The 2nd Amendment Was The Founding Fathers' 'Carry Permit' Right ('Constitutional Carry') Established For American Citizens

[Rigby5]

As far as concealed carry permits being lawful or rather constitutional you're arguing semantics because once SCOTUS makes a ruling then we're stuck with that ruling for the most part - it doesn't mean it was correct.

I’m not ‘arguing’ anything, ‘semantics’ or otherwise.

I’ve simply pointed out the fact that laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon are perfectly Constitutional.

I’ve also simply pointed out the fact that the OP is wrong, concealed carry permits do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right and that the notion of ‘constitutional carry’ is political theater and rightwing nonsense – requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is likewise ‘constitutional carry.’

You stated you agree with the OP’s premise, rendering you as wrong as the OP.

Your disagreement is with the Supreme Court, not me – that’s just a kill the messenger fallacy.

The 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government, so leaves things like concealed carry state or municipal legislation unanswered.
But the SCOTUS has often been wrong, such as the Dred Scott Decision, Prohibition, 3 strikes mandates, the War on Drugs, etc.
And obviously any and all federal firearms laws are totally and completely illegal.

The fact government is always corrupt and we have to put up with constant violations by government, such as the illegal war in Vietnam, lying about Iraqi WMD, etc., should prove to anyone that we all need to remain armed, because it is a matter of time before the government becomes so abusive it will be no longer tolerable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The word "regulated" means practiced, familiar, functioning, ready to go, etc.
It does not at all in any way mean controlled, restricted, registered, or in any way denied.
Since the need for an well functioning militia was more for state, municipal, or personal home defense, the federal government was simply denied any and all jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The federal government is strictly prohibited from registering or restricting any firearms at all, in any way.
No lists were allowed back then, so clearly none can be allowed now either.
The last thing any democracy would ever want is for there to be a list of who are enemies should target.

All of this is moot and irrelevant given the fact that ‘militia’ no longer exist and that the Court has held that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment right as a collective right argument is dead and buried.

Likewise, the baseless notion that private armed citizens gathered together constitutes a ‘militia’ entitled to certain ‘protections’ as to how they are armed is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

All armed citizens are subject to the same local, state, and Federal laws concerning the regulation and restriction of firearms; that they might subjectively perceived themselves to be a ‘militia’ doesn’t change that fact.

 

[Kondor3]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

What IS this juvenile fixation with bang-bang toys?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just because there are exceptions to the times and places you can speak freely doesn't mean that his statement is not in fact correct, which it is.

The OP’s statement is in fact wrong.

His premise was that the Second Amendment is being ‘singled-out’ in the Bill of Rights with regard to permit requirements – which is completely false.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Totally wrong.

Totally correct.

Again, take it up with the Supreme Court if you disagree.

 

[Rigby5]

The word "regulated" means practiced, familiar, functioning, ready to go, etc.
It does not at all in any way mean controlled, restricted, registered, or in any way denied.
Since the need for an well functioning militia was more for state, municipal, or personal home defense, the federal government was simply denied any and all jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The federal government is strictly prohibited from registering or restricting any firearms at all, in any way.
No lists were allowed back then, so clearly none can be allowed now either.
The last thing any democracy would ever want is for there to be a list of who are enemies should target.

All of this is moot and irrelevant given the fact that ‘militia’ no longer exist and that the Court has held that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment right as a collective right argument is dead and buried.

Likewise, the baseless notion that private armed citizens gathered together constitutes a ‘militia’ entitled to certain ‘protections’ as to how they are armed is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

All armed citizens are subject to the same local, state, and Federal laws concerning the regulation and restriction of firearms; that they might subjectively perceived themselves to be a ‘militia’ doesn’t change that fact.

Your first sentence is contradictory.
The militia has NEVER been connected with military service.
The militia refers to any armed protection of rights, such as state defense, municipal posses, or individual home defense.
The militia does still exist and always has to.

The second amendment is not not a right but a restriction on the federal government.
So it was and still is a protection of both collective and individual rights.

The 2nd amendment is a strict prohibition on any and all federal weapons legislation.
But I agree there is nothing preventing reasonable state or local weapons legislation, as long as they do not prevent anyone from their inherent individual right to have armed home defense.
That is sacrosanct and above any state of local authority.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now, it's up for debate who should limit what, from whom, and when; we can have that debate all day, but the idea that the 2A makes gun ownership untouchable by regulation and invincible to limitation doesn't hold up.

Correct – as originally intended by the Framers, who recognized the fact that no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right.

 

[Lastamender]

Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.

The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.

As long as we have Democratic shitholes spreading crime to the suburbs we will need the 2nd amendment. An unarmed people will lose every freedom they have.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

What IS this juvenile fixation with bang-bang toys?

Anyone who values or understands a democratic republic, knows that also requires the population to be armed in order to maintain the democratic republic.
Without an armed population, no democratic republic is stable or will last long.

 

[Rigby5]

Now, it's up for debate who should limit what, from whom, and when; we can have that debate all day, but the idea that the 2A makes gun ownership untouchable by regulation and invincible to limitation doesn't hold up.

Correct – as originally intended by the Framers, who recognized the fact that no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right.

No right is absolute or unlimited, but the 2nd amendment is not a right but a restriction on federal jurisdiction, and that is absolute and unlimited.
Any federal weapons legislation is clearly and totally illegal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The Second Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions as well (see, McDonald v. Chicago (2010)).

If the Second Amendment hadn’t been incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be hearing the case from New York concerning may-issue concealed weapon licensing policy.

 

[Rigby5]

Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.

The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.

