HCP as an alternative to TICS/NICS

[Oh Shoot]

2 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

I must have mistaken those fees.  Thats my mistake.  

Maybe not. I don't know for sure that some other states aren't charging something in same way TN does just for 4473 check.

- OS

[btq96r]

4 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Maybe not. I don't know for sure that some other states aren't charging something in same way TN does just for 4473 check.

- OS

Those states also have income taxes and other sources of revenue collecting high enough to where they don't have to nickel and dime residents on public services.

Pluses and minuses to either way of operating.

[Jeb48]

41 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Those states also have income taxes and other sources of revenue collecting high enough to where they don't have to nickel and dime residents on public services.

Pluses and minuses to either way of operating.

They still nickel and dime you on top off the income tax. They just have creative ways to spend more of our money. 

[gregintenn]

I still can't figure where a carry permit or a background check fits into the phrase "shall not be infringed".

All of it seems akin to a poll tax if you ask me....and we all know how everyone feels about a poll tax.

[Garufa]

15 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I still can't figure where a carry permit or a background check fits into the phrase "shall not be infringed".

All of it seems akin to a poll tax if you ask me....and we all know how everyone feels about a poll tax.

Nearly 230 years of court rulings from all levels including the Supreme Court says so.

[JAB]

13 hours ago, Garufa said:

Nearly 230 years of court rulings from all levels including the Supreme Court says so.

In other words, because regardless of the rules they are supposed to follow and how clearly those rules are written, the people who can ruin your life and send you to prison think it ought to be that way.  Unfortunately.

[btq96r]

On 5/18/2017 at 8:46 PM, gregintenn said:

I still can't figure where a carry permit or a background check fits into the phrase "shall not be infringed".

All of it seems akin to a poll tax if you ask me....and we all know how everyone feels about a poll tax.

It's that whole "well regulated" part people like to ignore.  Now, I know that makes me the odd duck around here, but I'm all in favor of permits and background checks to determine the character of those carrying....where I come back to the TGO train of thought is once someone is determined to be in compliance with the law, the government shouldn't have any business telling them what arms they're allowed to keep and bear.

[JohnC]

I'd really like to see our permit take the place of that stupid TICS!

[JAB]

On 5/20/2017 at 0:44 AM, btq96r said:

It's that whole "well regulated" part people like to ignore.  Now, I know that makes me the odd duck around here, but I'm all in favor of permits and background checks to determine the character of those carrying....where I come back to the TGO train of thought is once someone is determined to be in compliance with the law, the government shouldn't have any business telling them what arms they're allowed to keep and bear.

Madison clearly explained what 'well regulated' with regards to a militia means in The Federalist #46. 

Quote

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

and:

Quote

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

So, according to the guy who helped write the Bill of Rights, "militia" means any citizen who is capable of fighting against a tyrannical federal government and in order to 'regulate' that militia officers would be chosen from among the militia by such governing bodies (local governments) to which the militia gives allegiance.  Further, those local governments would 'unite and conduct' the actions of the militia.  'Well regulated' has nothing to do with who can and who cannot own arms.  It has to do with the structure of a militia should such a militia be necessary in order to resist the over-reach of a tyrannical government.

Edited May 22, 2017 by JAB

[btq96r]

6 hours ago, JAB said:

Madison clearly explained what 'well regulated' with regards to a militia means in The Federalist #46.

How did Madison's Federalist 46 titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared" describe it better than Hamilton did when he wrote Federalist 29 "Concerning the Militia"?

I'll direct your attention to what I consider the important part to our discussion from 29...
 

Quote

 

From Federalist 29:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

 

The terms "select corps" and "principles as will really fit them for service in case of need" permitting a permitting process with background checks to determine feasibility for service in the militia (in whatever form we recognize it today...admittedly this is something we've fallen far from intent on).  Each state has their own version, but they're valid as long as they're checking a standard, not intending to prohibit or hinder lawful ownership.

That's how I see it anyway. 

[JAB]

16 hours ago, btq96r said:

How did Madison's Federalist 46 titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared" describe it better than Hamilton did when he wrote Federalist 29 "Concerning the Militia"?

I'll direct your attention to what I consider the important part to our discussion from 29...
 

The terms "select corps" and "principles as will really fit them for service in case of need" permitting a permitting process with background checks to determine feasibility for service in the militia (in whatever form we recognize it today...admittedly this is something we've fallen far from intent on).  Each state has their own version, but they're valid as long as they're checking a standard, not intending to prohibit or hinder lawful ownership.

