• 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.

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

2

2ndAmendmentDefender

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
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

2ndAmendmentDefender

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
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.
 
2

2ndAmendmentDefender

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
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.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
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.
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
2

2ndAmendmentDefender

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
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.
 
P

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
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.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

2ndAmendmentDefender wrote:
There is a case that is going to be heard before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
2ndAmendmentDefender wrote:
There is a case that is going to be heard before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sempercarry

sempercarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
378
Location
America
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.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
2

2ndAmendmentDefender

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
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.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 
2

2ndAmendmentDefender

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top