Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[cartmanfan15]

Wow. Us Americans and our love for guns.....
While I do know that many people feel any infringement on their right to bear arms is unacceptable, I do believe it is necessary. There are arguments that only law-abiding citizens follow the restrictions required to carry guns, buy/sell, or any other laws regarding guns. Yet, some regulation is necessary in order to satisfy Americans who don't think guns should be allowed at all.

One aspect many people dont think about is that while many people believe that background checks are necessary, they don't think about the time and effort it imposes on business owners. While it is becoming cheaper to do background checks, business owners should be allowed to charge something for their troubles. Might seem a little jumbled, but I do support some regulation of firearms in order to ensure a certain degree of safety but mostly to appease those are pro gun-regulation.

 

[Joe Williams]

Wow. Us Americans and our love for guns.....
While I do know that many people feel any infringement on their right to bear arms is unacceptable, I do believe it is necessary. There are arguments that only law-abiding citizens follow the restrictions required to carry guns, buy/sell, or any other laws regarding guns. Yet, some regulation is necessary in order to satisfy Americans who don't think guns should be allowed at all.

One aspect many people dont think about is that while many people believe that background checks are necessary, they don't think about the time and effort it imposes on business owners. While it is becoming cheaper to do background checks, business owners should be allowed to charge something for their troubles. Might seem a little jumbled, but I do support some regulation of firearms in order to ensure a certain degree of safety but mostly to appease those are pro gun-regulation.

I really don't think leftists should be allowed to express their political opinion, or run for office. What regulations and licensing are you willing to support to appease me and those who agree with me?

 

[mrjarrell]

Wow. Us Americans and our love for guns.....
While I do know that many people feel any infringement on their right to bear arms is unacceptable, I do believe it is necessary. There are arguments that only law-abiding citizens follow the restrictions required to carry guns, buy/sell, or any other laws regarding guns. Yet, some regulation is necessary in order to satisfy Americans who don't think guns should be allowed at all.

One aspect many people dont think about is that while many people believe that background checks are necessary, they don't think about the time and effort it imposes on business owners. While it is becoming cheaper to do background checks, business owners should be allowed to charge something for their troubles. Might seem a little jumbled, but I do support some regulation of firearms in order to ensure a certain degree of safety but mostly to appease those are pro gun-regulation.

And it's well meaning folk with opinions such as yours who've landed us "common sense gun laws", gun bans and a degradation of the 2nd Amendment that would make the Founders vomit. No thanks. I'm tired of compromising to the irrationality and fear of people who don't like arms. And those who support them and their ideals.

 

[finity]

I really don't think leftists should be allowed to express their political opinion, or run for office. What regulations and licensing are you willing to support to appease me and those who agree with me?

It's good to see that YOU don't feel the Constitution is valid anymore either. Oh wait. I see. It's only valid for the opinions of the people you agree with. I think you are no better than those "leftists" you seem to think should have their Constitutional rights abridged.

The word for the day must be 'hypocrisy'.

You really seem to be under this severe delusion that the 'rightists' have never done a d@m^ thing to harm this country. You are seriously wrong. I think you are forgetting that the Founders were the liberals (progressives) of their day influenced heavily by Enlightenment thought. The conservatives were the ones who wanted to keep things as they were. If you had your way then we would still be subjects of the crown.


To get back on topc:

Background checks & permits are unConstitutional. They are an infringement on peoples rights guaranteed by the Constitution to people of both political leanings.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Oh wait. I see.

Obviously, you do not see.

 

[rambone]

Most everyone here has been swept by an inexperienced shooter at the range myself included. This is why I have no problems with a LTCH or if training is required. I don't see it as a government trying to control me as I do a hurdle to help slow down the wrong people from having guns.

Wow. Us Americans and our love for guns.....
While I do know that many people feel any infringement on their right to bear arms is unacceptable, I do believe it is necessary.

With "friends" like you guys, who needs enemies?

Not only is this current mess of laws acceptable to you, but you desire more gun control. Sad.

 

[Iceandfire]

I'm not usually one to embroil myself into a donneybrook like this, but while I voted that the restrictions should apply toward handgun licensing, I am of the belief that the second amendment SHOULD be obeyed as written.
However, many wise jurists, legislators and govenors have collectively decided that, bit by bit, the amendment could be eroded. The opinion that all elected officials and judges are dead wrong sounds somehow improper. Could there be somewhere in-between that could have merit? Just a question, not a cause.

 

[MTC]

"Is it constitutional to require you to get a permit in order to exercise a fundamental right...under penalty of prison for non compliance? Is that still a fundamental right then? I know this question is yet to be answered when it comes to Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA).