That's how I see it anyway. 

To me, that sounds more like a small core of 'minute men'.  Further, I do not read 'principles as will really fit them...' as having anything, whatsoever, to do with limiting arms.  Instead, that would appear, to me, to mean training some to be members of a cannon team, some to be infantry, some to be cavalry and so on, probably so that if the whole militia need be mobilized there would be a core group that could instruct the irregulars and probably take the leadership roles.  At least that is the way I read it based on the excerpt you posted.  I will take a look at the entire paper, though.

EDIT: I see, also, that Hamilton - unlike Madison - was using the term 'militia' in what was, frankly, an unclear and imprecise manner.  In one sentence he will use 'militia' as a term almost interchangeable with 'army', in another he will use it to refer to a formal armed force maintained by each state and in yet another he will use the term 'militia' in the way Madison did, to indicate the whole of the citizenry.  So, to begin with, that is how Madison's paper described it better than Hamilton's - because even Hamilton, himself, seemed unsure as to how to use the word.  Further, even in Hamilton's paper the terms you cited that he used refers only to the standing militia, not to regulation of private citizens regardless of whether or not said private citizen might be called upon to fight as part of the citizens' militia.

Edited May 23, 2017 by JAB

[btq96r]

9 hours ago, JAB said:

Further, I do not read 'principles as will really fit them...' as having anything, whatsoever, to do with limiting arms.

This is the important point, and one I agree with as it's written (hopefully I'm reading it correctly).  Limiting arms is something I'm not in concurrence with at all.  Determining the suitability of character for militia service should be the only determiner...once someone is good to go, they should be able to equip themselves with any weapon(s) on the market they can acquire.

As to the rest, I can agree to disagree, but I think we've fallen quite far from the concept of the militia as the instrument of citizenry and service it was envisioned as.   

[JAB]

10 hours ago, btq96r said:

This is the important point, and one I agree with as it's written (hopefully I'm reading it correctly).  Limiting arms is something I'm not in concurrence with at all.  Determining the suitability of character for militia service should be the only determiner...once someone is good to go, they should be able to equip themselves with any weapon(s) on the market they can acquire.

As to the rest, I can agree to disagree, but I think we've fallen quite far from the concept of the militia as the instrument of citizenry and service it was envisioned as.   

My main point, however, was that Hamilton - in the excerpt you quoted - was speaking only about training, etc. of members of a formal, standing military body.  He was not speaking about members of the general public who may or may not, at some point, be needed as part of a more generalized, citizens' militia.  In fact, the entire paper was about drawing a distinction between the two as, he felt, the entirety of the citizenry could not be regularly trained, "upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. "  Just as not every citizen of the U.S. has to maintain a certain type of haircut, salute military officers or know their rank and serial number so the 'principles' Hamilton speaks of do not apply to every citizen but only to the standing military body for which he is arguing and membership therein.  So, then, my point is that Hamilton is making no argument, whatsoever, about training or 'fitness' or anything else pertaining to the general citizenry and that there is no way, in my reading, to take it that he is making any argument about applying the standards for membership in a regular, standing military force to the citizenry as a whole when it comes to 'fitness' to own arms or anything else.  Meanwhile, Madison is obviously saying that every, single citizen in the United States has the right to keep and bear arms and that such right is, in his estimation, an effective check against the formal, standing military bodies - such as those of which Hamilton speaks - being used by the federal government to enforce tyranny on the citizenry as a whole.  The point of both papers was that the Federalists were arguing in support of the need to have some sort of standing, military body that would ultimately look to the federal government for leadership.  Many, remembering the war they had just fought where their former government had used a standing military to attempt to enforce its will against the people, opposed the existence of such formal military bodies and believed that, in times of need, the citizens' militia would be enough.  So, Hamilton is arguing that such a militia - with no formal, regular training and no pre-existing structure or established division of labor would not be enough while Madison was arguing that such a formal military body would not be able to stand against the citizens' militia if it came right down to it.   Further, Madison is obviously saying that every citizen has the right to arms, period.  Not after a background check, not with government permission, not on alternate Saturdays and not as long as they pass the requirements to have a permit. 

