People Can Now Carry Guns Without A License In Half Of America's States

[M14 Shooter]

Ridiculous. Try apples to apples sometime. The courts already ruled that the 2nd can come with oversight and exceptions. Argue that with them.

Ok, but...
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement?

 

[Blues Man]

Ok, but...
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement?

They won't because it is unconstitutional.

No one can legally be forced to pay a fee in order to exercise a right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok, but...
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement?

Until recently our state has had a CCW program for over ten years. If somebody wants to take it to court, I say let them. As the OP points out, half of the states still have them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They won't because it is unconstitutional.

No one can legally be forced to pay a fee in order to exercise a right.

That applies to the permit and license process as a whole - which will also eventually be overturned.
The test laid out in Bruen is exceptionally strong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until recently our state has had a CCW program for over ten years. If somebody wants to take it to court, I say let them. As the OP points out, half of the states still have them.

You didn't address the question.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is completely valid.

A right is a right and there is no right that is more important than another.

The Supreme Court also ruled that requiring payment to exercise rights is unconstitutional.

Great, then let's take away all restrictions. Let the mentally impaired own guns. Let felons own guns. If it's constitutional rights you're so worried about, then let's go all the way. No restrictions of any kind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Great, then let's take away all restrictions. Let the mentally impaired own guns. Let felons own guns. If it's constitutional rights you're so worried about, then let's go all the way. No restrictions of any kind.

Restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are constitutionally permissible, within a extremely small window.
Continuing the analogy, the requirement to train and test before you can get a license to exercise that right is, constitutionally, out in the back 40 somehwere.

 

[Blues Man]

Great, then let's take away all restrictions. Let the mentally impaired own guns. Let felons own guns. If it's constitutional rights you're so worried about, then let's go all the way. No restrictions of any kind.

If a person has served his time then I have no problem with that. I used to think it was OK to deny rights to felons but I have changed my mind because I came to the realization that holding such contradictory views was a result of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy on my part.

And if a person is not committed to a mental institution and has been deemed not to be a danger to himself or society I have no problem with that either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You didn't address the question.

Sure I did. Take it to court and see how they rule. I'm not a mind reader. So far nobody has taken it to court. The last ruling on CCW's was that all states must have them, but they never addressed laws that protect the shooter, the ease or difficulty of obtaining a CCW, the costs or fees associated with it, and of course, if CCW's were constitutional in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If a person has served his time then I have no problem with that. I used to think it was OK to deny rights to felons but I have changed my mind because I came to the realization that holding such contradictory views was a result of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy on my part.

And if a person is not committed to a mental institution and has been deemed not to be a danger to himself or society I have no problem with that either.

Okay, but you do not have a problem if a person diagnosed as one with violent tendencies is restricted from that right. That only supports my point that rights can legally come with exceptions which is all I'm saying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure I did. Take it to court and see how they rule.

You said:
The courts already ruled that the 2nd can come with oversight and exceptions.
I asked:
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement?
That is:
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement as part of those oversights and exceptions?

"Take it to court" does not explain your rationale.

 

[Blues Man]

Okay, but you do not have a problem if a person diagnosed as one with violent tendencies is restricted from that right. That only supports my point that rights can legally come with exceptions which is all I'm saying.

If he is committed to an institution by legal process no.

If he's not so dangerous as to not be committed then he still has rights.

This is the risk inherent with liberty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are constitutionally permissible, within a extremely small window.
Continuing the analogy, the requirement to train and test before you can get a license to exercise that right is, constitutionally, out in the back 40 somehwere.

But it can't be ignored that it is still there. CCW programs have been slowly adopted state by state since the 90s and it's never been a constitutional issue to my knowledge. The right to bear arms does not mean everywhere. I can't go to my police station armed, nor can I go into my hospital armed, nor a court, nor inside any business that has a sign legally positioned on their door or window of an entrance to their building. There are all kinds of legal restrictions to the 2nd.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If he is committed to an institution by legal process no.

If he's not so dangerous as to not be committed then he still has rights.

This is the risk inherent with liberty.

So if a battered woman is in fear of her life from her boyfriend (husband) the court cannot rule he be restricted to purchasing a firearm? What about somebody that made threats to a local or federal official? Should we allow mentally retarded people with an IQ of a ten year old to be allowed to purchase and carry firearms if they are not institutionalized?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said:
The courts already ruled that the 2nd can come with oversight and exceptions.
I asked:
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement?
That is:
Why do you think the courts, under current jurisprudence, will uphold a training and testing requirement as part of those oversights and exceptions?

"Take it to court" does not explain your rationale.

No, I just said I have no idea if they would uphold it or not because it's never been brought before them. They probably would, but then again, they may not. I simply don't know.

 

[2aguy]

Ridiculous. Try apples to apples sometime. The courts already ruled that the 2nd can come with oversight and exceptions. Argue that with them.

Yeah.....they involved felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and some sensitive places.......they didn't say they could require poll taxes and literacy test equivalents on the Right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But it can't be ignored that it is still there. CCW programs have been slowly adopted state by state since the 90s and it's never been a constitutional issue to my knowledge.

Things have changed since then, however, in that the court has ruled the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise. This places the requirement for a license to carry a gun in as much jeapordy as a requiremt for a license to own a gun.
You do agree that the requirement to obtain a license just to own a gun violates the constitition -right?

The right to bear arms does not mean everywhere. I can't go to my police station armed, nor can I go into my hospital armed, nor a court, nor inside any business that has a sign legally positioned on their door or window of an entrance to their building. There are all kinds of legal restrictions to the 2nd.

That's all well and good, but none of this necessitates that a requirement for a license, must less a requirement foe training, is constitutionality permissible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I just said I have no idea if they would uphold it or not because it's never been brought before them. They probably would,...

Why do you think they "probabkly would" uphold a training requirement?

 

[2aguy]

So if a battered woman is in fear of her life from her boyfriend (husband) the court cannot rule he be restricted to purchasing a firearm? What about somebody that made threats to a local or federal official? Should we allow mentally retarded people with an IQ of a ten year old to be allowed to purchase and carry firearms if they are not institutionalized?

No....but according to you, that woman would not be able to carry a gun unless she went through mandatory training....here in Illinois that would be 16 hours.......instead of maybe simply having her dad, brother or a friend show her how to use the gun...so she would be barred from carrying that gun to defend herself from the deranged ex until she passed the 16 hours of training, paid the several hundred dollar fees for the permit?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So if a battered woman is in fear of her life from her boyfriend (husband) the court cannot rule he be restricted to purchasing a firearm? What about somebody that made threats to a local or federal official?

These people are threats, regardless if they have a gun or not.
If these threats warrant the suspension or removal of their right to keep and bear arms, then the only logical course of action is to place these people in custody.