Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Constitutionality of requiring a CPL, CCW or CWP...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Do you think you should be required to get a "Permit" inorder to carry a firearm concealed? Do you think such a requirement is constitutional?

    Personally, no I do not think it is constitutional. I feel that the 2nd Amendment IS my CPL. Furthermore I also feel that Chapter 44, Title 18 USC is also Unconstitutional, along with the Brady Bill, Lautenberg Amendment & the 1934 & 1938 Firearms Amendment. Why? Simple, the 2nd Amendment expressly gives us the rights to keep & bear arms. By keep they mean posses, by any means that we feel necessary. I'd also like to address that along with this right, the 2nd Amendment also states that the Government shall not infringe. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". This means that under NO circumstances, can the Government revoke, remove or in any way deny you the right to keep and bear arms. Prior to 1938 this meant that even Felons or persons with prior criminal history were able to resume possesing firearms after they served their sentence. I am among the minority when it comes to restoring firearms rights to felons, I feel it is their right to keep and bear arms simply because the 2nd Amendment says that they too are entitled to those same rights as you and I are, hence the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    I feel that as an armed society we will self regulate ourselves. We will defend ourselves when needed and defend others when it is needed as well. Our founding fathers never intended for us to rely on a large police force or an over bearing sheriff's office. Our founding fathers stated time and time again that the people, being self relient & self governing shall resolve all issues amongstthemselves with out the need of Government interference or regulation.

    What are your views on this subject?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    You mean there is a case that is going to the Supreme Court, or you are trying to take it there?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    There is a case that is going to be heard before the Supreme Court.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    id like to feel that the 2nd is my CPL also, is there a case that we/i can read about? please cite!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    I will scan the case files tomorrow whan I get to work and load them on here for you to read. But the short & skinny is that Vermont & Alaska have set precendent which states that it is unconstitutional to require a permit inorder to carry concealed. This all began when Republican Representative John Hostettler of Indiana introduced a bill that would give those who are legally able to carry concealed weapons in their home states the right to carry in all other states. Hostettler's bill--the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005--would require all states to recognize the concealed weapons permits of other states, just as all states recognize drivers licenses and marriage licenses issued by other states. Well a civil rights group has picked up the baton on this and is pushing for the dismissal of permit requirement all together on a national level pointing to the Second Amendment's reference to the right to "bear arms" as ample evidence that permits are not required, because essentially the 2nd Amendment already permits the carrying of concealed weapons.



  6. #6
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    sounds much like the recent Thune/vitter amendment that just lost by washingtons 2 votes! i look forward to reading what you got!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Well, sort of, the Thune/Vitter amendmentstill called for requiring a CCW/CPL inorder to carry concealed. What this case states, is that you should not be required to get a permit no matter what State you are in or from, because the 2nd amendment is the permit and as such, no other documentation or licence should be required inorder to carry a firearm regardless if you choose to carry openly or concealed. What I'm hoping will happen, is that if this case is defeated in the Supreme court, that after the 2010 elections, the Right will have retaken the house & Senate which will open the door for the Thune/Vitter amendmentto be voted on again, and hopefully this time it will pass. And if it does pass, that will set in motion a huge chain reaction and allow momentum to build for other groups who are challenging other gun control laws such as the Brady Bill & especially the Lautenberg Amendment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    thats the reason alaska even issued a permit even tho it wasnt required is because the reprosity between states needed one, like a driver license would be accecpted by other states. ultimatly no CPL is the desired result. i am seeking that kind of a rule in my posts here. trying to stretching the difference between OC and CC. see my threads about fishing for id, carrying on a bus, sloppy CC, is this oc or cc, etc.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    2ndAmendmentDefender wrote:
    Do you think you should be required to get a "Permit" inorder to carry a firearm concealed? Do you think such a requirement is constitutional?

