Can you read the 2A again? It seems that you are confused in what that amendment states. What you are claiming as "intended" is actually "interpreted" by the SCOTUS, decades and decades removed from the establishment of our government.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The next block we should chip away at after Peruta:
- Thread starter Superlite27
- Start date
Can you read the 2A again? It seems that you are confused in what that amendment states. What you are claiming as "intended" is actually "interpreted" by the SCOTUS, decades and decades removed from the establishment of our government.
I would advocate that lies be heavily restricted in normal conversation.....except when your wife (if your are married) asks you why you are late coming home. I usually fall back on "the Taliban got me" defense.
Really? I just go with "busy day at the range."
OC for ME
Regular Member
Uh, I'm only allowed to go to the range when she has time (two boys) to go to the range also. Can't use that one, tried once.....once, was not pretty.Really? I just go with "busy day at the range."
Uh, I'm only allowed to go to the range when she has time (two boys) to go to the range also. Can't use that one, tried once.....once, was not pretty.
True. I'm lucky(or smart) enough to have a wife who enjoys guns.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Ammo is hard to find and she wants her rounds down range. No range hogging for me and then no ammo for her.
mdak06
Regular Member
I broke my thoughts into two posts 'cause there was too much for just one post. First ...
There are reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms - just as there are various reasonable restrictions on speech and religion - but those restrictions are covered by other laws.
For example, there is no right to:
* tell your employee to "go kill that guy" (speech)
* practice a ritual human sacrifice (religion)
* murder someone (RKBA)
There is no right to:
* command someone to rape someone else (speech)
* force someone into marriage and sex without their consent (religion)
* use a firearm to aid in the commission of a rape (RKBA)
These "reasonable restrictions" are covered by laws against murder and rape. There is no need for a separate rule that prohibits the use of a firearm to do acts which violate the rights of another, because those acts which violate the rights of another are already prohibited.
As to how this relates to reciprocity, I'll simply say that there no reasonable restrictions on carrying a firearm that can be passed into law by a government. The reasonable restrictions on the use of a firearm are already in place by the prohibition of another action that violates the consent of another person (rape, robbery, murder, etc.).
As OC for ME mentioned, the simple act of carrying a firearm, in and of itself, harms no one. In other words, there is no victim created when someone carries a firearm. It's only if they misuse the firearm (either by neglect or by malicious intent) that a victim is created, and that is the point that an actual "crime" has occurred.
As to whether or not one can carry in a bar, or restaurant, or retail store, or whatever, that should be up to the store owner. It's their property, so they make the rules (even if we don't like them, it's their choice to make).
In short ... there are very few, if any, legitimate laws restricting the use or ownership of a firearm, IMO.
There are reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms - just as there are various reasonable restrictions on speech and religion - but those restrictions are covered by other laws.
For example, there is no right to:
* tell your employee to "go kill that guy" (speech)
* practice a ritual human sacrifice (religion)
* murder someone (RKBA)
There is no right to:
* command someone to rape someone else (speech)
* force someone into marriage and sex without their consent (religion)
* use a firearm to aid in the commission of a rape (RKBA)
These "reasonable restrictions" are covered by laws against murder and rape. There is no need for a separate rule that prohibits the use of a firearm to do acts which violate the rights of another, because those acts which violate the rights of another are already prohibited.
As to how this relates to reciprocity, I'll simply say that there no reasonable restrictions on carrying a firearm that can be passed into law by a government. The reasonable restrictions on the use of a firearm are already in place by the prohibition of another action that violates the consent of another person (rape, robbery, murder, etc.).
As OC for ME mentioned, the simple act of carrying a firearm, in and of itself, harms no one. In other words, there is no victim created when someone carries a firearm. It's only if they misuse the firearm (either by neglect or by malicious intent) that a victim is created, and that is the point that an actual "crime" has occurred.
As to whether or not one can carry in a bar, or restaurant, or retail store, or whatever, that should be up to the store owner. It's their property, so they make the rules (even if we don't like them, it's their choice to make).
In short ... there are very few, if any, legitimate laws restricting the use or ownership of a firearm, IMO.
mdak06
Regular Member
Now, back to replying to the original post ...
As far as what is actually likely to happen (how a court might rule) ... the best short-term scenario, IMO, would be to have carry permits recognized by all states in the same way that driver's licenses, and driving rules, are recognized by all states.
Each state has their own requirements to obtain a driver's license, and has their own rules regarding driving. Each state has their own requirements for a carry permit (save Vermont), and has their own restrictions (infringements) on the right to carry a firearm. Each state recognizes a driver's license from another state as a valid permission slip that can be used for driving in any state. Therefore each state should recognize a carry permit as a valid permission slip that can be used for carrying a weapon in any state. But since the laws of the state that you are driving in apply (and not your own state's laws), the carry laws (infringements) of the state you are in would also apply, wherever you are carrying.