So, based on both papers I would still argue that the 'militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is the citizens' militia, not a formal, standing military body and that 'well-regulated' means that at the time such a militia is formed, if it is formed, officers will be chosen from among their number to act as leaders for the militia as well as liaisons between the militia and those governments, likely local or state governments, which the militia supports.  So, then, my reading of the Second Amendment based on these papers and other information is:

As the possibility of forming a citizen's militia, which would be beholden to local or state governments and regulated by same via officers chosen from among the citizen's militia, itself, is necessary to the preservation of a free state against encroachment from foreign enemies and an over-reaching, tyrannical federal government alike, the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms is guaranteed and shall not be infringed upon in any way, whatsoever, nor shall there be any restriction or requirement other than being a citizen placed upon the ownership and bearing of arms.

Now, would I argue that someone who has a professional, medical diagnosis of being bat-guano crazy in such a manner that he or she is a significant threat to themselves or others should be able to own firearms?  No.  But I think the powers that be should have to prove that is the case before removing someone's right rather than everyone having to prove that we aren't 'unfit' before being allowed to exercise what is both a natural and a Constitutional right.  In other words, under the current system you are 'guilty' until you jump through the hoops, pay the fees (be they background check fees or HCP fees) and so on to prove that you are 'innocent'.  That, as they say, is bass-ackwards.  And, no, a background check would not be needed to weed out those who had been adjudicated as mentally defective to such a degree that they cannot own arms or had been convicted of crimes which had resulted in firearms ownership rights being suspended.  A simple database maintained at the federal level - accessible only to those who have an FFL - would be enough.  The FFL types a name and SS number into the computer.  A match means further inquiry to authorities is required and the sale is put on hold.  No match means sale is good to go.  No need for fees, filling out forms or any, other nonsense.  This would also make it easier for firearms rights to be restored as there would be a single point from which the individual's name must be removed.  Delete the name from that single database and that is all that would be required - no red tape, no contacting multiple levels of authorities, nothing.

Edited May 24, 2017 by JAB

[Worriedman]

On 5/19/2017 at 11:44 PM, btq96r said:

It's that whole "well regulated" part people like to ignore.  Now, I know that makes me the odd duck around here, but I'm all in favor of permits and background checks to determine the character of those carrying....where I come back to the TGO train of thought is once someone is determined to be in compliance with the law, the government shouldn't have any business telling them what arms they're allowed to keep and bear.

"Well regulated" means to be in proper order, to be calibrated correctly, or in the case of Militias, to be practiced and effective.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with government oversight, in fact it is the absolute opposite of that in its 2nd Amendment meaning, intending the "government" powerless to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms specifically. 

From the period:
In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to "bring their peeces to church." In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.- U.S., Congress, Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, p. 3.

Noah Webster wrote "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe."

George Mason told the Virginia delegates the the Monarch's endeavor "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." and he is quoted in saying "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Tench Coxe, corresponding with James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." and "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans."
 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_mason.html

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_mason.html

Edited May 24, 2017 by Worriedman

[gregintenn]

On 5/19/2017 at 11:44 PM, btq96r said:

It's that whole "well regulated" part people like to ignore.  Now, I know that makes me the odd duck around here, but I'm all in favor of permits and background checks to determine the character of those carrying....where I come back to the TGO train of thought is once someone is determined to be in compliance with the law, the government shouldn't have any business telling them what arms they're allowed to keep and bear.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is an example of why the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't contain a commandment, order, authorization, or restriction of any kind.

Since the entire bill of rights is written for the individual citizen, I cannot fathom why the Second Amendment would be different from the rest of it.

[btq96r]

Folks...the idea that there was no concept of limiting who could be in possession of arms is just not panned out by history.  I'll enter into this debate an excerpt from when Massachusetts was debating on ratifying the Constitution. 

Page 111 in the .pdf: https://archive.org/stream/debatesandproce00peirgoog#page/n109/mode/2up

Quote

 

A motion was made and seconded, that the report of the Committee made on Monday last, be amended, so far as to add the following to the first article therein mentioned, viz.: And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms, or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them, or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances, or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.

And the question being put was determined in the negative. 

 

Now, up front, I'll recognize that this was voted down by the state convention on ratification as something for inclusion to their final report...but reading the rest of it, we recognize that our interpretation of the Constitution is in line with how we view those topics, so we can infer that how they viewed the 2nd in this statement is valid by association.  The specificity of "peaceable citizens" allows for denial of 2nd Amendment rights to those who do not meet its qualifications (which I would assume requires a conviction), and in my mind, it coincides with well-regulated as a measure of discipline needed in a militia, and those not meeting that standard would not be fit for service in a militia.

Unless someone thinks that the criminals of the day were considered "the right stuff" for militia service if needed.

[Worriedman]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:07 AM, btq96r said:

  The specificity of "peaceable citizens" allows for denial of 2nd Amendment rights to those who do not meet its qualifications (which I would assume requires a conviction), and in my mind, it coincides with well-regulated as a measure of discipline needed in a militia, and those not meeting that standard would not be fit for service in a militia.

Unless someone thinks that the criminals of the day were considered "the right stuff" for militia service if needed.

Every person who took up arms in the Revolt were criminals as construed by the legitimate government of the day.  All of them were considered the "right stuff" by Washington, Jefferson, Coxe and Mason, e.g. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

The "militia" was to be the antithesis of the "Standing Army" which to the thinking of our Founders was a dangerous thing. TN 1796 Constitution Article 11 Section 24^th : That the sure and certain defence of a free people is a well-regulated militia; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to freedom, they ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and safety of the community will admit, and that in all cases the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil authority.

Respecting who could own arms then, Article 11 Section 26th: That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

Nothing about background checks or non-criminals, just free men.  As we are no longer free, but slavish per Article 1 Section 2nd: That, government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.  We have allowed the government to institute arbitrary rules and oppress us.  I have nothing but respect for our Service men and women, and our Police, but choosing that as a job should not give special Rights to bear arms, being "fit" for military service should not be, and is not a requirement to provide protection of one's home or person.

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Worriedman

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, Worriedman said:

Every person who took up arms in the Revolt were criminals as construed by the legitimate government of the day.  All of them were considered the "right stuff" by Washington, Jefferson, Coxe and Mason, e.g. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

The "militia" was to be the antithesis of the "Standing Army" which to the thinking of our Founders was a dangerous thing. TN 1796 Constitution Article 11 Section 24^th : That the sure and certain defence of a free people is a well-regulated militia; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to freedom, they ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and safety of the community will admit, and that in all cases the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil authority.

Respecting who could own arms then, Article 11 Section 26th: That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

Nothing about background checks or non-criminals, just free men.  As we are no longer free, but slavish per Article 1 Section 2nd: That, government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.  We have allowed the government to institute arbitrary rules and oppress us.  I have nothing but respect for our Service men and women, and our Police, but choosing that as a job should not give special Rights to bear arms, being "fit" for military service should not be, and is not a requirement to provide protection of one's home or person.

 

It's small comfort, but comfort nonetheless, when I see another chaffing at the chains and shackles we all wear. 

[gregintenn]

Since they won the revolution, they were "militia". Had they lost, they would have been reflected upon much differently in the history books.

[JayC]

On 5/22/2017 at 8:35 PM, btq96r said:

How did Madison's Federalist 46 titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared" describe it better than Hamilton did when he wrote Federalist 29 "Concerning the Militia"?

I'll direct your attention to what I consider the important part to our discussion from 29...
 

The terms "select corps" and "principles as will really fit them for service in case of need" permitting a permitting process with background checks to determine feasibility for service in the militia (in whatever form we recognize it today...admittedly this is something we've fallen far from intent on).  Each state has their own version, but they're valid as long as they're checking a standard, not intending to prohibit or hinder lawful ownership.

That's how I see it anyway. 

Couple of issues with your scholarly research.

First, both federalist papers 29 and 46 were written before the Bill of Rights was written.  Federalist 29 being published on Jan 9th 1788, and 46 being published on Jan 29th of the same year.  The Bill of Rights was published on Sept 25th, 1789, 18+ months later.  

Second, the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment, was written in direct response to concerns expressed by the Anti-Federalists, I'd encourage you to read Brutus No X written as a response by the Anti-Federalists to Federallist No 29. - http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm  

Third, I'd also read Federalist No 84, in which Hamilton worries that future generations will do exactly what you're doing with the Bill of Rights, which is to say you see some power to regulate when no power exists at all.

Fourth, I'd also look to the often forgotten 10th Amendment, which states:

Quote

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.

The 2nd Amendment is a right of 'the people' and therefore neither the States, nor the Federal government should be able to infringe upon the right in any way shape or form.