• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Obama the Anti

Could a Federal law banning concealed carry actually pass?

  • A. Absolutely not.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B. Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
I

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
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.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
L

lostone1413

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
199
Location
, ,
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".
Click to expand...
It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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".
Click to expand...
It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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".
Click to expand...
It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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.
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
L

lostone1413

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
199
Location
, ,
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".
Click to expand...
It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...
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
 
L

lostone1413

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
199
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.'
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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".
Click to expand...
It's my guess that this is what's going to occur, and nothing will really change. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely. My point is that some judges may define these terms differently.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Study up on 'incorporation.' The 2A has not been incorporated into the 14th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29
Click to expand...
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.
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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-).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top