Is the subject "A well-regulated militia" or "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Is "shall not be infringed" the predicate or is it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that is the predicate.

Irrelevant claptrap.

This is decided law...the right to bear arms is an individual right.

That doesn't mean it's an absolute right (go read Heller more closely). Also, it's only absolute as long as the court determines the ruling is valid. The case law has been different in the past, and could be again in the future.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS DEFINE, INFRINGE UPON , OR REGULATE THE RIGHT

THE "LAWS" WILL BE IGNORED BY FREEMEN - THE RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE

ONLY THOSE WITH ENSLAVED MENTALITIES WOULD ALLOW A BUREAUCRAT TO CONTROL THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE

.

 

[Polk]

As I said before, take your gun to the airport and let me know how that goes.

 

[Contumacious]

As I said before, take your gun to the airport and let me know how that goes.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. "

Justice Joseph Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's about time

Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.


Read more: House Weighs Bill To Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines | Fox News

One I will have to remember come election time

Wow a bill from washington that, at first glance, I actually support!

I'll have to check it out more