• 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.

Exercising Constitutional Carry?

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Utter ignorant Barbara Streisand!

Please provide a citation to the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights (Amendments I - X) authorizing deprivation of individual rights made unalienable by the Declaration of Independence.

Subsequent constitutional jurisprudence has taken it upon itself to alienate unalienable rights without Constitutional authority. Remember that the Constitution of the Founding Fathers ONLY limited the powers of the government.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
Remember that the Constitution of the Founding Fathers ONLY limited the powers of the government.

No, it only granted powers to the government.

I stand by what I said. Government can, through due process deprive an individual of their rights.

You murder someone, you get a fair trial, they find you guilty, you go to jail, you lose your freedom. All through due process.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Doug,

I understand what you are saying, however, would not the outcome of what you are saying be anarchy? Would not the rule of law be therefore unenforceable because when you enforce a law, someone will lose something, whether it be money (a fine) or liberty (a jail sentence).
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Why can't Constitutional Carry live and breathe with reasonable restrictions?

Under the understanding what Puritanical Constititional Carry 'IS' would give convicted violent felons the right to carry in jails and prisons.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
Isn't the very act of setting up regulations to prohibit felons from purchasing and owning firearms in itself an infringement upon the 2A?

If the Constitutional Carry that Woodchuck is talking about DOES happen, I sure wouldn't want to be living in a country that allows know, convicts, felons, murderers and serial killers to legally poses firearms.

Ahhhhh NO! It allows law abiding non felon citizens to be able to chose their method of carry without a permit and fees. Nothing more. It does not mean Felons can carry firearms. That would take repealing some federal laws to change that.

I think some here are getting carried away with the thought of Constitutional Carry. We must refrain from reading to much into things.
 
Last edited:

AdamXD

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
71
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Ahhhhh NO! It allows law abiding non felon citizens to be able to chose their method of carry without a permit and fees. Nothing more. It does not mean Felons can carry firearms. That would take repealing some federal laws to change that.

I think some here are getting carried away with the thought of Constitutional Carry. We must refrain from reading to much into things.

I understand what actual Constitutional Carry means. I am from Arizona. But how Woodchuck was describing CC was so nonrestrictive, meaning no one would be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms, that it would allow convicted felons to LEGALLY obtain firearms.

I also said that the restrictions that are in place now to keep said convicted felons from obtaining firearms is an infringement upon their 2A. So technically, if actual CC, CC being free to carry what, where, when and how you choose, it would still be infringing upon those who's rights were taken from them.

The laws in place now to keep convicted felons from obtaining firearms will never be removed, and in turn, any Constitutional Carry that is implemented will ALWAYS infringe upon the rights of those who had them taken from them.

The CC Woodchuck dreams is an impossibility in the USA.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
In the matter of armed felons; if a felon has completed his sentenced rehabilitation and is released into society but still can't be trusted with a gun, then where is the error? If somebody is bad enough to become criminal and institutionalized then they damn sure better be kept locked up until they're no threat to society. If they were no threat to society ab initio they they shouldn't be incarcerated.

Be careful of confusing 'is' and 'ought' arguments. Statute law 'is' but the Constitution 'ought' to be abided.
 

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
WOW.......Liberal spin in full affect. We were 1 SC Justice away from the SCOTUS saying the 2nd does not apply to the people or the states. Have you thought about that? What would you be saying then? "The court says I don't have the right so I guess I don't have the right.?" Or would you be protesting in the streets standing firm on the constitution and joining the revolution that would be coming?

Just what do you think regulation does if it doesn't infringe? That's the purpose of regulation. The Constitution doesn't say, "the people right to keep and bear arms, shall be regulated reasonably", or "..keep and bear arms in certain places,..., or "the people have the right to keep and bear only 1 functioning firearm and you must keep it in your residence,..." If they meant that they would have put it that way, but they didn't, they specifically said, "shall NOT be infringed". Could you give a few examples of "reasonable regulation" that doesn't infringe my right to keep and bear arms?

The Bill of Rights originally applied ONLY to the Federal Government. Thus, the states would have been able to ban guns, free speech, or whatever they chose to do. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was ratified that the Supreme Court started applying some of these amendments to the states. Even today, not all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
I repeat. Read the curent Arizona Laws.


August 30, 2010 |
Valley & State
Type Size: A A APrintEmailMost Popular
Digg this.Arizona's concealed-weapon law takes effect
137 commentsby Kevin Kiley - Jul. 29, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
.

Today is the day gun-rights advocates have had in their sights for a long time.

Starting today, Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit.


The change is part of a broad weapons law by state Sen. Russell Pearce passed by the state Legislature in April that eases restrictions on concealed carry and stiffens penalties for committing a crime while carrying a concealed weapon.

The law is one of many passed by the state Legislature this past session that go into effect today.

Arizona joins Alaska and Vermont as the only states to allow concealed weapons without a permit.

However, the impact of the law is likely to be different in Arizona than those states because Arizona's population is much larger and because the state has major metropolitan areas.

"It's one thing to carry a loaded weapon in public when your closest neighbor is a mile or 5 miles away," said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign, an interest group that lobbies for gun regulations. "It's a very different situation when you're in a densely-populated urban environment."

But that lack of precedent makes it difficult to predict the law's impact.