    Personally, no I do not think it is constitutional. I feel that the 2nd Amendment IS my CPL. Furthermore I also feel that Chapter 44, Title 18 USC is also Unconstitutional, along with the Brady Bill, Lautenberg Amendment & the 1934 & 1938 Firearms Amendment. Why? Simple, the 2nd Amendment expressly gives us the rights to keep & bear arms. By keep they mean posses, by any means that we feel necessary. I'd also like to address that along with this right, the 2nd Amendment also states that the Government shall not infringe. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". This means that under NO circumstances, can the Government revoke, remove or in any way deny you the right to keep and bear arms. Prior to 1938 this meant that even Felons or persons with prior criminal history were able to resume possesing firearms after they served their sentence. I am among the minority when it comes to restoring firearms rights to felons, I feel it is their right to keep and bear arms simply because the 2nd Amendment says that they too are entitled to those same rights as you and I are, hence the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    I feel that as an armed society we will self regulate ourselves. We will defend ourselves when needed and defend others when it is needed as well. Our founding fathers never intended for us to rely on a large police force or an over bearing sheriff's office. Our founding fathers stated time and time again that the people, being self relient & self governing shall resolve all issues amongstthemselves with out the need of Government interference or regulation.

    What are your views on this subject?
    What are you talking about? There's no carry cases in the Supreme Court yet. The only case that you may be talking about is the Palmer v. District of Columbia case filed in DC Circuit Court. The prayer for relief is that A) that licenses be issued for carry or B) in the alternative, a strike-down of the statute, making it Vermont style for OC or CC.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Can you provide some links to this? The location, etc. What civil rights group? You gotta name names here.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    At the moment, I cannot go into great detail, but I will say that Chuck Klein is on board along with others who have enough stroke to make this happen.

    Look, i know you guys don't know me from Adam. But I can say that I've been fighting to preserve & regain our 2nd Amendment for a very long time.

    Trust me, this is happening. And in the end, we will have our rights restored to the way our founding fathers meant for them to be.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    The court precedents have basically said OPEN carry is the constitutional right, while CONCEALED carry is a privlege. Personally, I don't like the idea of a wardrobe malfunction making someone illegal, like a shirt dropping down and concealing a pistol, for example.

    The Chicago cases upcoming are to decide incorporation, they do not address carry outside the home. The DC carry case may shed some light on the issue, but only on a "shall" versus "may" issue basis. The way the gun rights lawyers move, it'll be a ways down the road before they ask the courts whether a license can be required to own or carry a gun.

    There is precedent, however, stating that fees cannot be charged for constitutional rights, like poll taxes. The 2A will need to be defined first as covering carry(open, concealed, or both), then the licensing can be brought up.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Man, we really need a libertarian in office.

  14. #14
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    2ndAmendmentDefender wrote:
    There is a case that is going to be heard before the Supreme Court.
    At the moment, I cannot go into great detail, but I will say that Chuck Klein is on board along with others who have enough stroke to make this happen.
    Do you mean that a writ of certiorari is going to be submitted to petition the SC to hear the case, or that the SC has already agreed to hear the case? If the latter, you should be able to provide links to already-public information about the case.

    If the former, there's no guarantee that the court will decide to hear the case. I don't think there's any way to make the SC hear any case short of there being conflicting rulings in the circuit courts.

    This is why many feel incorporation of the 2A is ripe for SC review, since the 9th circuit (That's us! Yay!) ruled it does apply to the states and other circuits have ruled it does not. I'm pretty sure getting a conflicting ruling in the 7th circuit was one of the fallback goals of the Chicago handgun ban suit, in order to get a post-Heller ruling that the 2nd doesn't apply to the states and thus set it up to go to the SC.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    2ndAmendmentDefender wrote:
    There is a case that is going to be heard before the Supreme Court.
    At the moment, I cannot go into great detail, but I will say that Chuck Klein is on board along with others who have enough stroke to make this happen.
    Do you mean that a writ of certiorari is going to be submitted to petition the SC to hear the case, or that the SC has already agreed to hear the case? If the latter, you should be able to provide links to already-public information about the case.

    If the former, there's no guarantee that the court will decide to hear the case. I don't think there's any way to make the SC hear any case short of there being conflicting rulings in the circuit courts.

    This is why many feel incorporation of the 2A is ripe for SC review, since the 9th circuit (That's us! Yay!) ruled it does apply to the states and other circuits have ruled it does not. I'm pretty sure getting a conflicting ruling in the 7th circuit was one of the fallback goals of the Chicago handgun ban suit, in order to get a post-Heller ruling that the 2nd doesn't apply to the states and thus set it up to go to the SC.
    Nordyke v. King is not in effect at the moment. An En banc panel of 11 judges will be hearing this on September 24th, 2010 at 10AM in San Francisco. Once en banc is taken, the Nordyke decision is no longer in effect until they rule on it.