Didn't take long for the ether to wear off after your move from a more restrictive state. Congratulations on your intellectual honesty, basic reading comprehension, and clear understanding of the difference between a right - a fundamental, specifically enumerated constitutional right - and a privilege, conditionally granted. It is The question that separates those who support and defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from supporters of gun control statutes who just happen to own guns.
Did a similar poll here.

"Its just one of my pet peeves when people reflexively accept politicans requiring them to get permits to exercise their fundamental rights. That's how they get away with it for so long."

Throw it out there in casual conversations with friends and acquaintances and listen to the rationalizations they shovel. Lets you know right away where their heads are.

 

[hi-pointfan1]

Licensing requirements (including concealed weapons)

(quoted text removed, title retained to show what member wanted to highlight)

Analysis: state gun regulations and McDonald : SCOTUSblog

 

[rambone]

However, many wise jurists, legislators and govenors have collectively decided that, bit by bit, the amendment could be eroded. The opinion that all elected officials and judges are dead wrong sounds somehow improper.

Either the progressive gun-grabbing statist judges and congressmen were dead wrong, or the founding fathers were dead wrong.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,
I'm going to split my background check reasoning. I think anyone should be able to keep a firearm at home, for protecting themselves, family, pets property, etc. If someone were to have an extremely violent felony on their record within the last x amount of years, would you want them to have a firearm in walmart next to you and YOUR family? Probably not. After so many years without any convictions, I think a felon should be allowed to carry again, but if they just got put of prison yesterday, would you want them to have one? There the background check comes in. If you are squeaky clean, here is your permit. if you fouled up in this time frame, sorry, you need to wait a bit and not get in trouble to gain public trust back. Felon? Over 10 years ago? No trouble? Here you go.

Do I want the guy in walmart next to me to be armed if he has a past, extremely violent felony? No, I do not. I want that person six feet under ground, feeding the worms. The guy just out of jail.... if he's been released from jail, presumably, he has "paid his debt" and depriving him of his ability to exercise his rights is, to me, unacceptable. I don't want or need government playing nanny and keeping me safe; that's my job. I do want them coming to investigate if needed and summoned.

I'm not sure of the best way to phrase this without getting my sh*t jumped, but i'll take a whirl at it. The 2nd amendment was enacted 219 years ago. Things were a bit different back then. I'm no history major, but I assume more people grew up with guns in the home as well as other devices used for hunting. Most kids would grow up learning how to use these items properly for hunting and if needed, self defense. I'm sure many of the people who post here grew up with a parent who taught them about guns and the proper use and care of them. I grew up in a republican home, but without guns. We were not hunters. When i did make the decision to get my LTCH and purchase a weapon, I sought out help and training from someone I knew. Not everyone does this. Most everyone here has been swept by an inexperienced shooter at the range myself included. This is why I have no problems with a LTCH or if training is required. I don't see it as a government trying to control me as I do a hurdle to help slow down the wrong people from having guns.

I won't "jump your feces" but I'm not going to let you sling it around unanswered, either. Like you, I grew up in a home without guns. Unlike you, it was a Democrat home. Here's where we differ, though: You see government slowing down the wrong people from getting guns... only we all know that the criminal will be armed despite any law to the contrary. Further, who decides who the wrong people are? According to the Bradys, it's anyone who doesn't wear a military or a police uniform. According to Mikey Bloomberg and Dicky Daley, it's anyone other than their protection details and themselves.
You said that, inexperienced in firearm safety and handling, you sought training on your own, voluntarily. Do you think that you're the only person who's done this? What training would you mandate for everyone and on what basis? How would you prevent someone else coming along later and incrementally increasing the requirements? The answer is in education, yes, absolutely, but the key is not to force people to sit through a training class they'll forget as soon as they walk out the door, but to make the status of being well-trained... well-regulated, to use the language of the 2A... something to be admired and held in esteem. Sure, that's harder, but nothing worthwhile is easy.

Is it unconstitutional to require someone to register to vote?

Nope. Voting is not a right, granted by our Creator, it is a privilege of citizenship.

Wow. Us Americans and our love for guns.....
While I do know that many people feel any infringement on their right to bear arms is unacceptable, I do believe it is necessary. There are arguments that only law-abiding citizens follow the restrictions required to carry guns, buy/sell, or any other laws regarding guns. Yet, some regulation is necessary in order to satisfy Americans who don't think guns should be allowed at all.

