House Approves Concealed Firearms Permit Bill

[Guest pfries]

The 2A says nothing about concealed carry. In fact, as it is geared more toward preserving the ability of private citizens to band together, as a last option, to repel an over-reaching Federal government, it really says nothing at all about the regular and daily carry of personal arms for self defense, period. Therefore, the carry of personal arms - either open or concealed - and the administration or regulation of such carry is the right of the individual states. This bill, then, gets the Fed's foot in the door of an issue that is better left to the "States or the People."

SCOTUS disagrees with you on this one.

The meaning of "the right of the people"

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

the right to bear arms is an individual one, not a collective one. Scalia finds similarity with 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendment individual rights.

The meaning of "keep"

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

"Keep arms" means to "have weapons."

The meaning of "bear arms"

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

Scalia reads as meaning (using a 1771 definition of arms) as "anything that a man wears for his defense." Scalia interprets protected arms to be any weapons in common use today for self-defense or hunting, not just weapons in use in 1789.

[Guest TresOsos]

Let's take the 2A and States Rights etc out of this.

What have the Fed's done that make you think this is anything other than the Camel's nose under the tent to backdoor gun control.

Once they get involved they will be able to regulate all kinds of things pretaining to CCW.

Training, the permit process itself and what could be legal to carry, how to carry it's endless.

And it will be expenssive and probably darn near impossible to get thru the regulations they end up passing.

Open your eyes, use some common sense and look at the FEd Gov's record and be afraid, very afraid of this passing.

[Makiaveli]

Let's take the 2A and States Rights etc out of this.

What have the Fed's done that make you think this is anything other than the Camel's nose under the tent to backdoor gun control.

Once they get involved they will be able to regulate all kinds of things pretaining to CCW.

Training, the permit process itself and what could be legal to carry, how to carry it's endless.

And it will be expenssive and probably darn near impossible to get thru the regulations they end up passing.

Open your eyes, use some common sense and look at the FEd Gov's record and be afraid, very afraid of this passing.

Good point. Tack on a $500 fee, make renewal the same as getting it, ie class, fee etc. and how many people would just give up?

[Guest pfries]

Let's take the 2A and States Rights etc out of this.

What have the Fed's done that make you think this is anything other than the Camel's nose under the tent to backdoor gun control.

Once they get involved they will be able to regulate all kinds of things pretaining to CCW.

Training, the permit process itself and what could be legal to carry, how to carry it's endless.

And it will be expenssive and probably darn near impossible to get thru the regulations they end up passing.

Open your eyes, use some common sense and look at the FEd Gov's record and be afraid, very afraid of this passing.

First thing States Do Not Have Rights,

The feds have enacted laws to stop disparage of rights in the past; again prime examples are the civil rights laws and voting laws from 1964 and 65. This bill starts by deregulating certain aspects of self defense and carry laws that are unconstitutional and currently infringe on our rights. It does so in a fairly nondescript and gentle manner by not stepping on any of the current state laws in regards to how and where an individual may be armed. It simply requires that they recognize that privilege held by residents from other states. Some states such as Tennessee would see no change as they have their proverbial act together and already recognize that privilege if it has been bestowed upon an individual by any state whatsoever.

Second you can’t take away the second amendment without scrapping the constitution. If you were to do that you would have a civil revolt on your hands.

For debates sake we will take out the 2^nd Amendment and I will show you why the states have no say in this in the first place.

The 10^th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the three branches nor prohibited by the Constitution are reserved for the states. (The 14^th guarantees life)

The 9^th Amendment and I quote

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.â€

The right to life and liberty as enumerated in the declaration of independence and solidified within the framework of the constitution is therefore protected from disparagement, or out rite denial via congressional and state powers.

Through this we are able to conclude that neither State, nor congress can impede our right to life or liberty, therefore our right to self defense is protected as noted below through the 14^th amendment.

The 14^th Amendment explicitly implies that no State shall make, pass or enforce any law to abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen, and that no State may deprive any person (does not specify citizen for this part) of life, liberty, or property without due process. The term life as Construed within text of the 14^th amendment has already been ruled by SCOTUS to encompass self defense and that this includes owning and bearing arms (although the latter part with reference to the 2^nd amendment). The privilege of life is the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.

The Preamble to the constitution

“Order to form a more perfect Union, establish

Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterityâ€

The term of Liberty is a touch more complex as Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right, that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions . This would include during the practice or exercise of our other rights and privileges that have been bestowed upon us by the Constitution or if reflecting on the Declaration of Independence by our creator.

