Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Are open Carry bans unconstitutional post McDonald.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Are open Carry bans unconstitutional post McDonald.

    Breyer's opinion would seem to indicate that Concealed Carry restrictions are OK, so that means....

    Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, et al.

    I mean really, how can you require people to pay (Concealed carry permit fee) to exercise a fundamental right??

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    I mean really, how can you require people to pay (Concealed carry permit fee) to exercise a fundamental right??
    The NRA water-carriers, chamberlains carrying night-water for their Emperor, here in Wisconsin desperately want permitted CC for the training fee sinecure.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Open Carry is the right. We all know it is.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Damn it Doug!!!

    I was having a good day. Why did you have to mention the NRA?

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Breyer's opinion would seem to indicate that Concealed Carry restrictions are OK, so that means....

    Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, et al.

    I mean really, how can you require people to pay (Concealed carry permit fee) to exercise a fundamental right??

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    Daley in Chicago has stated publicly that (while they are scurrying to re-write their ordinance) he would support registration and LIABILITY INSURANCE for gun owners. Hmmmm that has a bit of an "ObamaCare" tone to it. Forcing you to buy something you don't want. And unlike ObamaCare, gun ownership is a RIGHT.

    I don't think it will fly but of course we (gun owners) will have to pry every single bastardized attempt to continue the unconstitutional defacto bans that the anti's just can't admit that they can't have.

    Cry me a river Danny boy. You're going to have LEGAL guns in Chicago again.

    And yeah, why did someone have to mention the damn NRA? Grrrrrr

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    although heller and mcdonald opinions have both cited that 'reasonable regulations' are allowed, how does that square with laws that require licenses, fees, or taxes considering Murdoch v. commonwealth of PA?

  7. #7
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    In my column today, I noted that he seems to be planning to go after the supply side. See http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minne...-Wallace-style

    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Daley in Chicago has stated publicly that (while they are scurrying to re-write their ordinance) he would support registration and LIABILITY INSURANCE for gun owners. Hmmmm that has a bit of an "ObamaCare" tone to it. Forcing you to buy something you don't want. And unlike ObamaCare, gun ownership is a RIGHT.

    I don't think it will fly but of course we (gun owners) will have to pry every single bastardized attempt to continue the unconstitutional defacto bans that the anti's just can't admit that they can't have.

    Cry me a river Danny boy. You're going to have LEGAL guns in Chicago again.

    And yeah, why did someone have to mention the damn NRA? Grrrrrr

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    I really enjoy this part from Murdock v. Pennsylvania:

    "This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."

    "The privilege in question exists apart from state authority." I'm thinking of sending this to everyone I know.....

  9. #9
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by oneeyeross View Post
    I really enjoy this part from Murdock v. Pennsylvania:

    "This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."

    "The privilege in question exists apart from state authority." I'm thinking of sending this to everyone I know.....
    So I'm thinking.... since the 2nd Amendment gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear, don't all those state and federal fees amount to an unconstitutional tax on a right guaranteed by the Constitution? I wonder what the BATFE would say about their $200 tax on NFA items? Even they call it a TAX STAMP.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    SNIP Cry me a river Danny boy. You're going to have LEGAL guns in Chicago again.

    Ooo. That suggests a nifty little rhetorical device. Daley (and Fenty, and...) are behind the times, clinging to old traditions. Resisting change. The pendulum of human progress has swung further and people have another civil right recognized.

    Dinosaur Daley. Stuck in the past---the bad old days of gun control, when governments made their citizens vulnerable to criminals. Before reason overcame the superstition that criminals would be deterred by anti-gun laws. That time in our benighted past when old men had to risk prison to protect their family.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722
    So when is Daley up for re-election. If I were plannng a campaign strategy against him, I'd hammer him over and over on this issue.

    I'd run spots pointing out the 2 recent incidents in which Chicago citizens successfully defended themselves with firearms that are technically illegal under Chicago law. Then I'd point out that Daley chose NOT to prosecute them. Why? Because he knows the truth - that legally armed citizens CAN do this. Then say, "Daley wants you, the citizens of Chicago, to be defenseless and at the mercy of every doped-up street thug in town."

    Of course, this would require a Chicago politicain to run on a pro-gun platform, but a fella can dream, right?

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by XD-GEM View Post
    So when is Daley up for re-election. If I were plannng a campaign strategy against him, I'd hammer him over and over on this issue.
    Ummmmm it's Chicago. Do you really think that the guy is going to let a little thing like an election boot him out of office? He's been there 21 years and his corruption organization is well entrenched. He'll have all the votes he needs to win re-election until he either gets tired of it, dies, or is put in prison. There are plenty of dead people to ensure plenty of votes for the crook and his cronies.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    SNIP There are plenty of dead people to ensure plenty of votes for the crook (Daley) and his cronies.
    At last! Proof that zombies are political! Capable of concerted political action!

    Kill Zombies!!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by oneeyeross View Post
    I really enjoy this part from Murdock v. Pennsylvania:

    "This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."

    "The privilege in question exists apart from state authority." I'm thinking of sending this to everyone I know.....
    Unfortunately the 2A was not incorporated as a Priviledge under P&I.

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Unfortunately the 2A was not incorporated as a Priviledge under P&I.
    And how in the HECK they came up with that but passed it under "due process" flaberghasts me. I've read the entire thing including the summary, opinion, separate opinions of the majority, and the whiney dissents. I think it was Scalia that just hammerd one of the dissenters, almost to the point of a personal attack you'd expect to see on some web forum (not this one, much worse than ever endures here). As I read that I was thinking, they've finally rolled up their sleeves and the fisticuffs are sure to come soon.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    I mean really, how can you require people to pay (Concealed carry permit fee) to exercise a fundamental right??

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    I hear you, but they get away with it by saying, "You're not paying for the privalage of carrying a firearm or even carrying it concealed. You're paying for the background check, the administrative processing fee, and the training required to ensure you can safely handle a firearm."

    Which, in my state (CO) makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever when it's perfectly legal to OC without having to pay a penny.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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