Bill 822

[FMCDH]

What's so hard to understand? The Founding Fathers recognized that there would be different values and ideas in the various areas of the Country and they didn't want to see a "Supreme" central government. With the exception of those rights enumerated in the Constitution and BOR's they wanted the States to be free to govern their citizens as they saw fit. What's happened is that the States have ceded the rights they originally had in order to nurse at the Federal Government's teat.

On the other hand, one of the weaknesses of our original government, the Articles of Confederation, way too much power was vested in the States. Our Constitutional Republic was formed to solve some of the original problems with the "Confederation". That meant taking back some States power. Apparently this bill will accomplish a similar task by forcing States to honor other States carry permits.

Exactly, and the states still get to decide under what restrictions people must carry, or whether they want to have a permit system at all.

If a state REALLY feels like this is intruding on their "public safety" so much, all they have to do is get rid of their permit system. I'm sure the people of California (for example) wouldn't even notice if it simply went away.

Of-course, all the politicos, celebrities and rich people would.

 

[Kildars]

Let me get this straight. The founders wanted to keep the federal government from adopting a national religion, but it is ok for states to do so. The founders wanted to keep the federal government from infringing on peoples right to assemble, but it is ok for the states to do so. The founders wanted to keep the federal government from infringing on your right to remain silent, but it is ok for the states to do so.

That is ridiculous to think the founding fathers wanted to stop the federal government from infinging on fundamental individual rights, but would be ok with the states infringing on those same rights.

The main point that you're missing is that most state constitutions had the same protections as federal ones. The founding fathers saw the federal government as very limited and should have very few functions (minting money, interstate commerce, raising armies, waging wars etc..) If you don't agree that it was the original intent of the founding fathers for the constitution only to limit the federal government you should read up on your history.

 

[Kildars]

Every human being who ever lived ('cept One) is a hypocrite. That includes you. I've made my points. The gov't is not stepping out of bounds, it's doing the right thing... albeit for the wrong reasons. Yes, this bill is an imperfect and flawed advance, but here in the real world, that's often the best we can hope for. We are not going to wake up one day to discover the Ron Paul fairy has magically restored full constitutional carry to all the states. It was through incrementalism and a few dirty tricks that our rights were lost, that's the only way we're getting them back.

The states never had the "right" to restrict carry, concealed or otherwise, in the first place.

I am pretty happy with where we are today. In about 20 years we have dramatically increased the shall issue carry states, we have educated and expanded open carry. There are now six states that allow concealed campus carry. We have had two supreme court decisions overturning harsh gun bans and explaining the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one. Can you explain to me how the state of gun rights in the U.S. is in peril? We're winning, without sacrificing our principles. I love how you imply that people who are willing to keep government in check even when it doesn't support their beliefs somehow live in la la land and you live in the real world.

If this bill passes it will just give the government more precedent to pass more heavy handed bills asserting authority over state decisions and next time it may not be for a cause you support.

 

[gogodawgs]

I am pretty happy with where we are today. In about 20 years we have dramatically increased the shall issue carry states, we have educated and expanded open carry. There are now six states that allow concealed campus carry. We have had two supreme court decisions overturning harsh gun bans and explaining the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one. Can you explain to me how the state of gun rights in the U.S. is in peril? We're winning, without sacrificing our principles. I love how you imply that people who are willing to keep government in check even when it doesn't support their beliefs somehow live in la la land and you live in the real world.

If this bill passes it will just give the government more precedent to pass more heavy handed bills asserting authority over state decisions and next time it may not be for a cause you support.

Have you read the bill?

 

[Kildars]

Have you read the bill?

Yes, actually I have, why do you ask? I learned to read bills a long time ago and was reminded when people were saying the AZ Immigration law allowed police to stop people for being brown.

 

[gogodawgs]

Yes, actually I have, why do you ask? I learned to read bills a long time ago and was reminded when people were saying the AZ Immigration law allowed police to stop people for being brown.

Then what is heavy handed about this bill? Where does it authorize the Federal Government to do anything?

 

[Kildars]

Then what is heavy handed about this bill? Where does it authorize the Federal Government to do anything?

It doesn't authorize the federal government to do anything but it further federally regulates another aspect of firearms which is something I'd like to get away from. States should be able to decide which permits they honor, just like they do with drivers licenses. The argument in the bill that states that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to self defense and possession of firearms is correct but that right does not extend to a federally protected right to conceal. Don't expect that to change soon. The courts have upheld concealed carry prohibitions as constitutional under the 2nd amendment.

"Justice Brown spotlighted his belief that the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons"

Robertson v Baldwin (1987)

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

-Scalia

DC vs Heller (2010)

The fact that your right to conceal is not federally protected, it is not up to the federal government to protect infringement on your perceived right. It is up to the states to enter agreements to either allow or prohibit concealed carry into their states.

 

[gogodawgs]

It doesn't authorize the federal government to do anything but it further federally regulates another aspect of firearms which is something I'd like to get away from. States should be able to decide which permits they honor, just like they do with drivers licenses. The argument in the bill that states that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to self defense and possession of firearms is correct but that right does not extend to a federally protected right to conceal. Don't expect that to change soon. The courts have upheld concealed carry prohibitions as constitutional under the 2nd amendment.

No. If the feds are not authorized then it does not 'further federally regulate another aspect of firearms'. The federal government must be authorized to do so, and you state that there is no authorization.