[Makiaveli]

I was under the impression that rights of the states were the rights of the people. IE it isn't a Federal matter, therefore the people decide on the city, county or state level. So no literally they don't, but in practice they do.

Or am I missing something?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All good points, but I think I will favor the statement about that camel's nose under the tent

and yes, it would be something if even one of the news outlets let out everything about what

a bill says. None of them do. That's how we got some of the worst legislation ever.

For any one good point about legislation, there are ten necessarily bad points in the same bill.

The only real legislation that should get passed is that which will fit on a single 8.5x11 sheet of

paper. But hey, let's pass the bill so we can find out what's in this 2200 page bill. Remember that?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

First thing States Do Not Have Rights,

The feds have enacted laws to stop disparage of rights in the past; again prime examples are the civil rights laws and voting laws from 1964 and 65. This bill starts by deregulating certain aspects of self defense and carry laws that are unconstitutional and currently infringe on our rights. It does so in a fairly nondescript and gentle manner by not stepping on any of the current state laws in regards to how and where an individual may be armed. It simply requires that they recognize that privilege held by residents from other states. Some states such as Tennessee would see no change as they have their proverbial act together and already recognize that privilege if it has been bestowed upon an individual by any state whatsoever.

Second you can’t take away the second amendment without scrapping the constitution. If you were to do that you would have a civil revolt on your hands.

For debates sake we will take out the 2^nd Amendment and I will show you why the states have no say in this in the first place.

The 10^th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the three branches nor prohibited by the Constitution are reserved for the states. (The 14^th guarantees life)

The 9^th Amendment and I quote

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The right to life and liberty as enumerated in the declaration of independence and solidified within the framework of the constitution is therefore protected from disparagement, or out rite denial via congressional and state powers.

Through this we are able to conclude that neither State, nor congress can impede our right to life or liberty, therefore our right to self defense is protected as noted below through the 14^th amendment.

The 14^th Amendment explicitly implies that no State shall make, pass or enforce any law to abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen, and that no State may deprive any person (does not specify citizen for this part) of life, liberty, or property without due process. The term life as Construed within text of the 14^th amendment has already been ruled by SCOTUS to encompass self defense and that this includes owning and bearing arms (although the latter part with reference to the 2^nd amendment). The privilege of life is the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.

The Preamble to the constitution

“Order to form a more perfect Union, establish

Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

The term of Liberty is a touch more complex as Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right, that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions . This would include during the practice or exercise of our other rights and privileges that have been bestowed upon us by the Constitution or if reflecting on the Declaration of Independence by our creator.

Yep! Individuals have rights, Governments have powers, and those are supposed to be very limited powers:D

[Guest bkelm18]

I still cannot view this as such.

This is the Fed mandating that a state that allows someone a privilege to exercise right needs to recognize the validity of that same privilege granted in another state.

And they decided to use the commerce clause to do this? Please. Name one thing firearms related that has ever come out of the commerce clause that was a good thing? This is yet ANOTHER abuse of the commerce clause.

[southernasylum]

I'm on the fence on this. Here in TN since the guns in restaurants that serve laws were passed there are now fewer places that we can carry because of the signage issue. This makes me a little skeptical, however, if it's as simple as the NRA is saying it is then I'm all for it. I don't see federal gun laws ever just going away so if there are laws in our favor, I'm for it.

-southernasylum

[BrasilNuts]

This whole thing doesn't sit well with me. I mean it sounds great and all, but I don't know why I just don't trust the federal .gov.

The only real legislation that should get passed is that which will fit on a single 8.5x11 sheet of

paper.

Hmmm... 8.5x11 huh?

I think that's a great idea, but could you imagine how small they would make the print? Think electron microscope.

It would have to be 8.5x11 and handwritten.

[Guest pfries]

I was under the impression that rights of the states were the rights of the people. IE it isn't a Federal matter, therefore the people decide on the city, county or state level. So no literally they don't, but in practice they do.

Or am I missing something?

Even broke down to that level they only have powers, the people have a right to vote, they can vote to enact powers that are recognized directly or implied by the lack of not being specifically forbid by the constitution. So the individual holds the right to grant the powers to the state and so forth. A state or city does not hold the right to vote in this example, as state has no right to life as it is not a citizen, it can bear arms through a militia but this is a power granted it through the constitution. Congress votes but our representatives are voting on the peoples behalf at the federal level not on the states behalf. So in practice no they don’t have rights, they have the powers granted them by the rights of the individual collectively.

