View Poll Results: Could a Federal law banning concealed carry actually pass?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • A. Absolutely not.

    14 40.00%
  • B. Yes.

    11 31.43%
  • @. Possibly, but the courts would overturn it on the grounds that it violates states rights.

    10 28.57%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Obama the Anti

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Barack Obama
    Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel.Supports limiting gun sales to one per month.

    Sounds pretty commie to me when you think about it.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Somebody just needs to ask him which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to make such a law.

    Its just a pandering tool. It can be dissassembled easy enough.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Lower End of NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    719

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure how to vote. I simply do not trust him. For that matter there are many politicians I do not trust. I pray he never getsthe opportunity to change anything.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Somebody just needs to ask him which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to make such a law.

    Its just a pandering tool. It can be dissassembled easy enough.
    Have you read Don B. Kates' most recent editorial in Handguns magazine? He states that "there is considerable authority that the right to "bear arms" means carrying them openly, not concealed". Kates is a serious constitutional scholar. I don't know what "considerable authority" he is referring to, but in the past he has been shown to know what he is talking about.

    I'm not saying I agree with the premise, but it is a distinct possibility. Remember, under current law, concealed carry is a priviledge, and not a right.

    Kates is a strong supporter of the 2nd. He helped bring the Parker case to the Supreme Court, "filing an amicus brief supporting it and acting as an adviser on Second Amendment history to its lawyers" (Handguns Magazine,Feb/March issue, page 22 article "Supreme Court Case On the Right To Bear Arms).

    Also, if we win the Parker case, and return to the original intent, we could be faced with legal registration of our firearms "In various colonies and early states every household was required to have a gun and show it to public officers-there was no idea of gun ownership being private". same article, same page.

    Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".











  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    hlh wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".

    It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
    To me the "Shall Not Be Infringed" Pretty well covers that. Meaning you can carry what you want anyway you see fit to carry it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    glocknroll wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Somebody just needs to ask him which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to make such a law.

    Its just a pandering tool. It can be dissassembled easy enough.
    Have you read Don B. Kates' most recent editorial in Handguns magazine? He states that "there is considerable authority that the right to "bear arms" means carrying them openly, not concealed". Kates is a serious constitutional scholar. I don't know what "considerable authority" he is referring to, but in the past he has been shown to know what he is talking about.

    I'm not saying I agree with the premise, but it is a distinct possibility. Remember, under current law, concealed carry is a priviledge, and not a right.

    Kates is a strong supporter of the 2nd. He helped bring the Parker case to the Supreme Court, "filing an amicus brief supporting it and acting as an adviser on Second Amendment history to its lawyers" (Handguns Magazine,Feb/March issue, page 22 article "Supreme Court Case On the Right To Bear Arms).

    Also, if we win the Parker case, and return to the original intent, we could be faced with legal registration of our firearms "In various colonies and early states every household was required to have a gun and show it to public officers-there was no idea of gun ownership being private". same article, same page.

    Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".
    I could tolerate a ban on concealed carry provided it was accompanied by a universal acceptance of unlicensed open carry.

    But I also understand that the idea behind a national ban on concealed carry is that "open carry" hasn't entered the consciousness of the anti's, and once it does, they'll be banned too. Just like how they want to ban "assault weapons" while still allowing machine guns (albeit with the usual Class III BS)... they just can't conceptualize something so "evil" as civilians' owning machine guns... or OCing.

    Anyhow, though, "shall not be infringed" sums up the correct position pretty nicely.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    lostone1413 wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".

    It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
    To me the "Shall Not Be Infringed" Pretty well covers that. Meaning you can carry what you want anyway you see fit to carry it.
    "Reasonable restrictions" consistent with "...shall not be infringed" are going to be very narrow, for example, no guns for convicted felons.

    Separately, there'd be quite a ruckus over an original-intent registration.I'm betting the requirement that every household have a gun and show it to public officers attributed to Kates was based on the idea that every man be armed for militia duty and verification that he was. I can just hear the Brady Campaign howling against everyone being required to have a gun, and the guns being mean, nasty, militarily usefularms, at that. The one's they say there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have.

    But, the more the better. If everyone is armed, a registration won't matter. And police checking on it won't matter.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    lostone1413 wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".

    It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
    To me the "Shall Not Be Infringed" Pretty well covers that. Meaning you can carry what you want anyway you see fit to carry it.
    "Reasonable restrictions" consistent with "...shall not be infringed" are going to be very narrow, for example, no guns for convicted felons.

