When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yes you are correct that all states allow for concealed carry but most (and not all states) do require a permit and certain buildings and locations are designated as strictly forbidden to carry a concealed weapon. If they require a permit it does mean that they can deny that permit with regard for concealed carry.

And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.

Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The practical rule though is this, as a regular normal guy I couldn't even obtain an application for a CCW when I lived in the Bay Area.

Sean Penn, and every other rich person who wanted one, on the other hand, had no problem getting one.

So no, you ignore how the elite prevent regular folks from getting permits.

“Illinois adopted a law on Tuesday allowing residents to carry concealed guns, becoming the last state in the nation to permit some form of possession of guns in public.”

Illinois is last state to allow concealed carry of guns

Illinois adopted a law on Tuesday allowing residents to carry concealed guns, becoming the last state in the nation to permit some form of possession of guns in public.

www.reuters.com

Last state in the nation – meaning as of 2013 all 50 states in the nation allow for concealed carry.

 

[BULLDOG]

And?

You are so clueless.

That the Federalists 'lost' the debate over adding a bill of rights doesn't mean their arguments were wrong.

Their warnings, their fears, their predictions of the dangers to liberty from people designing to usurp, (like you), misconstructing the words of the provisions and inventing powers where none were ever conferred, have all been proven correct.

How does it feel to be the embodiment, the awful culmination, the horrible fulfillment of the Federalist's warnings?

.

You are the one who is saying the constitution is wrong. As I said --- typical trumpster.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

not according to the 9-10th amendments,,

anything else is a usurpation of the constitution,,

Wrong.

It’s the 14th Amendment, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine – applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

In 2010 the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions (see McDonald v. Chicago).

 

[BULLDOG]

how am I a sovereign people when I am defending the constitution as written??

youre the radical thats changing the clear meaning of it to make a flawed point,, thats why you ran away because you couldnt argue with facts,,

You're the one that said you don't accept the authority of the state or federal governments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

how am I a sovereign people when I am defending the constitution as written??

youre the radical thats changing the clear meaning of it to make a flawed point,, thats why you ran away because you couldnt argue with facts,,

You’re the one devoid of facts.

And the fact is that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What you’re defending is willful ignorance – a childish temper-tantrum because you don’t like how the Constitution is interpreted by the courts; so you take your Constitutional ball and run home.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're the one that said you don't accept the authority of the state or federal governments.

...or the Supreme Court, for that matter.

 

[westwall]

And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.

Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.

Incorrect. I lived in Contra Costa County at the time and went to Martinez to talk to the deputy in charge of the permit process. He wouldn't even give me an application to fill out.
I wasn't rich enough, or connected enough, to warrant one. There's a difference between what the legislation says, and how it is actually enforced.

 

[Abatis]

You are the one who is saying the constitution is wrong. As I said --- typical trumpster.

And you are a typical leftist, incapable of understanding the argument so you twist and pervert it into something that your small mind can understand and then you call it names.

IOW, you operate on nothing but logical fallacies.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you are a typical leftist, incapable of understanding the argument so you twist and pervert it into something that your small mind can understand and then you call it names.

IOW, you operate on nothing but logical fallacies.

I'll bet a dollar that you had to look up how to spell "logical fallacies".

 

[M14 Shooter]

And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.

^^^^
This is a lie.
A person otherwise legally able to own a gun can be denied a permit to carry a gun - someting you agree he has a right to do - because he does not demonstrate some unspecified and subjective "good reason" for one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Last state in the nation – meaning as of 2013 all 50 states in the nation allow for concealed carry.

Now, tell us the rest of the story.
Or, perpetuate your lie of omission
Your choice.

 

[Kilroy2]

And if one is denied a permit to carry it’s because he’s a prohibited person – such as a convicted felon, undocumented immigrant, or someone adjudicated mentally ill.

Of course, prohibited persons aren’t allowed to possess a firearm at all, rendering a carry permit moot.

Also it is still prohibited in certain buildings even if you have a permit to carry.

 

[Kilroy2]

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read Heller/McDonald.

Except in its earliest ruling on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms. According to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states’ right to maintain a militia, not an individual’s right to possess firearms.

United States v. Cruikshank (1875)​

The Supreme Court overruled the convictions of Cruikshank and other White League members, arguing that the First and Second Amendments apply only to the federal government, not state or local governments nor individual citizens.

Presser v. Illinois (1886)​

the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)​

yeah you guys finally win won and the current argument is now in the books. So within the last 15 years they changed there position from what was held for over 100 years.

Still assault rifles and weapons are still off the table and no 2nd amendment rights with these types of weapons. The issues are still state decided with these types of weapons.

okay it just goes back to my original argument that the state decides and the 2nd amendment is vague as the court has flip flop on it from the beginning to the current time frame.

 

[Kilroy2]

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read Heller/McDonald.

Yet that was in 2008 and 2010 when the court changed it position. Yet if the court can change a previous ruling then it begs the question that the amendment is vague and people will have different opinions based on what? How they interpret it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.

It’s the 14th Amendment, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine – applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

In 2010 the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions (see McDonald v. Chicago).

not according to the text and original intent of the constitution,,

so your premise is a lie,,

any court decision is treason and those involved should be tried and killed,,

 

[progressive hunter]

You're the one that said you don't accept the authority of the state or federal governments.

in accordance with the text of the constitution on the 2nd A where it clearly put that right and authority in the hands of the people,,

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, too bad for you but the dingbat NY AG conceded that a right to bear arms does exist outside the home, but inexplicably, only OUTSIDE NY CITY.

I thought this case was going to be a disaster for the pro-gun rights side but AG Letitia James gave it new life.

If you're feeling froggy, there's a thread on this case over in the 2nd Amendment subforum, I've posted my take on it quite a lot (in a thread that's only 10 posts).

Well, if it's only outside the home OUTSIDE of NY city, it's not a right at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's a long post and you do quote and cite your sources but your primary and ultimately fatal flaw, (especially when you are discussing state provisions), is the mindset that the right to arms flows / emanates from those words and that the only way to discern what the right "is" is to "interpret" the words chosen to secure the right.

Especially for the state constitutions, the very structure of those constitutions prohibit any thought that the provision recognizing and securing the right to arms, is granting or creating or establishing the right, thus the right depends on a particular "interpretation" of those words.

The simple fact that state constitutions call out the rights of the citizens first, before a single power is conferred to government should inform you of the hierarchy of rights > powers. That many states formally call-out those rights declared in Article I as excepted out of the powers granted in subsequent Articles and those rights shall forever remain inviolate, should inform you of the original, fundamental nature of rights and the subordinate, derivitive nature of government powers.

That so many of you goofballs then invent "interpretations" for the federal 2nd Amendment that essentially mean the states ratified an amendment that surrendered to the feds all discretion and power to declare who are the state's federally approved and protected arms bearers . . . it just to stupid and legally incoherent to even contemplate.

.

Well, for me this is an intellectual activity. All I can work with is what is there, and I try not to ignore anything, and come to a logical conclusion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear (carry) a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as Cruikshank and Presser recognized and Heller has said) and the 2ndA is now incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and any state or city's arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be invalidated.

I do predict the power to set the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.

Cruikshank and Presser said there's a right to carry a gun for self defense in public?

I don't think so.