“IE it isn’t a federal matter†then as long as the matter is not specifically granted to one of the three branches of government or protected by the constitution (the individuals rights) the people have the say. But you could not vote to give up your right to vote and have it stick. Otherwise congress representing the people could collectively vote to remove that right and then have complete control. The rights of the individual are protected as are the powers of each of the branches of government and of the states, all discernibly different.

[Guest dfsixstring]

I'm not sure how to feel about this...seems like totally opposite information coming from different groups.

If it simply says that any state that issues permtis must recognize permits issued by other states (other than the feds being involved) I don't think it is that bad.

But if does much of anything else besides that.....not so good.

The thing that troubles me most is the constant disintegration of "states rights". While I relish the idea of being able to carry anywhere, it shouldn't be the Federal Gov't "forcing" this on the states. They sucker you with something that appeals to you today - tomorrow it is something that you wont like. Once the states rights are gone - they're gone!

[Guest pfries]

The thing that troubles me most is the constant disintegration of "states rights". While I relish the idea of being able to carry anywhere, it shouldn't be the Federal Gov't "forcing" this on the states. They sucker you with something that appeals to you today - tomorrow it is something that you wont like. Once the states rights are gone - they're gone!

I do not feel this violates or disintegrates so called "States Rights" the states that have imposed limits on the owning and wearing (bear) of arms for self defense have violated the individuals rights and this is a small step in rescinding the laws that have done so.

As I believe I have already stated I would rather see this done through H.R. 2900 but this will bring things to the forefront.

Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011

Latest Major Action: 9/23/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Some of you guys don't realize that just because a law may sound good, the problem is

other laws absolutely need to be nullified before dumping more poo-poo on this country.

Congress was supposed to be part time, anyway. All they do with their time is pass crap,

nowadays, to get elected or re-elected. I'm really disappointed by some of the folks who

have bought into the scam our Congress has created, just for their own perpetuation of

power. Not just the Congress, but the administration as well. If you guys want something

else passed in Congress, call 'em up. They'll be happy to comply. You just might not like

the unintended consequences, afterwards.

It's the best Congress money can buy. If the trend doesn't get reversed soon, well you go

figure it out. Several million of us already have. I guarantee there isn't a non-criminal among

us if you wish to wade through the Federal Register.

[TMF]

It's the best Congress money can buy. If the trend doesn't get reversed soon, well you go

figure it out. Several million of us already have. I guarantee there isn't a non-criminal among

us if you wish to wade through the Federal Register.

I'm putting on my tinfoil hat today. I think this is a case of good initiative, bad judgement. I don't like any federal law that forces states to do something they don't want to, even if it happens to be something I may agree with. I'd love to carry in NJ, but if NJ citizens support legislation to not allow me to carry there then that is their right. I'll do my best to avoid NJ and their stupid jughandles. Besides, it looks to me that the second and third order effects from this bill would ultimately be bad for us current HCP holders.... it just doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm putting on my tinfoil hat today. I think this is a case of good initiative, bad judgement. I don't like any federal law that forces states to do something they don't want to, even if it happens to be something I may agree with. I'd love to carry in NJ, but if NJ citizens support legislation to not allow me to carry there then that is their right. I'll do my best to avoid NJ and their stupid jughandles. Besides, it looks to me that the second and third order effects from this bill would ultimately be bad for us current HCP holders.... it just doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

Sorry for sounding like a broken record in all these similar threads, but:

What the Fed is allowed to grant is just a precedent for what the Fed may ban.

Who governs best governs least, and nowhere is this more true than with gun laws and the federal government.

The only further gun legislation that should come out of D.C. is the repeal of previous laws.

- OS

[Guest jackdm3]

But that entails reading older documents, and we all know that's not why they ran for office!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sorry for sounding like a broken record in all these similar threads, but:

What the Fed is allowed to grant is just a precedent for what the Fed may ban.

Who governs best governs least, and nowhere is this more true than with gun laws and the federal government.

The only further gun legislation that should come out of D.C. is the repeal of previous laws.

- OS

At least I'm not alone. That broken record is still

spinning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

What the Fed is allowed to grant is just a precedent for what the Fed may ban.

