House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

 

[Contumacious]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

No, actually federal bureaucrats/scumbags are solely responsible for the policy.

.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

No, actually federal bureaucrats/scumbags are solely responsible for the policy.

.

What I am saying is regardless of the feds....say the feds said "All americans can carry guns anywhere they want at any time"

A private property owner can still forbid you from bringing your gun on their property.

Thats all I was getting at.


I still love this bill and hope it passes!

 

[pgm]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

I really, really, really shouldn't get sucked into this particular discussion, but it's not a private airline rule, it's a TSA rule. If an airline said "go ahead," the TSA can still say, "Not on your life." Now, the TSA does allow you to check a gun if it's in a hard, locked case and declared, but an airline can still refuse that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

I really, really, really shouldn't get sucked into this particular discussion, but it's not a private airline rule, it's a TSA rule. If an airline said "go ahead," the TSA can still say, "Not on your life." Now, the TSA does allow you to check a gun if it's in a hard, locked case and declared, but an airline can still refuse that.

That is true, see my response that I posted as you were typing this one directly above this post I quoted for my clarification.

 

[Polk]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

Key word: airport. Those are publicly owned. Based on the arguments in this thread, that means you can carry a gun there.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

Key word: airport. Those are publicly owned. Based on the arguments in this thread, that means you can carry a gun there.

Yes you could. But you could be stopped from bringing it onto the actual plane so you can bring your gun but its going to get confiscated

I'm sure the govt, if this bill passed, would just give the airlines who say "no guns" a huge tax break and preferential treatment over other airlines that don't. (And yes there is something seriously wrong with how our govt already does this type of thing in different industries and areas)

 

[pgm]

That is true, see my response that I posted as you were typing this one directly above this post I quoted for my clarification.

Gotcha. Well, I'm going to avoid getting into this argument because I've gone over it a number of times (see my thoughts on subways and multiply that by ten).

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not an unlimited right

Heller vs Distirct of Columbia

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Pp. 54–56.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly if the states did not grant the feds the authority then it's a states issue. When gay marriage is added to the bill of rights then the states will have given the FEDS authority on that issue untilk then it's a state issue.

Nonsense, the states do not ‘grant’ anything to the Federal government; all law-making jurisdictions – from Congress to a small town council – are subject to the Constitution via incorporation of the 14th Amendment. States do not have the authority to restrict same-sex couples equal access to their laws, nor may states violate the self-defense rights of Americans by prohibiting ownership of a handgun. See: DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

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

That’s not exactly clear – the Court ruled there is an individual right to possess a firearm, it’s logical to infer one also has the right to carry it where he wishes as well, particularly in the context of the Constitutional right to self defense:

Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the basic right [to self defense], recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

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

It means you have the right to self defense, it means you may use a handgun for that purpose. What is not known is to what extent the state may regulate or restrict your access to a firearm, such as permits, waiting periods, and the like.

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

That was thoroughly reviewed and rejected by the Court in Heller – Scalia based his opinion on an ‘original understanding’ of the Amendment by the common people at the time the Amendment was ratified.

Although Heller addressed the issue of ‘guns in the home,’ in McDonald we see a more comprehensive understanding of the Right:

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

From this then one can make the argument that the right to keep and bear arms in the context of ‘ordered liberty’ would also guarantee a right to bear arms on one’s person where ever he may go. Indeed, many states have as a provision in their ‘castle doctrine’ laws the right of self defense ‘goes with the person,’ such as defending himself from a carjacking with a firearm. Moreover, in many cases, this provision extends to ‘any place a person is expected to be,’ such as a home of a friend, one’s place of employment, or a business owner’s place of business.

That doesn't mean it's an absolute right (go read Heller more closely).

No right is an ‘absolute right,’ any state may preempt a given right but the state must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest which would be subject to, and must pass, the appropriate level of judicial review.

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.

As already noted: Second Amendment case law has yet to be written – some of it will certainly be subject to re-review and modified over the coming decades, but I suspect the fundamental principles of the individual right and the right of self defense will remain intact.

 

[The T]

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.

And I would ask why does it matter when the term was used? As to this issue? The right of people to be secure in thier persons and property is timeless.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Exactly if the states did not grant the feds the authority then it's a states issue. When gay marriage is added to the bill of rights then the states will have given the FEDS authority on that issue untilk then it's a state issue.