One aspect many people dont think about is that while many people believe that background checks are necessary, they don't think about the time and effort it imposes on business owners. While it is becoming cheaper to do background checks, business owners should be allowed to charge something for their troubles. Might seem a little jumbled, but I do support some regulation of firearms in order to ensure a certain degree of safety but mostly to appease those are pro gun-regulation.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human rights. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." - William Penn

Why should we worry about satisfying people who don't think guns should be allowed at all? Should we also worry about satisfying people who think that the Constitution is a "living document", meaning that its words may be twisted however we wish to suit our needs of the moment? No sir... I say that Americans would not BE Americans were it not for guns and our insistence upon our people being accustomed to and skilled in the use of arms in the late 1700s. Yes, that tradition has fallen by the wayside, but that doesn't mean we need to leave it there! Over the course of the last year, I've assisted in the instruction of somewhere between 50 and 100 people in the skilled use of arms and the history of our Founders. I am one of many, many people who have done this, many of whom have done far more than I have. It's a matter of determination and of patriotism. I will not let this country fall to her enemies without doing everything I can to prevent it.

It's good to see that YOU don't feel the Constitution is valid anymore either. Oh wait. I see. It's only valid for the opinions of the people you agree with. I think you are no better than those "leftists" you seem to think should have their Constitutional rights abridged.

The word for the day must be 'hypocrisy'.

You really seem to be under this severe delusion that the 'rightists' have never done a d@m^ thing to harm this country. You are seriously wrong. I think you are forgetting that the Founders were the liberals (progressives) of their day influenced heavily by Enlightenment thought. The conservatives were the ones who wanted to keep things as they were. If you had your way then we would still be subjects of the crown.


To get back on topc:

Background checks & permits are unConstitutional. They are an infringement on peoples rights guaranteed by the Constitution to people of both political leanings.

Finity... I think the word of the day is not hypocrisy but sarcasm. If I read him correctly, Joe was making a point to someone who agreed with restrictions, by placing hypothetical restrictions on him. I understand that being one of the few on here who identifies himself as a liberal, sometimes it can get overwhelming, but step back and re-read his post... I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm not usually one to embroil myself into a donneybrook like this, but while I voted that the restrictions should apply toward handgun licensing, I am of the belief that the second amendment SHOULD be obeyed as written.
However, many wise jurists, legislators and govenors have collectively decided that, bit by bit, the amendment could be eroded. The opinion that all elected officials and judges are dead wrong sounds somehow improper. Could there be somewhere in-between that could have merit? Just a question, not a cause.

The opinions of many people supported slavery over generations. The opinions of many supported genocides killing thousands, even millions. The opinion of elected officials and judges, who titles, robes, gavels, and power notwithstanding, are still human means nothing at all, because opinions are just like something else we all have. People in power want to remain there. Making decisions that support that goal would be human nature on their part. Yes, I do think that their opinions should be given the same weight as anyone else's.

That amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to place it beyond the power of legislators, jurists, and executives. We, the people, have allowed them to overstep their bounds over many years, rather than greet them when they do so with tar and feathers, a noose, or a cigarette and a blindfold. We're a kinder, gentler people now, which is another way of saying that we've allowed ourselves to become doormats. The right shall not be infringed. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and crossing that line, infringing it, is violating their sworn oaths. Such a person who cannot even keep a promise to God... what's his motivation to keep a promise to his constituents?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MinuteMan47]

Can you get denied the right to Vote?

Yes. If you don't have a GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID.

 

[88GT]

Bill,
I'm going to split my background check reasoning. I think anyone should be able to keep a firearm at home, for protecting themselves, family, pets property, etc. If someone were to have an extremely violent felony on their record within the last x amount of years, would you want them to have a firearm in walmart next to you and YOUR family? Probably not. After so many years without any convictions, I think a felon should be allowed to carry again, but if they just got put of prison yesterday, would you want them to have one? There the background check comes in. If you are squeaky clean, here is your permit. if you fouled up in this time frame, sorry, you need to wait a bit and not get in trouble to gain public trust back. Felon? Over 10 years ago? No trouble? Here you go.

If there's that much worry about letting 'em out, DON'T LET THEM OUT. Problem solved.

Some of us need to get over the "felon" label. Take a gander at some of the infractions that can get you characterized as a felon. I listed a dozen or so in another thread a while back and at least half of them had nothing to do with violence (and half of those were crimes only because some legislator thinks he can legislate morality and intelligence).