- OS

Yep, no argument here. Good, bad or indifferent, I don't like it for the precedent it sets or the door it opens up.

[Guest jackdm3]

Will you good gentlemen please tell me how the 2A will be restored to original intent? For ALL states, since the founders had no idea how many states there would be, but obviously would have granted 2A protection for ANY states within its borders.

[Guest pfries]

The only further gun legislation that should come out of D.C. is the repeal of previous laws.

- OS

And then what they repeal the federal laws and still have not clarified the unconstitutionality of state laws no offense but that leaves us worse off than we are now.

[sigmtnman]

If the fed is unable/unwilling to make the States honor our 2nd Amendment right, how will a Statutory law on top of the Constitution be any different?

At some point it is up to us citizens to stand up and stop expecting the bought and paid for electorate take care of us. But alas, that would require stepping out of the cozy zone.

OhShoot is right. What the .gov can grant, the .gov can take away. It is but a stepping stone/testing of the waters.

[Timestepper]

Seems to be a 'glass half full/glass half empty' sort of thing. I've been alive long enough to have an inherent distrust of the federal government and I somehow can't bring myself to trust them on this.

Seems to me that if this bill were all it's cracked up to be, it wouldn't be necessary in the first place because of our inherent second amendment rights. Personally I need more government involvement in my life like I need the guys here in Jonesborough where I'm delivering to close up shop and go home before unloading my truck. I just don't. And I want to believe in our government... I just can't.

...TS...

[Oh Shoot]

And then what they repeal the federal laws and still have not clarified the unconstitutionality of state laws no offense but that leaves us worse off than we are now.

1. Name any federal gun law which if repealed would leave gun owners worse off than now.

2. Explain how repeal of the law you choose could change the rights or privileges that any state currently grants for the worse?

- OS

[Guest pfries]

1. Name any federal gun law which if repealed would leave gun owners worse off than now.

2. Explain how repeal of the law you choose could change the rights or privileges that any state currently grants for the worse?

- OS

§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Without a bit of protection some States will continue to trample the limited right we have currently,

Again OS, Laws have in the past “HAD” to be created at the federal level to keep states from trampling rights.

Look at the Civil war acts; they made proclamations to guarantee rights to all citizens. In other words rights were granted under the Constitution that the states at their discretion recognized or did not. Congress had to later pass laws to enforce in order to make sure that the individual’s rights were in fact not being suppressed by the states. They had to criminalize the suppression of those rights. If we repealed 926A there are some states that within a very short period of time no one could legally traverse through with a fire arm.

Under the Constitution Congress is charged with safe guarding the rights we have. I don’t want big government at the federal or state level, I do want a government that recognizes and safe guards my Constitutional rights, both those that are recognized and those that are granted. History has shown that no government, weather local, state or federal can be fully entrusted with this. Imagine if California was able to pass the gun laws they wanted, the courts in other states would have to take into account the rulings from the California courts (see below) allowing a further erosion of our rights.

Article. IV. - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial

Proceedings of every other State.

The Constitution is the “Law of the Land” Article IV section 2 known as the Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land."

We are supposed to have these protections, if we as individuals do not hold each branch of the government responsible for the duties they are bound to it is our own fault as we spiral to our demise. We are ultimately responsible for our government. We have been lax and failed at this through many means, we have to take measures to fix it and albeit some steps are small they are necessary. Just as many things that led to or current status were unpleasant the road back will be the same.

The easiest solution for the 2^nd Amendment would be for SCOTUS to put together all of the modern rulings and findings they have made on the scope, meaning and implications of all the amendments.

If you read through all of the opinions of the court over the several cases involving the 2^nd, 9^th, 10^th and 14^th you will find the answers, they have deemed to bear is to wear, that self defense is our right protected, and that these are individual and fundamental rights and were intended as such by our founding fathers. They have upheld that the 14^th and the 9^th are in place to protect those rights as these are fundamental rights guaranteed, protected and intended by the constitution. The 10^th prohibits any branch of the government from making laws on things that are not specifically delegated to or specifically prohibited meaning protected rights cannot be infringed upon .The issue we run into is many of these findings are scattered across several cases and the SCOTUS will generally only rule on specifics, even if it is with a broad stroke.

I do not see this in the near future.

Many seem to want the protection of the rights we have through the constitution, but are unwilling to utilize means granted by that same document to achieve this.

Edited November 18, 2011 by pfries