As long as we have Democratic shitholes spreading crime to the suburbs we will need the 2nd amendment. An unarmed people will lose every freedom they have.

I am a far left democrat, but I agree that we need to always have an armed majority, or else we will lose all rights eventually, whether from invasion, crime, or right wing police state takeover.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

So they wanted to make sure citizens were protected from future such governments. EXCELLENT post - 'drop mic, walk off'.

Bingo! The founding fathers knew all too well how governments and their corrupt stooges oppress the people hence the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. These morons on the left are dumb as a post wishing for big government, been there done that 200+ years ago.

The only morons are on the right – ignoramuses who reject settled, accepted Second Amendment case law.

As for big, oppressive government, that’s the sole purview of the right; indeed, it’s liberals who have used the Bill of Rights to defend the rights and protected liberties of citizens from attack by conservatives.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The Second Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions as well (see, McDonald v. Chicago (2010)).

If the Second Amendment hadn’t been incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be hearing the case from New York concerning may-issue concealed weapon licensing policy.

Wrong.
The SCOTUS cases like McDonald vs Chicago do NOT apply the 2nd amendment weapons legislation restrictions to other levels of government.
They use the "Penumbra Principle" to try to figure out what individual rights may be, so that they can enforce the 14th amendment.
The principle is that if the federal government is to be restricted from infringing, then likely so should state and local legislation.
That is NOT applying the 2nd amendment, but only using the 2nd amendment as the shadow, to help discover what is casting the shadow.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute prohibition on any federal weapons legislation.
The SCOTUS cases like McDonald vs Chicago do not imply an absolute prohibition on state or municipal weapons legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

So they wanted to make sure citizens were protected from future such governments. EXCELLENT post - 'drop mic, walk off'.

Bingo! The founding fathers knew all too well how governments and their corrupt stooges oppress the people hence the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. These morons on the left are dumb as a post wishing for big government, been there done that 200+ years ago.

The only morons are on the right – ignoramuses who reject settled, accepted Second Amendment case law.

As for big, oppressive government, that’s the sole purview of the right; indeed, it’s liberals who have used the Bill of Rights to defend the rights and protected liberties of citizens from attack by conservatives.

In fact, gun control originated from the right, and that is why most gun control laws should be struck down.
For example, there is no legal basis for felons who served their sentence, to be prevented from having home defense weapons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The Second Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions as well (see, McDonald v. Chicago (2010)).

If the Second Amendment hadn’t been incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be hearing the case from New York concerning may-issue concealed weapon licensing policy.

Wrong.
The SCOTUS cases like McDonald vs Chicago do NOT apply the 2nd amendment weapons legislation restrictions to other levels of government.
They use the "Penumbra Principle" to try to figure out what individual rights may be, so that they can enforce the 14th amendment.
The principle is that if the federal government is to be restricted from infringing, then likely so should state and local legislation.
That is NOT applying the 2nd amendment, but only using the 2nd amendment as the shadow, to help discover what is casting the shadow.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute prohibition on any federal weapons legislation.
The SCOTUS cases like McDonald vs Chicago do not imply an absolute prohibition on state or municipal weapons legislation.

Your willful ignorance is pathetic.

‘McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.’

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts | Britannica

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there is no legal basis for felons who served their sentence, to be prevented from having home defense weapons.

Yes, there is:

“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…” ibid

The Supreme Court is the ultimate ‘legal basis.’

 

[2aguy]

The argument that the Second Amendment must remain absolute does not work. The authors of the Constitution accepted that society would change, and built a method of updating into the document. Regarding weaponry, the weapons of 1791 clearly are not the same as those of 1934, or those of today. I bring up 1934 because that was the year that the National Firearms Act placed automatic weapons (and others) behind the Class III license wall, in response to the proliferation of Tommy Guns on the streets. Many could classify that as an outright "infringing" of the right to bear arms that the Second Amendment prohibits, but the law was passed, defended, and updated several times. Why?

The answer is because it was required for society to operate; flying bullets present a public health risk that was not present in 1791. The government balanced the rights of citizens to own automatic weapons against ensuring that everyone has the freedom to walk down the street without getting perforated, and chose to protect the latter. Now, it has become precedent and widely accepted by most; you'll notice you don't see many automatic weapons on the street any more.

Now, it's up for debate who should limit what, from whom, and when; we can have that debate all day, but the idea that the 2A makes gun ownership untouchable by regulation and invincible to limitation doesn't hold up.

We already have all the limits we need....use a gun to commit a crime you get arrested...

Done.

That is all we need.

We have vast amounts of regulation on guns we don't need anymore.

What we don't have is the ability to keep gun criminals in jail....the democrat party keeps releasing them...if we stopped the democrat party releasing violent gun offenders, our gun crime rate in democrat party controlled cities would go down by about 95%....

Why you don't understand that is funny.....but you should really look at this more deeply...because your post shows you don't understand the issue.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It is amazing that you are all arguing about the wording and meaning of the words, and I am the only person smart enough to recognize that that means we do not agree to the Constitution. And that means the Constitution is erroneous and needs to be reordered.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nothing in the Second Amendment forbids Federal, State or Local governments from
forming, arming and regulating a militia

No one is arguing otherwise – but that’s not the issue.

Let’s use a specific example to illustrate the issue.

We have six private individuals in New York State who have declared themselves a ‘militia.’

As a consequence, they argue, they should be allowed to arm with AR 15s equipped with 30-round detachable magazines, which are illegal in New York.

Because they are a ‘militia,’ they shouldn’t be subject to the state’s law prohibiting high-capacity magazines.

That reading concerning the Second Amendment, the ‘militia,’ and such a declaration is as ignorant as it is wrong.