I was just reading that the CC permits are unconstitutional, being that you already have to go through background checks to purchase a gun,,, then its just a revenue making to take a short course and permit. Being the permits are no longer applied to any data bases nor attached to the drivers license like they once were. Where it is a 2nd ammendment rights to own a firearm, i wonder if it will be taken to the supreme courts and done way with all together?
-
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.
Unconstitutional ?
- Thread starter Sono
- Start date
I'm not sure when concealed carry is named as a Constitutional Right. So, I doubt it's unconstitutional. Missouri has an additional wrinkle that a subdivision may ban OC without a CCW, but that's a different issue.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Think you mis-understood... Theyre saying the Permits are unconstitutional, that we shouldnt have to apply for them as we have the rights to keep and "BEAR" arms.
I lost the article, trying to find it. Yes, "They" are planning to challenge the issuances of permits because they claim its unconstitutional to our rights to carry.
I was going to post the link but this crappy laptop glitched and I lost it for the time being. I will post as soon as I come across it unless someone beats me to it.
I believe its a law firm challenging it.
This isnt it, but simular
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. There is no fine print in the 2nd admendment.
When we go to legally purchase a handgun or rifle, the FFL runs a background check, and we are cleared for purchase, provided we are non-felons, domestic violence convicts Etc. This doesn't cost the buyer one thin dime. That should be enough to allow concealed carry nationwide.
The states that allow CCW, however charge an application/permit fee in order for a citizen to carry protection against bodily harm,or loss of his property. These fees are simply a TAX imposed on the constitutional right granted by our founding fathers.
Here in Mississippi the application fee is $132.00 and once a citizen reaches 65 yrs of age it drops to $85.00. The senior citizen who is far less likely to physically defend him or herself, are more likely to be on a fixed income must shell out monies to carry protection.
In 1948 the SCOTUS ruled (Murdoch v. Penn.) that it is unconstitutional to charge or impose a tax /fee on a person who is exercising his or her right granted by the Constitution.
Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness soliciting membership in his church and the Community demanded He buy a solicitors licence.
Even though this was a freedom of religion case, the ruling is quite clear in it's context. During the Civil Rights movement the Poll Taxes, which charges a fee to vote, were struck down for the same reason.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. There is no fine print in the 2nd admendment.
When we go to legally purchase a handgun or rifle, the FFL runs a background check, and we are cleared for purchase, provided we are non-felons, domestic violence convicts Etc. This doesn't cost the buyer one thin dime. That should be enough to allow concealed carry nationwide.
The states that allow CCW, however charge an application/permit fee in order for a citizen to carry protection against bodily harm,or loss of his property. These fees are simply a TAX imposed on the constitutional right granted by our founding fathers.
Here in Mississippi the application fee is $132.00 and once a citizen reaches 65 yrs of age it drops to $85.00. The senior citizen who is far less likely to physically defend him or herself, are more likely to be on a fixed income must shell out monies to carry protection.
In 1948 the SCOTUS ruled (Murdoch v. Penn.) that it is unconstitutional to charge or impose a tax /fee on a person who is exercising his or her right granted by the Constitution.
Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness soliciting membership in his church and the Community demanded He buy a solicitors licence.
Even though this was a freedom of religion case, the ruling is quite clear in it's context. During the Civil Rights movement the Poll Taxes, which charges a fee to vote, were struck down for the same reason.
I cant find the one searching the net about who is pushing it to eliminate the permits , but lots of reads that are on the same course of being unconstitutional such as this one
http://www.tnonline.com/2012/mar/24/unconstitutional-require-permit-carry-concealed-weapon
http://www.tnonline.com/2012/mar/24/unconstitutional-require-permit-carry-concealed-weapon
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
First let's see if you understand the second amendment. Just what do you think the purpose of the amendment is?
Its your rights to keep and bear arms, BUT you cant bear arms without a permit ( paying fees and taxes ) which is considered unlawful under the constitution. Thats where they are wanting to challenge the permits. Same concept they did with voting a long time ago where people had to pay taxes/fees to vote and it was found unconstitutional, same with rights to keep and bear arms, just a different subject under gun rights.
Besides, Im not challenging anything, just thought it would be of interests to everyone. If the case is overturned then no more permits/fees, just buy your gun and its over.
Ive no clue whats up their sleeves and Im not them so please dont challenge me on something I dont knowas Im not the Lawyer for them.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
The 2nd amendment does not confer any rights to you. It is supposed to be a statutory limit on the gov't trying to limit your natural right to carry (for the purpose of this thread, I'll limit this to carry).
You can carry any way you want under your natural rights. Its your right to choose what firearm or weapon you wish to carry.
The gov't can only oppress your rights.
You can carry any way you want under your natural rights. Its your right to choose what firearm or weapon you wish to carry.
The gov't can only oppress your rights.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It is not just the right to keep, and bear arms. The 2A was written for a specific purpose, and the purpose was in the amendment. Most people do not know what that purpose is. Some think it is about hunting, some think it is about collecting, some sport shooting, and even self defense, it is none of those things.
Self defense is covered in another amendment. If you can tell me what the intended purpose of the 2A was at the time of the signing I will give you my thoughts on concealed carry.
I believe it was to protect the people so the government couldnt disarm them as some other countries have, to make the people defenseless? Therefore the rights "to keep and bear arms" was written? if this is correct.
Just did a little digging and basically correct. and correct to what "they" are trying to do with the permits as its in one of the other articles that they cant impose fees or taxes to carry which falls under bearing your arms, to protect yourself in self defense.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The first part of the 2A says it all, it is to secure a free state. Self defense from other people who are not state has nothing to do with it. There is another amendment that covers self defense. Now 2A is not only a safety valve but a deterrent, notice the word secure. And to be honest conceal carry is not a deterrent to government, open carry is. IMO bear means hold up, bear weight and you just can't do that very well hiding in the shadows. This was displayed in Texas when individuals open carried they got arrested, even though probably many around might have been CCing. But when they OC'd in numbers the legislature, and the governor took notice.
Open carry/bear arms scares politicians, conceal carry does not, especially when they control it. Even in some constitutional carry states it is not constitutional carry, as the legislature has granted permission that can be taken away when they feel like it.
STLDaniel
Regular Member
A consistent theme that has been upheld for a very long time, is that if there is a broad compelling reason for a restriction and the restriction is narrowly defined to just that reason and doesn't otherwise impose a significant burden, then limits can be applied to any right in the constitution.
Not being able to scream "FIRE" in a theater is an example that we could argue as freedom of speech, and we would still lose. Legislatures pass a law against that, the executive enforces it, and the courts upheld it. Until you convince one of the 3 branches otherwise, it's constitutional in all but maybe theoretical beliefs.
Both the legislature and executive fall in line with CCW permits and requirements. I'd put good money that the courts will accept that a short training course meets within the guidelines they will allow for restrictions on the 2A.
Now the fee to get one might be another story. If someone who had a very meager income challenged that, or you could otherwise show that it imposed a significant burden (say to the senior citizen), then you may get the court to force enactment of reduced or eliminated fees where appropriate. Typically the government argues that the fees simply covers the cost of processing the applications, and that the documentation processing is required to meet that narrorwly defined compelling reason that justifies CCW, so it's likely they'll uphold the fees as well.
I see it a little differently from the solicitors license case referenced, in that they would reference that license as a way to generate revenue, not simply cover costs as the gov would argue for the CCW processing.
Even if we limit the 2A to that, I also disagree that conceal carry doesn't further the interest of securing a free state. OC in large numbers definitely provides a very visible deterrent, but if it came to actually having to use force against government tyranny, CC would also be very good in many situations, and maybe even necessary. CC in foreign nations has proven particularly hard for even our very well equipped military to fully secure areas as threats blend in with the populace you're trying to control. I believe against a tyrannical government both OC and CC play a role.
Not being able to scream "FIRE" in a theater is an example that we could argue as freedom of speech, and we would still lose. Legislatures pass a law against that, the executive enforces it, and the courts upheld it. Until you convince one of the 3 branches otherwise, it's constitutional in all but maybe theoretical beliefs.
Both the legislature and executive fall in line with CCW permits and requirements. I'd put good money that the courts will accept that a short training course meets within the guidelines they will allow for restrictions on the 2A.
Now the fee to get one might be another story. If someone who had a very meager income challenged that, or you could otherwise show that it imposed a significant burden (say to the senior citizen), then you may get the court to force enactment of reduced or eliminated fees where appropriate. Typically the government argues that the fees simply covers the cost of processing the applications, and that the documentation processing is required to meet that narrorwly defined compelling reason that justifies CCW, so it's likely they'll uphold the fees as well.
I see it a little differently from the solicitors license case referenced, in that they would reference that license as a way to generate revenue, not simply cover costs as the gov would argue for the CCW processing.
I can respect that opinion, I just disagree. I think that was the compelling reason why the RKBA was codified in the constitution, but don't believe that means it's limited to that purpose alone.
Even if we limit the 2A to that, I also disagree that conceal carry doesn't further the interest of securing a free state. OC in large numbers definitely provides a very visible deterrent, but if it came to actually having to use force against government tyranny, CC would also be very good in many situations, and maybe even necessary. CC in foreign nations has proven particularly hard for even our very well equipped military to fully secure areas as threats blend in with the populace you're trying to control. I believe against a tyrannical government both OC and CC play a role.
davidmcbeth
Banned
That's one reason for sure.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The right to keep, and bear arms is NOT limited. But the 2A says nothing about self defense, and NONE of the bill or rights protects individuals from individuals. The government cannot interfere with the right to self defense, that is another amendment, those rights not enumerated. If a individual tells you on their private property you cannot bear arms NOTHING in the constitution applies to it. Hence 2A has never been about self defense.
STLDaniel
Regular Member
It isn't? Carry a firearm into the White House and, if you can, then come post how you were not limited.
Most of what you posted, and what I had originally intended to respond with where simply your opinions and mine of the interpretation of the 2A, of which I only point out so that other's aren't led to believe it's as clear cut as it may appear if only one opinion is posted.
Instead of that detailed post I had written, I would like to offer the opinion of SCOTUS directly related to the question:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."
District of Columbia v. Heller
554 U.S. 570 (2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html
Everyone's entitled to their opinion on what 2A means and whether it includes one thing or another. At the end of the day, individual opinions don't mean much if an alternate opinion is the one that is enforced.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Because government violates does not change what it is. BOR are not opinions, they are very clear, and spelled out. BOR are to limit government, not interactions between the people, that is what laws are for. But there is only certain things that they can make illegal, because they get away with it does not change the BOR.
But then you have your opinion which is OK because the BOR gives you the right to express your opinion without GOVERNMENT interference, even if your opinion is wrong.
ETA as has been explained many times there is no 1A on private property, such as this site, that is because the BOR only is related to the government limits.
Last edited:
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1789, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Short answer, yes, a permit (endorsement) is a infringement and uncostitutional. Even though the penalty is "only" $35 for not having one it is a prior restraint on the peaceful exercise of our RKBA. The permit is also a fee to exercise a enumerated right, to avoid the prior restraint, and as such it too is unconstitutional. The exercise of our right in some political subdivisions makes the crime (penalty) far more severe and as such is a infringement and unconstitutional. The state of MO continues to permit these infringements because they generate revenue for the political subdivisions...and lawyers.
As to that yelling fire thing...there is no government imposed prior restraint on you yelling fire, but the penalty for yelling fire, even in a empty theater, exists. Your 1A is not infringed so go ahead and yell fire, your freedom after the yelling is (will be) infringed.