wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Mike wrote:
So a ban on CC is a "valid exercise of police power?" I would disagree with that, referencing my response to Thundar.
Carrying is "bearing," whether the firearm is visible to others or not. Declaring one method "protected," and not similarly treating the other the same is the realm of special interest, and special treatment, and falls outside of simple "protection of a Right."
If our government were really serious about protecting the Rightthat is articulated in the 2nd Amendment, it would prevent the states from infringing upon the free exercise of thatRight. With that said, I do support restrictions upon carry by felons. Theyhaveacted in ways that infringe upon the Rights of others.
Do "states rights" trump individual rights?
Thundar wrote:
CC should be considered as a Right under the 2nd Amendment. Is there a requirement to open carry for it to be "keep and bear?" Are we no longer "keeping and bearing" if the firearm is not immediately visible? I just do not understand the logic behind denying CC as part of the 2nd Amendment Right.Slayer of Paper wrote:There is already precedent for preempting state laws that restrict rights: <snip>CC is not a right, it is a priveledge. (except maybe for VT and AK) where you need a government permission slip.Or, the most likely interpretation is that the federal government, including SCOTUS, simply picks and chooses when it will and will not enforce the 10th amendment, according to each SCOTUS's political leanings.
Mike wrote:
There is a large difference between the Congress making somthing unlawful as a matter of federal law. e.g., Raich (home gown marijuana unlawful under federal law), and the Congress invalidating a vaid exercise of police police power (state bans on concealed carry in that state generally).
If a Congressman was serious about passing a bill to encourage CHP reciprocity, then she would introduce a bill requiring states to accept other states CHPs as a condition of receiving certain small percentages of federal fudning. That's how the NICS improvement act works.
So a ban on CC is a "valid exercise of police power?" I would disagree with that, referencing my response to Thundar.
Carrying is "bearing," whether the firearm is visible to others or not. Declaring one method "protected," and not similarly treating the other the same is the realm of special interest, and special treatment, and falls outside of simple "protection of a Right."
If our government were really serious about protecting the Rightthat is articulated in the 2nd Amendment, it would prevent the states from infringing upon the free exercise of thatRight. With that said, I do support restrictions upon carry by felons. Theyhaveacted in ways that infringe upon the Rights of others.
Do "states rights" trump individual rights?