    Separately, there'd be quite a ruckus over an original-intent registration.I'm betting the requirement that every household have a gun and show it to public officers attributed to Kates was based on the idea that every man be armed for militia duty and verification that he was. I can just hear the Brady Campaign howling against everyone being required to have a gun, and the guns being mean, nasty, militarily usefularms, at that. The one's they say there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have.

    But, the more the better. If everyone is armed, a registration won't matter. And police checking on it won't matter.
    Unfortunately, that definition of "reasonable" is your opinion (and mine as well). It doesn't mean that the different courts will agree.

    I sincerely hope that all of this will go in our favor, but I don't expect all of the states that have restrictive gun laws to just roll over and play dead because the Supreme Court made a ruling that they didn't like. Most politicians primary objective is to stay in power, and anything that interferes with that power isn't going to go over well with them. Any number of them can probably get re-elected on a ''state's rights" (gun control) platform, simply by convincing the sheeple that they can overturn, or litigate to death, any Supreme Court ruling.

    It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and she's still in the shower, and her hair and makeup people haven't even gotten here yet.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    glocknroll wrote:
    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.
    I don't know if that's entirely true. I've gotten the impression that people who feel gun control is necessary argue that the Second Amendment is outdated and irrelevant to modern America, and thus can be ignored. Similar to those laws that prohibit walking pet alligators on Sundays in some jurisdictions, etc etc.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    lostone1413 wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".

    It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
    To me the "Shall Not Be Infringed" Pretty well covers that. Meaning you can carry what you want anyway you see fit to carry it.
    "Reasonable restrictions" consistent with "...shall not be infringed" are going to be very narrow, for example, no guns for convicted felons.

    Separately, there'd be quite a ruckus over an original-intent registration.I'm betting the requirement that every household have a gun and show it to public officers attributed to Kates was based on the idea that every man be armed for militia duty and verification that he was. I can just hear the Brady Campaign howling against everyone being required to have a gun, and the guns being mean, nasty, militarily usefularms, at that. The one's they say there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have.

    But, the more the better. If everyone is armed, a registration won't matter. And police checking on it won't matter.
    What part of the Biil Of Rights says "Reasonable Restrictions" It doesn't say it anyplace in my copy. Far as Felons having guns. Until the 1968 gun law I for one don't know of any law that stopped them. Back then you could walk into a Sears or any store pay your money and walk out with the gun. You could also mail order anything you wanted. I know cause i'm old enough I have bought guns that way

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.
    I don't know if that's entirely true. I've gotten the impression that people who feel gun control is necessary argue that the Second Amendment is outdated and irrelevant to modern America, and thus can be ignored. Similar to those laws that prohibit walking pet alligators on Sundays in some jurisdictions, etc etc.
    I don't see the 2nd amendment being anymore outdated then the other 9 amendments. The 2nd protect you from the Government plain and simple

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    lostone1413 wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.
    I don't know if that's entirely true. I've gotten the impression that people who feel gun control is necessary argue that the Second Amendment is outdated and irrelevant to modern America, and thus can be ignored. Similar to those laws that prohibit walking pet alligators on Sundays in some jurisdictions, etc etc.
    I don't see the 2nd amendment being anymore outdated then the other 9 amendments. The 2nd protect you from the Government plain and simple
    Of course we don't see it that way. But bring up "shall not be infringed" to an anti and see what response you get.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.
    I don't know if that's entirely true. I've gotten the impression that people who feel gun control is necessary argue that the Second Amendment is outdated and irrelevant to modern America, and thus can be ignored. Similar to those laws that prohibit walking pet alligators on Sundays in some jurisdictions, etc etc.
    I think you and I are fundamentally in agreement. Those that believe in gun control up to and including confiscation don't believe that there is a right to be armed so they don't see how it is possible to infringe on a right that doesn't exist (in their minds). For most people, gun control is a purely emotional issue, and arguing it on factual grounds is almost impossible.

    I read an article once that compared the mindset of shooters against non-shooters. Shooters are trained to think in purely factual terms: bullet weighs x number of grains; bullet travels at x velocity; bore diameter is x thousands of inch or x millimeters as scientifically measured. Non-shooters (not all, but many) feel more than they think. Just look at the language they use: "I feel that no one should have guns but the police and the military". Shooters: " I think we should all be free to live our lives as we choose, up to and including using deadly force to defend ourseslves and other innocents."

    I'm not really a Rush Limbaugh fan, but I like one thing he says, something on the order of 'I don't care what you feel, I want to know what you think.'

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    lostone1413 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    lostone1413 wrote:
    hlh wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".

