Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

There is no such “right”. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. This right belongs to us, and not to the government. The Second Amendment explicitly forbids government from infringing this right. Period.

When any part of government, state or federal, acts against this right, it is acting illegally, in violation of the Constitutiopn.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The right to regulate gun ownership within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, as determined by the Court, is a state's right.

Libs don't give a shit about state rights. You guys fool no one. Gay marriage and abortion got rammed down everyone's throats and there's nothing in the Constitution about them. The 2nd is in the Constitution so the inconsistency is all on you. If some state won't allow ccw permits then they are violating the 2nd, period.

The very concept of a CCW permit is unconstitutional. By definition of a right, one does not need government's permission to exercise it. We all have the right, under the Second Amendment, to own arms, and to carry them, openly or concealed. It is illegal for any part of government to interfere with this right, or to demand that we obtain any kind of permit in order to exercise it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not familiar with the 14th that protects the 2nd everywhere, are you?

Actually the 2nd forbade all governments in the U.S. from infringing the RKBA, even before the 14th came along.

But the 14th didn't hurt it any.

Actually it didn't. The bill of rights didn't apply to the States until the 14th

The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” Clearly, it was originally intended to constrain only the federal government.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments pertain to routine law-enforcement, which has always been primarily a more localized responsibility. It seems absurd to suggest that state or lower law-enforcement were ever intended to be allowed, for example, to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, to deprive people of life, liberty and property without due process of law, or to violate any of the other protections found in those Amendments. The wording of these Amendments is to suggest that certain abuses are not to be allowed; and not just to say that only the federal government is forbidden from committing them.

The wording of the Second Amendment is unique. It states a purpose, identifies one specific right, identifies to whom this right belongs, and forbids this right from being infringed. It doesn't say that only the federal government shall not infringe this right. It says this right shall not be infringed. This does not rationally allow for states to infringe this right, for counties, towns, cities, or any level of government, to infringe this right. It forbids them all from doing so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Political decisions by the Supremes are binding but that doesn't make it right. It should clue one in that they often split on ideological lines. Conservative justices tend to read the words as they are. Liberals interpret what they want into them, ala the "living breathing document".

I disagree that court rulings are legitimately as “binding” as they are treated to be.

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation. Not any court's interpretation of the Constitution, but that actual words, written in black-and-white on the document.

When a court offers up an “interpretation” of some part of the Constitution, that clearly contradicts the actual, literal words of the Constitution, then that ruling is wrong, that court is wrong, and it ought not be held binding at all.

 

[kaz]

Not familiar with the 14th that protects the 2nd everywhere, are you?

Actually the 2nd forbade all governments in the U.S. from infringing the RKBA, even before the 14th came along.

But the 14th didn't hurt it any.

Actually it didn't. The bill of rights didn't apply to the States until the 14th

The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” Clearly, it was originally intended to constrain only the federal government.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments pertain to routine law-enforcement, which has always been primarily a more localized responsibility. It seems absurd to suggest that state or lower law-enforcement were ever intended to be allowed, for example, to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, to deprive people of life, liberty and property without due process of law, or to violate any of the other protections found in those Amendments. The wording of these Amendments is to suggest that certain abuses are not to be allowed; and not just to say that only the federal government is forbidden from committing them.

The wording of the Second Amendment is unique. It states a purpose, identifies one specific right, identifies to whom this right belongs, and forbids this right from being infringed. It doesn't say that only the federal government shall not infringe this right. It says this right shall not be infringed. This does not rationally allow for states to infringe this right, for counties, towns, cities, or any level of government, to infringe this right. It forbids them all from doing so.

And?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But that isn't what we are talking about. A right is being suppressed in various states for no reason except fear and prejudice from the elites. My ccw hurts no one.

It hurts you in that you have degraded yourself to crawling to government for permission to exercise a right that rightfully belongs to you; and it hurts other in that by doing so, you have helped to give this abuse on the part of government an ersatz veneer of legitimacy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure to make the left's heads spin and explode...and will play well with the millions of gun owners...who vote

Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights including making those permits applicable nationwide.

In a position paper published on his website, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “failure.”

It’s not a departure from what he’s said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.
“If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump touted.

Trump has apparently had a handgun permit for years; a 1987 Associated Press story said he had one at the time.

The real estate magnate called for expanding mental health treatment, saying that people with mental health issues who are violent must be off the street “before they can terrorize our communities.” Trump said the issue has been ignored.
“All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored,” Trump said. “And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen.”

That deafening roar is the sound of the owners of 300 million American firearms owners cheering. And by the way…they vote.

Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

As a person on the left, it would make sense to have a carry and conceal permit that is nationwide. States can choose to accept it or not, it doesn't change much at all.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Absolutely not. Dislike many state gun laws as I may, every state has the right to decide this on their own. Bullshit Cinos like you probably can't get that through your head. But states rights means states rights, even when that state makes laws you don't like.

Does the state have a right to tell you what church you may attend, what beliefs you may voice, or what opinions you may publish? Does the state have the authority to search your home without a warrant, and without probably cause?

 

[Camp]

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

 

[Rustic]

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

What are you scared of??
There could never be any harm done with concealed carry… Cowardly ****. Lol

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We see it in Chicago today....oddly, while the RW gets what they want in regard to guns in Chicago...they keep complaining about the violence. Go figure....

In Chicago, the bad guys have guns, and the good guys, for the most part, do not. Those of us on the right do not want that; we want good guys to be at least as well-armed as the bad guys; and prepared and able to defend themselves, their homes, and they families, against the bad guys.

It is those of you on the wrong—those of you who are on the side of criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens—who want law-abiding citizens to be unarmed, and vulnerable to the criminals whose side you take. And that is what you have in Chicago.

 

[Camp]

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

What are you scared of??
There could never be any harm done with concealed carry… Cowardly ****. Lol

Insult responses don't mean anything to me. You are an ignorant person without the intelligence to communicate without relying on the kind of crude method you use to hide your inadequacies. You are pretty much a nobody who probably never had any significant achievements in life.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're not really trying to use the Constitution to explain your rights to liberals, are you? You do realize they have no idea what that document says, don't you?

It's not so much a matter, I think, of not knowing what it says, but of some mental defect that is a broader part of wrong-wing ideology. Think of the words of the Constitution, being understood by the same sort of defective mind that thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

 

[Rustic]

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

What are you scared of??
There could never be any harm done with concealed carry… Cowardly ****. Lol

Insult responses don't mean anything to me. You are an ignorant person without the intelligence to communicate without relying on the kind of crude method you use to hide your inadequacies. You are pretty much a nobody who probably never had any significant achievements in life.

Concealed carry is harmless... There should be no permit needed for such a thing, scared and insecure **** nuts like yourself Want to put all these frivolous laws in place. Lol

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…clearly you've never heard of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes it as the highest law in the land. It trumps any and all state laws, local laws, etc. Therefore, states do not get to decide for themselves whether or not people can conceal carry.

This is as dumb as saying that each state gets to decide for itself whether or not you have the right to free speech or the right to religion.

Actually, I think that originally, they were intended to have that power. Hence, the First Amendment starting with “Congress shall make no law…”.

I think the founders envisioned a nation in which communities, up to the state-level, might be formed along religious lines. If you were Catholic, you might choose to live in a community of like-minded Catholics, and that community could have laws that favored Catholic practices and values. Another community might similarly be organized for and by Quakers, and another for Anglicans, and another for baptists, and so forth.

What they didn't want was for the federal government to impose an official religion, that prevented those of other faiths from living in communities where they were free to practice their own religions.


Society ended up forming differently than they envisioned, with very few religiously-homogeneous communities. Though it's not what was originally intended, I think the different way that society evolved makes it the right thing for the Fourteenth Amendment to have incorporated the First Amendment to the sate and local levels.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

of course there is, and please show us in the bill of rights what says all states must allow concealed carry?

That would be the Second Amendment. Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find any authority for the state to infringe the people's right that is so referenced?

 

[Dr Grump]

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation. Not any court's interpretation of the Constitution, but that actual words, written in black-and-white on the document.

Er, you know that one of the reasons your FF set up a supreme court was for that exact reason - to interpret the Constitution when there were conflicts with regard to intent. As for CCW, not mentioned in the 2nd in any way, shape or form.

 

[Camp]

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment disagrees with you.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters. When did they rule that CC was constitutional? What happens if you get caught with a concealed weapon and don't have a permit?

What are you scared of??
There could never be any harm done with concealed carry… Cowardly ****. Lol

Insult responses don't mean anything to me. You are an ignorant person without the intelligence to communicate without relying on the kind of crude method you use to hide your inadequacies. You are pretty much a nobody who probably never had any significant achievements in life.

Concealed carry is harmless... There should be no permit needed for such a thing, scared and insecure **** nuts like yourself what to put all these frivolous laws in place. Lol

You are offering a personal opinion and declaring anyone who disagrees and has a different opinion is scared and insecure. That makes you a qualified asshole dude. Freedom is all about people being allowed to have differing opinions. I have no problem with CC or even open carry. I just happen to think that if you want to carry a hidden weapon, a concealed weapon, the community has a right to check you out and issue a permit after you show you are worthy of the privilege. You see, I started out in this discussion asking about the SCOTUS viewpoint and what makes people think CC is a constitutional right. What I got back was some ignorant insult posting and deflection from contesting my viewpoint that CC was not a constitutional issue.
CC is not a constitutional right. Prove otherwise.

 

[Dr Grump]

That would be the Second Amendment. Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find any authority for the state to infringe the people's right that is so referenced?

To form a militia...nothing about CCW in there.