States do not get to decide which bibles they honor if carried openly or concealed, nor do they get to decide firearms.

Yes. States still get to decide how firearms are carried, concealed, open, where, when..... states rights are still intact.

 

[Kildars]

No. If the feds are not authorized then it does not 'further federally regulate another aspect of firearms'. The federal government must be authorized to do so, and you state that there is no authorization.

States do not get to decide which bibles they honor if carried openly or concealed, nor do they get to decide firearms.

Yes. States still get to decide how firearms are carried, concealed, open, where, when..... states rights are still intact.

You do not consider this bill regulation? What else is it? It gets the federal government more involved in firearms. Why should a state be forced to honor another states permit? Where does the federal government get the authority to force this?

 

[gogodawgs]

You do not consider this bill regulation? What else is it? It gets the federal government more involved in firearms. Why should a state be forced to honor another states permit? Where does the federal government get the authority to force this?

No. It is not 'regulation'.

It is a statement to honor the natural rights of man.

How does it get the feds more involved in firearms?

Why should a state be 'forced' to honor my right to be secure in my person and effects?

The feds get the authority from the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.

 

[Kildars]

No. It is not 'regulation'.

It is a statement to honor the natural rights of man.

How does it get the feds more involved in firearms?

Why should a state be 'forced' to honor my right to be secure in my person and effects?

The feds get the authority from the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.

It is definitely regulation. Regulation is defined as: A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority. Your talking points "natural rights of man" and other pointless rhetoric are not founded in law. States are forced to protect your 4th amendment rights because it was incorporated through the 14th amendment. Your right to carry concealed has not been, what is so hard to understand about this? The constitution is the law of the land but laws prohibiting concealed carry are constitutional.

 

[gogodawgs]

It is definitely regulation. Regulation is defined as: A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority. Your talking points "natural rights of man" and other pointless rhetoric are not founded in law. States are forced to protect your 4th amendment rights because it was incorporated through the 14th amendment. Your right to carry concealed has not been, what is so hard to understand about this? The constitution is the law of the land but laws prohibiting concealed carry are constitutional.

Your definition of a regulation is much too broad. What is being regulated? A state's denial of a right to another citizen?

I perfectly understand that the right to carry concealed has not been incorporated via the Court. Congress is doing so via this bill. Remember Congress is an equal part of this Republic. Why are you giving credit to make the decision only to the Court? How hard is this to understand that if both houses and the Executive sign this bill then it is law. What would be unconstitutional about this approach? The truth is this is how our government was designed.

 

[Kildars]

Your definition of a regulation is much too broad. What is being regulated? A state's denial of a right to another citizen?

The definition of regulate I used is the one from the dictionary, not sure how that is broad. I am not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse or if you really don't understand how this law is regulation. This is a mandate that states must allow other permit holders to carry in their state.

I perfectly understand that the right to carry concealed has not been incorporated via the Court. Congress is doing so via this bill. Remember Congress is an equal part of this Republic. Why are you giving credit to make the decision only to the Court? How hard is this to understand that if both houses and the Executive sign this bill then it is law. What would be unconstitutional about this approach? The truth is this is how our government was designed.

This changes the entire argument if you are asserting that this is a national conceal carry law. This would significantly trample states rights. This bill does not legalize conceal carry on federal level so congress is definitely not interpreting the 2nd amendment to protect an individual right to carry.

 

[Metalhead47]

No. It is not 'regulation'.

It is a statement to honor the natural rights of man.

How does it get the feds more involved in firearms?

Why should a state be 'forced' to honor my right to be secure in my person and effects?

The feds get the authority from the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.

YES! Yes! Thank you! This is what I've been trying to say all along.

The states were never justified in the first place restricting the natural right to self defense.

 

[gogodawgs]

The definition of regulate I used is the one from the dictionary, not sure how that is broad. I am not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse or if you really don't understand how this law is regulation. This is a mandate that states must allow other permit holders to carry in their state.



This changes the entire argument if you are asserting that this is a national conceal carry law. This would significantly trample states rights. This bill does not legalize conceal carry on federal level so congress is definitely not interpreting the 2nd amendment to protect an individual right to carry.

There is no regulation of the right to conceal, only the affirmation that it exists. The power is enumerated and shall not be infringed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since this power is delegated to the United States(to protect only), it is not reserved to the States and thus the states can not infringe upon the right either.

 

[Kildars]

There is no regulation of the right to conceal, only the affirmation that it exists. The power is enumerated and shall not be infringed.

What? Can you tell me where in the bill it says that we have a right to conceal?

Since this power is delegated to the United States(to protect only), it is not reserved to the States and thus the states can not infringe upon the right either.

The only problem with your arguments are that this right you're basing them off doesn't exist

 

[amlevin]

I am gathering from this discussion that the "Court" has stated the right to regulate concealed carry AND that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

If one is guaranteed the right to "bear arms" but States have the right to regulate Concealed Carry, I would deduce that Open Carry is the protected form of carry.

 

[Kildars]

I am gathering from this discussion that the "Court" has stated the right to regulate concealed carry AND that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

If one is guaranteed the right to "bear arms" but States have the right to regulate Concealed Carry, I would deduce that Open Carry is the protected form of carry.

I would tend to agree that if a case came down that is what the courts would say however, as of now, the courts have only recognized the right to possess a gun in the home. That is what Heller dealt with. The courts are definitely more favorable to open carry though.