House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Polk]

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

not true, hence the word IF regarding exactly what i said.

It is true. You didn't put any qualification on your claim, except to restate your reading of the Second Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

Pretty much

 

[Polk]

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

 

[Contumacious]

Where is the right to permit in the Constitution?

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

The right to life is A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

oh the old nuclear weapons argument.
In U.S. vs. Miller your concern has been taken care of

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."

Can a person afford to buy a nuke and be able to carry it?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So all gun regulations are wrong and just anyone should be able to own/carry where they want, etc all firearms?

In my opinion, yes, with the exception of private property.

so no suspension of constitutional rights for prisoners.

I'm not sure how that ties into the Second Amendment.

Have voting booths in prison and let prisoners have guns when they get out. Same with mental patients, etc?

Prisoners already get guns when they get out. I know you're not that naive. The VA Tech shooter was mentally disturbed and he brought a gun onto campus despite the gun free policy.

That Glock might weight down little timmys backpack at grade school too.

The Constitution does not apply equally to children as to adults.

Constitutional Topic: Student Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No limits is no limits, no picking and choosing.

Correct. If you want limits then amend the Constitution.

 

[Yurt]

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

not true, hence the word IF regarding exactly what i said.

It is true. You didn't put any qualification on your claim, except to restate your reading of the Second Amendment.

it is not true. you're putting words in my mouth and not understanding what i am actually saying. you also don't understand the issue.

 

[Yurt]

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

Pretty much

so the first amendment is absolute? no restrictions?

 

[DontBeStupid]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

Regardless, as has been mentioned, this is DOA in the Senate.

Thats why it's called concealed it's not concealed if you can see it

That's different from what I'm talking about and you know it. You can carry it concealed but that's not the same as the state not even knowing about it. Many states issue permits or licenses for concealed carry. Those states allow it but want to know who is doing it. This law would take that away.

But really, why don't you all just cut to the chase on this. This is about challenging gun laws nationwide, even if you don't live in that state. If this law passes, someone in Texas could go to NYC and challenge the New York laws on guns. That's what this is about.

 

[Ernie S.]

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

nuclear weapons are pretty well regulated. One could assume the private owner of such a weapon would intend more than the defense of his home and person. Fully equipped and armed aircraft carriers would fall into that category as well.
Prohibiting the insane and violent people from owning weapons would fall under the intended meaning of the welfare clause.
Where the slope begins to get slippery, is when government limits the use of personal combat weapons, up to and including fully automatics.
My ownership of a 20 megaton bomb presents a clear danger to the public. My ownership of a Thompson sub-machine gun does not.
The dozen guns of various types stored withing 6 feet of where I sit pose no danger to you or anyone else. I, myself, pose you no danger until you enter my home uninvited.

 

[pgm]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

That was my point. I certainly think if you have a right to own a gun in Texas, you have the right to bring that gun to New York. But I also think New York has a vested interest in knowing that you are bringing that gun to New York.

I'm not sure where the right to a concealed weapons comes in. I certainly don't see that as a constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not sure what the case law says. I can see the states retaining the right to permit and restrict concealed weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

Pretty much

so the first amendment is absolute? no restrictions?

shall not be infringed is absolute

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

That was my point. I certainly think if you have a right to own a gun in Texas, you have the right to bring that gun to New York. But I also think New York has a vested interest in knowing that you are bringing that gun to New York.

I'm not sure where the right to a concealed weapons comes in. I certainly don't see that as a constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not sure what the case law says. I can see the states retaining the right to permit and restrict concealed weapons.

Fine open carry

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself

That's the real issue I see with it. This seems like an expansion of Federal Powers. There is precedent for it: Think about how the EPA regulations over rule the State regulations. But I'm not excited about it. And I'm kinda puzzled a lot of small government types are.

 

[Contumacious]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

That was my point. I certainly think if you have a right to own a gun in Texas, you have the right to bring that gun to New York. But I also think New York has a vested interest in knowing that you are bringing that gun to New York.

I'm not sure where the right to a concealed weapons comes in. I certainly don't see that as a constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not sure what the case law says. I can see the states retaining the right to permit and restrict concealed weapons.

Americans are, supposed to be, free people.

Their rights are not granted by the Constitution; they were granted by nature's god - ie, natural rights . The rights are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

Since they have 100% of their rights they can carry their firearms in what THEY believe is the best manner.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

then states should be allowed to outlaw firearms, and free speech?

if the states hadn't already granted the feds the authority yes they could. But the states gave juridiction to the feds in those matters.

actually they did not. the US constitution and then also scotus denied the states the ability to interfere with those rights. the states did not grant the federal government those powers.

Yes the states gave the feds the authority when it ratified the Coinstitution. If the states did not grant the FEDS THE AUTHORITY THE STATES KEEP THE AUTHORITY.
GUNS FALL UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AS A RIGHT PROTECTED. MARRIAGE ISN'T ONE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Therefore it falls under states juadiction

 

[martybegan]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

Regardless, as has been mentioned, this is DOA in the Senate.

Thats why it's called concealed it's not concealed if you can see it

That's different from what I'm talking about and you know it. You can carry it concealed but that's not the same as the state not even knowing about it. Many states issue permits or licenses for concealed carry. Those states allow it but want to know who is doing it. This law would take that away.

But really, why don't you all just cut to the chase on this. This is about challenging gun laws nationwide, even if you don't live in that state. If this law passes, someone in Texas could go to NYC and challenge the New York laws on guns. That's what this is about.

Some of us in NYC would welcome that. NYC gun laws amount to a de facto ban on concealed carry, and basic harrasment for anyone who wants to own a gun at all, unless of course they are a police officer, fireman, sanitation, etc, and then the NYPD looks the other way and doesnt enforce all the petty little regulations they can use to harras a person into giving up on getting even a home permit/liscence.

in NYC the burden is on YOU to prove you need a gun. The burden should be on the STATE to prove that you SHOULDN'T have one.

 

[JWBooth]

I love the good intentions inherent in the bill, but am loathe for the federal government to be dictating to the states. Better to be striking down federal laws that inhibit ownership, restrict state action, and stand in the way of liberties and freedom.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love the good intentions inherent in the bill, but am loathe for the federal government to be dictating to the states. Better to be striking down federal laws that inhibit ownership, restrict state action, and stand in the way of liberties and freedom.

What happens when the state restrictes your personal liberty's?

 

[Skull Pilot]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

No state is allowed to supersede the rights of speech or religion. Why should a state be allowed to interfere with the right to bear arms?