Opponents say that without permitting and training, individuals might place themselves in situations where they might break the law or hurt themselves and others.

Proponents say that concealed carry is not substantially different from open carry, which the state already allows without a permit, and that the new law simply lets law-abiding citizens carry weapons in whatever way is most comfortable.

The law has already created changes for the firearms community, local businesses and police departments. It has also galvanized gun-rights groups to seek further deregulation.


Concealed carry

The law's passage is the culmination of several years of political maneuvering to ease gun regulations in Arizona.

During her time as governor, Janet Napolitano vetoed at least a dozen different weapons bills - several similar to the law going into effect today - that would have eased restrictions on gun owners.

But Napolitano's departure and the appointment of Gov. Jan Brewer in January 2009 gave the Legislature and gun-rights groups an ally in the executive office. Brewer signed the law April 16.

Last year, legislators passed a law allowing concealed-weapon permit holders to enter bars and restaurants.

In Arizona's nearly 100-year history as a state, lawmakers have done little to restrict individuals' ability to carry weapons openly.

Proponents of the new law argue that open carry has not had any impact on public safety or gun violence and that concealed carry without a permit won't alter that.

"It's really just a matter of preference," said Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. "If a woman wants to carry her gun in her purse, she should be allowed to do that as easily as carrying it on her hip."

But opponents of the law say that concealed carry creates a different environment that could land untrained individuals in trouble.

"If a weapon is not concealed, you're aware of a potential problem and it's easier to avoid it," said Arnold Rudley, a gun owner who took a permit course on July 17. "With concealed carry, the knowledge of a potential problem goes away and you might walk into a bad situation without knowing it."


What changes

The law makes several changes to the permitting process and rules regulating concealed carry:

• It removes the requirement that individuals have a permit to carry a concealed weapon anywhere that open carry is allowed. Individuals will still need a permit to carry a concealed weapon in bars and restaurants and to qualify for reciprocal privileges when in states that require permits.

• The new law lets individuals obtain permits through means other than the eight-hour training course mandated under the previous law. These other means include any NRA firearms- or safety-training course and a hunter-education course administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

• It requires individuals to answer honestly if police ask if they are carrying a weapon. The law also allows police officers to take temporary custody of a weapon during stops.

• It stiffens penalties for individuals who commit crimes while carrying a concealed weapon.


Effects

The law's provisions have already reached into the firearms community, local businesses and law-enforcement offices.

Local companies that offer the training course for permits have seen business drop about 80 percent since the law was signed, said David White, owner and instructor of Desert West Firearms Training Center in Mesa.

Many of these companies have either lowered their prices or created new, shorter courses to get gun owners to conduct some training before carrying concealed weapons.

Several instructors said that although they support the right to carry weapons without restrictions, they think gun owners should be responsible enough to seek out training.

They say there are complex laws regarding the use of force. Without any training, they say, individuals could wind up breaking the law.

"I get people coming through my door all the time who know absolutely nothing about the use of force," said Doug Little, who owns and teaches at Armed Personal Defense Institute in Scottsdale. "It's important for them to understand the laws and consequences before they drop that thing in their pocket."

Local law-enforcement offices have discussed the new law with patrol officers, but a spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department said officers have not gone through any special training.

Businesses outside the firearms community have also adjusted to the new law. Under a 2009 law, bars and restaurants wishing to ban firearms must post signs at their entrances to notify patrons.

The Department of Liquor Licensing and Control, which distributes the signs, has seen as many requests for the signs in the past 3 months as it saw since the law went into effect in October.


What's next

Gun-rights advocates see the new law as a major victory in their push to further deregulate the carrying of weapons.

Some provisions of the law were removed as the bill wound its way through the Legislature. Advocacy groups said they will pick up the fight next year to have those provisions passed.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...zona-concealed-weapons-law.html#ixzz0y8iQ2Kqg
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
woodchuck and P&PF

The Arizona statute on concealed carry is Statute 13-3112. It's updated version is not in the Arizona revised statutes yet. Stautes normally aren't updated until after a appoved bill takes effect. In most states the effective date of new legislation is 90 days after a bill is signed into law. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the bill that eliminated the requirement to need a permit to carry a concealed weapon April 16 of 2010. I would expect that anyone well versed in firearm statutes and constitutional law would know that information.

Text of Arizona’s Concealed Weapon Law – SB 1108
By On the Net, on July 29th, 2010
agency.

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 16, 2010.

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 16, 2010.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/07/text-of-arizonas-concealed-weapon-law-sb-1108/
 
M

McX

Guest
well, whatever we get come november, and what ever they give us after that will tell if they intend to keep the promices they made to us to get elected. i wonder if there are any wise enough there to figure that just removing restrictions for us would be a whole lot quicker, and easier than having lengthy hearings, and debates, and enacting new laws.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
well, whatever we get come november, and what ever they give us after that will tell if they intend to keep the promices they made to us to get elected. i wonder if there are any wise enough there to figure that just removing restrictions for us would be a whole lot quicker, and easier than having lengthy hearings, and debates, and enacting new laws.

The liberals in Madison will never "give unrestricted gun rights" back to us rednecks, so a debate must ensue. Look for poor and incomplete coverage coming to WPR & your local media outlets.

Also lets not forget the first thing in government, and that is; Why give away for free when you can tax the hell out of it."
 
Top