It's possible that someone could make this argument based on the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 1). Whether or not there's any current case moving through the courts that might allow this argument to be applied, I'm not sure. If not now, there will probably be one eventually.
I'd think that one approach would be have to have a case in which a person had a permit that was issued by their home state, attempted to carry in a state for which they had no permit (and no reciprocity for that permit), was then arrested, tried, and convicted of unlawful carry, and then began the process of appeals. Alternatively, if you could get a court to hear it, you might be able to get someone who crosses state lines frequently and would like to carry in the state that they travel to, but is unable to get permission (e.g. someone who lives in Virginia and has a Virginia permit, but works in Maryland and can get nothing from them).
Before all of that, the first step is to get the California standard set by the 3-judge panel (a state MUST allow some method of carry that is generally available to all law-abiding citizens) in force nationwide. The people in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, etc. would certainly appreciate that.
As far as what is actually likely to happen (how a court might rule) ... the best short-term scenario, IMO, would be to have carry permits recognized by all states in the same way that driver's licenses, and driving rules, are recognized by all states.
Each state has their own requirements to obtain a driver's license, and has their own rules regarding driving. Each state has their own requirements for a carry permit (save Vermont), and has their own restrictions (infringements) on the right to carry a firearm. Each state recognizes a driver's license from another state as a valid permission slip that can be used for driving in any state. Therefore each state should recognize a carry permit as a valid permission slip that can be used for carrying a weapon in any state. But since the laws of the state that you are driving in apply (and not your own state's laws), the carry laws (infringements) of the state you are in would also apply, wherever you are carrying.
It's possible that someone could make this argument based on the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 1). Whether or not there's any current case moving through the courts that might allow this argument to be applied, I'm not sure. If not now, there will probably be one eventually.
I'd think that one approach would be have to have a case in which a person had a permit that was issued by their home state, attempted to carry in a state for which they had no permit (and no reciprocity for that permit), was then arrested, tried, and convicted of unlawful carry, and then began the process of appeals. Alternatively, if you could get a court to hear it, you might be able to get someone who crosses state lines frequently and would like to carry in the state that they travel to, but is unable to get permission (e.g. someone who lives in Virginia and has a Virginia permit, but works in Maryland and can get nothing from them).
Before all of that, the first step is to get the California standard set by the 3-judge panel (a state MUST allow some method of carry that is generally available to all law-abiding citizens) in force nationwide. The people in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, etc. would certainly appreciate that.
georg jetson
Regular Member
It isn't about reasonable restrictions on rights because...
1. You have no right to violate someone else's rights in the first place.
2. The Constitution and it's first ten amendments are RESTRICTIONS and specific AUTHORIZATIONS for the fed gov. The 2A specifically restricts the fed gov from infringing on the right to keep and bear. The "reasonable restriction" argument is a red herring.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
I will add that there has been a case, Illinois,and I don't remember the case "name", but the IL Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a non-IL resident for not having a FOID card. Esentially, Illinois las, the FOID requirement, can not be applied to a non-Illinois resident who is otherwise lawfully able to posses a weapon.
A cop not citing/arresting a citizen not of his state for not complying with his state's law is not a legal matter it is "cop's discretion." Cop's must retain this discretion. This permits good cops to thumb their nose at stupid laws in their state.
mdak06
Regular Member
I agree, but what I'm talking about is a public relations war that we need to fight.
The point I'm attempting to make is that we can take the phrases that the anti-gun folks use - e.g. "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense regulations" - and use those phrases against them. We can say that "reasonable" regulations already exist, because we're not allowed to use our guns to murder, rape, rob, etc. We're not allowed to use our guns to create actual victims.
We're not allowed to murder people with guns, or use guns to threaten and coerce others, or use guns to force someone to comply with our demands. Those are all reasonable and justified prohibitions of the use of firearms. Those are the only "reasonable restrictions" that exist. They exist independent of guns, because the same restrictions exist if a criminal uses a knife, or a baseball bat, or any other tool.
Other restrictions - e.g. prohibitions or penalties for carrying a gun without a permission slip - are wrong because there is no victim involved in what has been deemed a crime by a state. No one is harmed simply by the act of carrying a firearm, possessing a particular weapon, or possessing a particular magazine.
I know the "reasonable restriction" argument is BS. My point is that simply saying "it's BS" is not going to get us far. We have to show why and how it is BS. Saying "second amendment" until we're blue in the face is not a good way to fight the PR battle, and not not a great tactic to use, IMO. In the same way that big-government proponents have taken the word "liberal" and destroyed its original meaning, they have corrupted the meaning of "reasonable" and "common sense." We need to expose why they are wrong.