    There's already two carry cases in the pipeline that will get to SCOTUS in the next 2 years: Palmer v. District of Columbia and Sykes v. McGinness in Eastern District of California.

    We need to get may-issue declared unconstitutional first. Going for a case that's going to go for striking down all bans on all carry with no licensing will not fly at the moment. Remember that we're in a long term fight for our civil liberties, which may take almost 10-15 to fully realize them again, and cases should be filed by attorneys who have good experience with a good win loss record. That leaves Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, Don Kates, Stephan Halbrook, Jason Davis as some of the best 2nd amendment attorneys in the nation. There are some bad second amendment attorneys, such as someone you pay money too who has no skin in the game, or general boneheads *cough* Gary Gorski *cough.

    Color me skeptical.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    I can't see how open carry is illegal in some states or requires a license. TheRIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. You cannot charge a person for a constitutional right. Imagine needing a license to talk freely....it is absurd. Concealed carry is the privilege, OC is the alternative and theinalienableright.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    I can't see how open carry is illegal in some states or requires a license. TheRIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. You cannot charge a person for a constitutional right. Imagine needing a license to talk freely....it is absurd. Concealed carry is the privilege, OC is the alternative and theinalienableright.
    Yep. I don't see how it's a law either, but unfortunately, these laws are passed, which means the law has gone through every branch of the government (unconstitutionally) and may be enforced by police, and ruled by a judge.

    If the government continues to make unconstitutional laws, what can we do? Really? What can we do? Go down fighting?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Yes, we can go down fighting. If enough citizens rise up, and refuse to accept these Unconstitutional laws, eventually the Government will have no choice but to revoke the laws. Once a law becomes to difficult to enforce, the courts will rule it unenforceable, and abandon the law altogether. So, we must fight, day in and day out. We must get mean, and nasty! I'm talking real mean, and we must get right up in their faces! Force them to see us with our weapons as we defiantly open carry in every place they try to hide. Because soon enough every liberal will have been exposed to the sight of our weapons that they become accustomed to it, and they will become desensitized, and in turn the whole OC/CC issue will become a non-issue.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    And at what point will we see police officers refusing to enforce these laws because they feel they are a violation of the constitution? I feel that it's very important that police officers take a stand in this as well. Same goes for prosecuting attorneys and judges. Everyone needs to work on this together to fight back. Including government officials who feel strongly about our constitution.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Well, answer me this, if 1000 people were walking down a street carrying concealed with out a license, do you think the police will have the resources to arrest those 1000 people? How about 10,000 or 100,000? The police always say safety in numbers, I agree. If we use their tactics against them, turn their rhetoric against them, how can they stop us? For far too long, we have stood by quietly as the lawless liberals strip away our Constitutional rights piece by piece, and we have done nothing to stop them. Until now. OC.org is the perfect platform to organize nation wide "TEA" party style gatherings to voice our outrage about the destruction of our 2nd Amendment. If we come together and unite as a whole, we can become the Juggernaut needed to reverse the oppressive laws that restrict our 2nd Amendment. Once the momentum is gained, I'm sure the rest of the country will jump on board in support of out cause, because they know that if the Liberals can suppress the 2nd Amendment, they can suppress all of them.Strength in Numbers! That is how we beat them. Strength in numbers.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    I can't see how open carry is illegal in some states or requires a license. TheĀ*RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. You cannot charge a person for a constitutional right. Imagine needing a license to talk freely....it is absurd. Concealed carry is the privilege, OC is the alternative and theĀ*inalienableĀ*right.
    Don't forget that some STATE constitutions are written in a more detailed way....
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    I can't see how open carry is illegal in some states or requires a license. TheRIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. You cannot charge a person for a constitutional right. Imagine needing a license to talk freely....it is absurd. Concealed carry is the privilege, OC is the alternative and theinalienableright.

    Privilege? How can concealed be a privilege if open carry is a right? They are one in the same, because they are both keep & bear. That's like saying you can own a switch blade knife as long as it does not have a blade.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

    Tell me where it says that it is a privilege? Privileges are given by man, rights are given by God. Liberals want you to think that the ability for you to carry your weapon is a privilege, because as long as you think of it as a privilege, it can be taken away from you. As soon as you start to view it as a right, it can never be taken away. Ever. So, the next time some Lib starts in on you about why you are OCing, boldly remind them that it is you right, and as such, you will exercises that right until the day you die. Just like they throw the 1st Amendment in your face when they rally and protest, we shall rally and protest by OCing when ever possible.