I'm not sure of the best way to phrase this without getting my sh*t jumped, but i'll take a whirl at it. The 2nd amendment was enacted 219 years ago. Things were a bit different back then. I'm no history major, but I assume more people grew up with guns in the home as well as other devices used for hunting. Most kids would grow up learning how to use these items properly for hunting and if needed, self defense. I'm sure many of the people who post here grew up with a parent who taught them about guns and the proper use and care of them. I grew up in a republican home, but without guns. We were not hunters. When i did make the decision to get my LTCH and purchase a weapon, I sought out help and training from someone I knew. Not everyone does this. Most everyone here has been swept by an inexperienced shooter at the range myself included. This is why I have no problems with a LTCH or if training is required. I don't see it as a government trying to control me as I do a hurdle to help slow down the wrong people from having guns.

Clearly not the history major because the 2nd was "enacted." It was limiting the powers of the federal government. It's not as if one day we didn't have the right and when they ink dried on the BoR suddenly we did. The right to self defense, and by extension the right to bear arms, is inherent in our humanity. The 2nd doesn't create that right, it only prohibits the government from limiting it (it's supposed to anyway).

Do you really support the notion that a man's right to defend himself can be limited by a piece of paper?

Obviously, you do not see.

LOL, that's what I thought too. (But isn't there just a smidge, the slightest streak, of truth in it? )

 

[88GT]

I'm not usually one to embroil myself into a donneybrook like this, but while I voted that the restrictions should apply toward handgun licensing, I am of the belief that the second amendment SHOULD be obeyed as written.
However, many wise jurists, legislators and govenors have collectively decided that, bit by bit, the amendment could be eroded. The opinion that all elected officials and judges are dead wrong sounds somehow improper. Could there be somewhere in-between that could have merit? Just a question, not a cause.

Did "separate but equal" have merit? Would you support that today because it lies "somewhere in-between?"

 

[Suprtek]

Reasonable laws prohibiting those that have proven themselves to be a danger to others from owning and carrying firearms are acceptable. However, it should be incumbent upon the government to prove the danger exists, not upon the citizen to prove it does not.

Allowing 2A rights to remain truly un-infringed does allow for the possibility of more danger from those who choose to abuse those rights. This is a risk I am willing to take. It falls into the category of "freedom is not free".

 

[IndySSD]

Reasonable laws prohibiting those that have proven themselves to be a danger to others from owning and carrying firearms are acceptable. However, it should be incumbent upon the government to prove the danger exists, not upon the citizen to prove it does not.
Allowing 2A rights to remain truly un-infringed does allow for the possibility of more danger from those who choose to abuse those rights. This is a risk I am willing to take. It falls into the category of "freedom is not free".

I must spread some rep around before hitting you again...... SOMEONE GET THIS GUY SOME REP!!!

 

[cartmanfan15]

Wow....feel like this argument could go on forever. Funny how many people are so violent and stubborn in their ways that they will never concede to any kind of concessions. Yet, it is done very day by politicians who are willing to put aside their extremist views in order to find some middle ground where everyone can get along. That is the point of society as a whole: finding some middle ground so that liberals and conservatives don't kill each other in the streets.

 

[rambone]

Wow....feel like this argument could go on forever. Funny how many people are so violent and stubborn in their ways that they will never concede to any kind of concessions. Yet, it is done very day by politicians who are willing to put aside their extremist views in order to find some middle ground where everyone can get along. That is the point of society as a whole: finding some middle ground so that liberals and conservatives don't kill each other in the streets.

When you negotiate on Liberty, you make steady progression towards tyranny.

When you dance with the Devil, the Devil doesn't change. You do.

Negotiate for a "halfway socialist" law just means you helped move your people away from freedom and towards Government control. "Getting along" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Hammerhead]

Why settle? Why should we come to some middle ground?

I won't put more than two soldiers in your home. That's a fair number.

I won't let the police search your home, just you while you're walking down the street.

These are compromises based on the third and fourth amendments. There's some middle ground for you. Don't worry, we won't infringe on these rights any more than we have.


Would you really agree to these compromises? Then why agree to any compromise or middle ground when it comes to the second? There's no room for wiggle with it. It's pretty clear. Shall Not Be Infringed. Not "meh, we'll only let you if..."

 

[Cain71]

That amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to place it beyond the power of legislators, jurists, and executives. We, the people, have allowed them to overstep their bounds over many years, rather than greet them when they do so with tar and feathers, a noose, or a cigarette and a blindfold. We're a kinder, gentler people now, which is another way of saying that we've allowed ourselves to become doormats. The right shall not be infringed. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and crossing that line, infringing it, is violating their sworn oaths. Such a person who cannot even keep a promise to God... what's his motivation to keep a promise to his constituents?

Blessings,
Bill

And here you go, This sums it up for me.
Bill rep forth coming when Management lets me.