Nonsense, the states do not ‘grant’ anything to the Federal government; all law-making jurisdictions – from Congress to a small town council – are subject to the Constitution via incorporation of the 14th Amendment. States do not have the authority to restrict same-sex couples equal access to their laws, nor may states violate the self-defense rights of Americans by prohibiting ownership of a handgun. See: DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

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

That’s not exactly clear – the Court ruled there is an individual right to possess a firearm, it’s logical to infer one also has the right to carry it where he wishes as well, particularly in the context of the Constitutional right to self defense:





It means you have the right to self defense, it means you may use a handgun for that purpose. What is not known is to what extent the state may regulate or restrict your access to a firearm, such as permits, waiting periods, and the like.

That was thoroughly reviewed and rejected by the Court in Heller – Scalia based his opinion on an ‘original understanding’ of the Amendment by the common people at the time the Amendment was ratified.

Although Heller addressed the issue of ‘guns in the home,’ in McDonald we see a more comprehensive understanding of the Right:



From this then one can make the argument that the right to keep and bear arms in the context of ‘ordered liberty’ would also guarantee a right to bear arms on one’s person where ever he may go. Indeed, many states have as a provision in their ‘castle doctrine’ laws the right of self defense ‘goes with the person,’ such as defending himself from a carjacking with a firearm. Moreover, in many cases, this provision extends to ‘any place a person is expected to be,’ such as a home of a friend, one’s place of employment, or a business owner’s place of business.

That doesn't mean it's an absolute right (go read Heller more closely).

No right is an ‘absolute right,’ any state may preempt a given right but the state must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest which would be subject to, and must pass, the appropriate level of judicial review.

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.

As already noted: Second Amendment case law has yet to be written – some of it will certainly be subject to re-review and modified over the coming decades, but I suspect the fundamental principles of the individual right and the right of self defense will remain intact.

Nonsense is right, the states gave certain autyhority to the feds. Check the constitution out for once in your life.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

And I would ask why does it matter when the term was used? As to this issue? The right of people to be secure in thier persons and property is timeless.

To understand the intent of the founders and what they wanted you would have to understand the meaning of such words. With liberals you must dot every I and cross every T for them to grasp half of what you say.

 

[pgm]

To understand the intent of the founders and what they wanted you would have to understand the meaning of such words. With liberals you must dot every I and cross every T for them to grasp half of what you say.

(Yes, this is a lame attempt to bump this thread. I find it an interesting discussion, even if I have little more to add)

It's pretty reasonable for someone to expect you to cross every T. They'd look like Ls or capital Is if you didn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

Key word: airport. Those are publicly owned. Based on the arguments in this thread, that means you can carry a gun there.

Actually in Georgia it isn't a problem. Gov Purdue signed legislation allowing it. This of course has caused hundreds of airport shootings by frustrated passengers. Oh wait.....

 

[Polk]

As airlines are privately owned they can tell you to not have a gun on their private airline if they want to.

Key word: airport. Those are publicly owned. Based on the arguments in this thread, that means you can carry a gun there.

Actually in Georgia it isn't a problem. Gov Purdue signed legislation allowing it. This of course has caused hundreds of airport shootings by frustrated passengers. Oh wait.....

Try that line on your next trip through security.

 

[editec]

Some of us won't be happy until every American goes everywhere packing a gun.

Some of us won't be happy until no American goes anywhere packing a gun.

Frankly both groups are freaking nuts as far as I can tell.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some of us won't be happy until every American goes everywhere packing a gun.

Some of us won't be happy until no American goes anywhere packing a gun.

Frankly both groups are freaking nuts as far as I can tell.

I feel safe when I know people are armed not disarmed

 

[The Rabbi]

Key word: airport. Those are publicly owned. Based on the arguments in this thread, that means you can carry a gun there.

Actually in Georgia it isn't a problem. Gov Purdue signed legislation allowing it. This of course has caused hundreds of airport shootings by frustrated passengers. Oh wait.....

Try that line on your next trip through security.

Moving the goal posts because you're losing the argument?
At one time there was no mechanism for a private citizen to carry a handgun in most states. Now every state but one (IL) has some kind of scheme. and crime has gone down.

What was your point again?

 

[editec]

Some of us won't be happy until every American goes everywhere packing a gun.

Some of us won't be happy until no American goes anywhere packing a gun.

Frankly both groups are freaking nuts as far as I can tell.

I feel safe when I know people are armed not disarmed

Everybody?

Or just the people that you personally approve of?

How safe would you feel living next to a predominately minority high school if all the kids carried to school every day?

Would you feel safer under those circumstances, BR?