It's similar to the way that laws against drug prohibition are deemed wrong because someone is simply "consuming a plant" and not harming anyone. Someone with a standard-capacity magazine is simply "possessing a piece of metal and plastic" and not harming anyone.
"But they could harm someone with the high/standard capacity magazine!"
"But they could harm someone if they drive while under the influence!"
And when they actually harm someone - that's when a crime has been committed. Not before.
Showing the world how the arguments used by anti-gun folks are nonsense is part of the PR war. That is my point.
Those are poor examples, as they violate the rights of others, except your 1A examples. Speech is a lot harder to nail down as context is important. But overall, your examples don't support restrictions on rights. It shows violations of rights. Restrictions are prior to, not post act.
Another common fallacy. While the application of state's recognizing other states common licenses like driver's license and marriage licenses to the recognition of state's CWP/CCL/etc. between states seems logical, there's the issue of inherent individual rights.
We have the inherent right to travel. We do not license people to be able to travel, we license them to operate a motor vehicle (aside: in some cases, poorly). The method of which we travel is not protected by the Constitution. You can choose to not drive and walk. Or take a bus. Or ride a bike. Driver's license is not protected by the Constitution. Nor is marriage. You would have to apply the 9A to those, and I'm not about to look up case law for that support. The federal government is meddling in things that ought not to be meddled in.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is protected by the Constitution. It is explicit, it is unambiguous in it's meaning. ALL states should have it's citizens (save for violent/repeat offenders) free to keep and bear arms, without license, without permit, without registration.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The first amendment explicitly states a right to assemble. In order to assemble, one must travel to the point of assembly. Travel is, therefore, constitutionally protected to an identical degree as is, for example, purchasing a firearm.
The Second Amendment does not specify the right to purchase "semi-automatic weapons". It does not specify which arms, or in what manner they may be borne.
Consider the logic used by the Heller court (I call it the "popularity doctrine"): for a right to be of any effect it must protect, at the very least, the means which is the most popular form of exercise of that right. Therefore, the second amendment must protect, at least, the acquisition and possession of semi-automatic handguns for home defense (that being the most popular means and mode of exercise of the second amendment).
Therefore, the first amendment must protect at least travel by motor vehicle. QED.
I have yet to encounter a cogent rebuttal to this reasoning.
Last edited:
mdak06
Regular Member
*sigh*
When someone talks about "reasonable restrictions" on the RKBA, I can use what I've written as an example of what is "reasonable," since any sane person would accept that a law prohibiting murder or a law prohibiting rape is a "reasonable" law. This is in contrast to what the gun-grabbers think is a "reasonable" restriction, since everything they propose is an infringement of rights.
Those are the ONLY reasonable restrictions that exist - a legal prohibition on an act that is a violation of someone else's rights.
I do not support restrictions on rights. I never said I did. In fact, I am wholeheartedly opposed to restrictions on rights. I'm sorry if I did not make this more clear.
My point, again, is that when gun-grabbers talk about "reasonable restrictions" I want to point out that a "reasonable restriction" is one that prohibits murder, not one that prohibits someone from owning a piece of metal and/or plastic.
:banghead: ... Did you not read what I wrote above? "As far as what is actually likely to happen (how a court might rule) ... the best short-term scenario ..."
I'm pretty sure that I did NOT suggest that having carry permits being recognized in the same manner as driver's licenses was in any way ideal. I said it was the "best short-term scenario" as far as what way a court might rule. I think there should be no licenses required for ANYTHING regarding firearms, period. But I don't think a court is going to rule that way in the short term.
I'm sorry if you were unable to understand what I wrote. I thought that by writing "what is likely to happen" and "best short-term scenario" that people might understand that I was not referring to "how things should be" but "how I think things might go."
P.S. To say that we have the right to travel but driving is a privilege is like saying you have a right to own a firearm but owning a handgun is a privilege.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Restricting murder has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Murder is bad no matter how you do it. Mal en se. That isn't a "restriction" it is a crime. It goes against law (natural law and the theories of justice) we don't need a state to tell us that or to stop us from doing that.
mdak06
Regular Member
Fine. Whatever.
Did you not hear Diane Feinstein's ludicrous comment when she was talking about "high capacity" magazines?
She said "it's legal to hunt humans with 15 round, 30 round, even 150 round magazines."
Idiots like that are the problem. Feinstein is obviously a bigger problem since she's a lawmaker, but she's far from the only idiot out there.
Let me make something perfectly clear. I advocate the abolition of ALL gun laws other than the 2nd amendment. I'd be fine if every good citizen had a brand-new unregistered M-16 that they bought out-of-state with no background check.
My point has been to try to differentiate between the fact that the only "restrictions" that we need regarding guns are already in place precisely because the actual crimes - the ones that involve victims - are already prohibited. And yes, I @$#%$@# already know that it's a crime whether or not a law is passed. That's not the point. The point is that I'd like to take the term "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense" and shove it back in the face of the gun-grabbers.
I've apparently failed in trying to convey that message, so I give up.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The sad part is for all their supposed good intentions(cough, hack, cough) the unconstitutional gun laws do not work, and help criminals commit crime.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
No you didn't fail. Don't take it personally we just don't think its the right tactic to take even with the anti liberty crowd. Don't sink yourself to their level and use their rationalizations, destroy their fallacious irrationality with extreme prejudice.
Superlite27
Regular Member
Wow. We've really run the gauntlet in this thread.
We've even rehashed the meaning and intent of the entire 2nd Amendment, ad nauseum.
I've yet to see anyone address my point. (Thanks for the Ted Nugent response, "The 2A is my permit" BTW. What a perfect answer to a question I never asked.)
To boil it down (evidently, I need to simplify): If I holster my gun, exit my front door, and begin walking West.......at some point I will be arrested for breaking the law.
Why? What law will I break? The Peruta decision says I don't need a good excuse to exercise my right outside my home. (Some of you may view this as an excellent opportunity to discuss your feelings about permits. Cool. I agree with you. Now that we have that discussion settled once and for all, maybe you could discuss the practical item I have broached.)
Namely: The law I will eventually break if I carry my firearm unceasingly westward when I've been told I can righteously carry outside of my house.
This "involuntary forfeiture" of the right I've been told I possess is the next focal point at which we should begin aiming our hammers.
Unless someone can recommend a good way to make the entire wall disappear by simply wishing it wasn't there?
Because screaming about the invalidity of permits is simply wishing away the wall. Unfortunately, the wall is real. PERMITS are real. You can scream, "PERMITS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING PERMITS! THE 2A IS ALL THE PERMIT I NEED!" all you want. Just arm yourself and head for Las Angeles to show the folks there your loaded gun and see if the jail you end up in is as imaginary as the world you live in where you don't need no stinkin' permit.
I'll simply obey the REAL laws, work within the REAL constraints I'm given, and try to focus my energy and thoughts on REAL solutions to the problems I see. All I can do is hope this is a valid method to progress towards a world in which we truly don't need a permit any more. Realistically, I only see this as possible AFTER we get national reciprocity. FIRST we must be able to carry everywhere we wish. THEN we can begin the process of chipping away at the permit system entirely.
We've even rehashed the meaning and intent of the entire 2nd Amendment, ad nauseum.
I've yet to see anyone address my point. (Thanks for the Ted Nugent response, "The 2A is my permit" BTW. What a perfect answer to a question I never asked.)
To boil it down (evidently, I need to simplify): If I holster my gun, exit my front door, and begin walking West.......at some point I will be arrested for breaking the law.
Why? What law will I break? The Peruta decision says I don't need a good excuse to exercise my right outside my home. (Some of you may view this as an excellent opportunity to discuss your feelings about permits. Cool. I agree with you. Now that we have that discussion settled once and for all, maybe you could discuss the practical item I have broached.)
Namely: The law I will eventually break if I carry my firearm unceasingly westward when I've been told I can righteously carry outside of my house.
This "involuntary forfeiture" of the right I've been told I possess is the next focal point at which we should begin aiming our hammers.
Unless someone can recommend a good way to make the entire wall disappear by simply wishing it wasn't there?
Because screaming about the invalidity of permits is simply wishing away the wall. Unfortunately, the wall is real. PERMITS are real. You can scream, "PERMITS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING PERMITS! THE 2A IS ALL THE PERMIT I NEED!" all you want. Just arm yourself and head for Las Angeles to show the folks there your loaded gun and see if the jail you end up in is as imaginary as the world you live in where you don't need no stinkin' permit.
I'll simply obey the REAL laws, work within the REAL constraints I'm given, and try to focus my energy and thoughts on REAL solutions to the problems I see. All I can do is hope this is a valid method to progress towards a world in which we truly don't need a permit any more. Realistically, I only see this as possible AFTER we get national reciprocity. FIRST we must be able to carry everywhere we wish. THEN we can begin the process of chipping away at the permit system entirely.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Isn't the ruling focused narrowly on providing a good reason to get a permit, not the generic carry outside the home? I could be reading the ruling the wrong way.
Anyway. CA, even if they go must issue, still have no mandate to recognize your endorsement. If you walk out of your home, walk west, I recommend that you stop at the NV or AZ border then return home.
Anyway. CA, even if they go must issue, still have no mandate to recognize your endorsement. If you walk out of your home, walk west, I recommend that you stop at the NV or AZ border then return home.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Yeah, courts like to diddle with themselves behind closed doors obviously. Why do they get to decide the mode? What? That's right, they don't.