    On another note, I think a TEA party style gathering is in order before the August recess ends.


  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    2ndAmendmentDefender wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    sempercarry wrote:
    I can't see how open carry is illegal in some states or requires a license. TheRIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. You cannot charge a person for a constitutional right. Imagine needing a license to talk freely....it is absurd. Concealed carry is the privilege, OC is the alternative and theinalienableright.

    Privilege? How can concealed be a privilege if open carry is a right? They are one in the same, because they are both keep & bear. That's like saying you can own a switch blade knife as long as it does not have a blade.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

    Tell me where it says that it is a privilege? Privileges are given by man, rights are given by God. Liberals want you to think that the ability for you to carry your weapon is a privilege, because as long as you think of it as a privilege, it can be taken away from you. As soon as you start to view it as a right, it can never be taken away. Ever. So, the next time some Lib starts in on you about why you are OCing, boldly remind them that it is you right, and as such, you will exercises that right until the day you die. Just like they throw the 1st Amendment in your face when they rally and protest, we shall rally and protest by OCing when ever possible.

    On another note, I think a TEA party style gathering is in order before the August recess ends.
    I want to ask you a few questions here:

    1) What makes you think that all Liberals are anti-gun? You might want to look around you here. Washington State has been a very pro-gun jurisdiction for DECADES. I count many here in Washington State who are both "liberal" in your veracity and pro-gun. It was a coalition of gun owners and "liberals" that booted out Mayor Nickels of Seattle and retired him from public office, hopefully permanently. This coalition was made up of people who were gun owners (who all almost universally voted against Nickelbag) and "liberals" who thought "Da Mayor", in their words, was a "corporatist pig". We booted him out, and we sent a message to the next Mayor to not screw with gun owners, or we'll make sure that he's a 1-term mayor.

    2) What makes you think that any federal court is going to declare concealed carry a constitutional civil right.

    I urge you to read the following legal filings in it's entirety before you consider filing your case:

    Sykes v. McGinness (Sacramento County, CA)

    Palmer v. District of Columbia

    Heller v. District of Columbia, aka Heller 2

    Alan Gura and Stephen Halbrook, as well as supporting attorneys Don Kilmer, Jason Davis, Chuck Michel, John Monroe and Don Kates, are by far the best 2nd amendment lawyers who are at the top of their game. If they all don't believe that filing a case declaring concealed carry to be a right and not licensable under the 2nd amendment is winnable, then it may be an indication to you that your attempt to litigate in that matter would actually be detrimental to the 2nd amendment cause.

    If you're litigating what I think you're litigating, then I urge you to reconsider. Heller was our Brown v. Board of Education, which generally only desegregated K-12 and other educational institutions. It took later, very carefully planned cases by the NAACP and other allied organizations to finally put the hammer down on segregated public works, such as buses, public buildings, and other situations. A similar plan is in the works along the same tried and true path.

    One more thing: It took me a moment to realize who Chuck Klein was.

    Klein is from Klein v. Leis, who lost his case declaring the Ohio concealed carry ban to be unconstitutional. There was one silver lining, it made open carry de-facto legal in Ohio. Klein, in the end, still lost in his bid to declare Ohio's CCW laws unconstitutional. The only reason he won in both Common Pleas and Court of Appeals is the fact that the courts there had determined that open carry would result in automatic arrest by local law enforcement. Ohio Supreme Court had an end to that. However, I reiterate again, Klein still lost.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    ...Concealed carry is the privilege, ...
    I disagree. Tell me where you find the distinction?

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    the right of the people [you and me and everyone] to keep [own] and bear [carry] shall not be infringed [violated or impeded in any way, shape or form].

    It is nobodies business how we choose to bear arms. It is nobodies business what type of weapons we choose to keep. The Constitution is completely clear on the matter and if we allow the authoritarians to dictate to us the terms of our liberty, we are dead as a free nation.

    The Constitution does not say that open carry is ok, but conceal carry is not... give an inch, they'll take a mile. We take back the mile they've taken and we nail their feet to the ground and put the claw hammer out of their reach.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Thank you Washingtonian... That is exactly what I've been trying to say. Carrying your firearm IS a right, no matter if you carry it concealed or openly.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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