    It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
    To me the "Shall Not Be Infringed" Pretty well covers that. Meaning you can carry what you want anyway you see fit to carry it.
    "Reasonable restrictions" consistent with "...shall not be infringed" are going to be very narrow, for example, no guns for convicted felons.

    Separately, there'd be quite a ruckus over an original-intent registration.I'm betting the requirement that every household have a gun and show it to public officers attributed to Kates was based on the idea that every man be armed for militia duty and verification that he was. I can just hear the Brady Campaign howling against everyone being required to have a gun, and the guns being mean, nasty, militarily usefularms, at that. The one's they say there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have.

    But, the more the better. If everyone is armed, a registration won't matter. And police checking on it won't matter.
    What part of the Biil Of Rights says "Reasonable Restrictions" It doesn't say it anyplace in my copy. Far as Felons having guns. Until the 1968 gun law I for one don't know of any law that stopped them. Back then you could walk into a Sears or any store pay your money and walk out with the gun. You could also mail order anything you wanted. I know cause i'm old enough I have bought guns that way
    I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say "with reasonable restrictions." I'm not old enough to have purchased guns through the mail, but I am old enough to have recollections of when it was legal. I grew up in a shooting, hunting, gun owning family. I got my first gun when I was eleven. I devoured my Dad's copy of Keith's "Sixguns" when I was about 12. I remember Skeeter Skelton, George Nonte, Bob Milek, and a bunch of other names I wish I could drop like they were personal friends, but can't. (I only read their articles).

    I am old enough to remember when you could walk into Montgomery Ward with your driver's liscence and cash and walk out with a brand new handgun, in only the time it took to fill out the paperwork. No background check BS. No prior restraint on your rights. Oh, the good ol' days.




  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    glocknroll wrote:
    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.
    Whether they "see it that way" or not, the meaning of words does not change. "Right" has a meaning and it's different than "privilege." "Infringe" has a meaning.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    We will also spend many years defining exactly what constitutes "infringement".

    For me, infringement means any restrictions on my right to be armed. Most people don't see it that way, unfortunately.
    Whether they "see it that way" or not, the meaning of words does not change. "Right" has a meaning and it's different than "privilege." "Infringe" has a meaning.
    I agree with you completely. My point is that some judges may define these terms differently.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Study up on 'incorporation.' The 2A has not been incorporated into the 14th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Study up on 'incorporation.' The 2A has not been incorporated into the 14th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29
    This is what I meant by the "states' rights" argument. Certain states will argue that they have the authority to "infringe" in any way that particular state legislature votes.

    This argument makes the Free State Project more appealing to me every day.


  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    That is exactly the significance of the lack of 2A-14A incorporation. The Heller decision will be unsatisfyingly narrow unless the Court engages this issue. Then the status of District of Columbia as not-State rises and that will be a true can of worms!

    Avoiding the stench of rotting worms is why the FF defined DC as powerless to exert undue influence due to its too close association with the National Government (contra Federal-).

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The 2A has not been incorporated into the 14th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29
    No it hasn't

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    glocknroll wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Study up on 'incorporation.' The 2A has not been incorporated into the 14th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29
    This is what I meant by the "states' rights" argument. Certain states will argue that they have the authority to "infringe" in any way that particular state legislature votes.

    This argument makes the Free State Project more appealing to me every day.
    What is the Free State Project?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    428

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    glocknroll wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Study up on 'incorporation.' The 2A has not been incorporated into the 14th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29
    This is what I meant by the "states' rights" argument. Certain states will argue that they have the authority to "infringe" in any way that particular state legislature votes.

    This argument makes the Free State Project more appealing to me every day.
    What is the Free State Project?
    www.freestateproject.org

    This will explain it much better than I can.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    glocknroll wrote:
    Did you read Don B. Kates' most recent editorial in Handguns magazine? He states that "there is considerable authority that the right to "bear arms" means carrying them openly, not concealed". Kates is a serious constitutional scholar. I don't know what "considerable authority" he is referring to, but in the past he has been shown to know what he is talking about.

    I'm not saying I agree with the premise, but it is a distinct possibility. Remember, under current law, concealed carry is a priviledge, and not a right.
    I'm not surprised by this. Most state constitutions I have taken a gander (maybe 6-8) at have a right to bear arms with an exception for the state to regulate concealed carry of weapons. This has led me to consider that the more original intent leaned towards open, rather than concealed, carry. But I would in no way hold myself as anything resembling a scholar on this matter -- merely an observation I have made.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •