Constitutional carry v. licensed CCW????

[Member 3687]

To play devils advocate:

If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed then tell me where it says in that statement that a felon cannot own a gun, carry a gun or shoot a gun.
If a felon is so bad that they cannot have a gun then why are they out of prison, just a question?

The courts have said felons should not have them but the courts have also said other folks should not have guns as well but they were proven wrong before. They were called Jim Crow laws.

Just food for thought.

 

[balaperdida]

Don't expect any help from the NRA. This past month the Idaho Legislature proposed bills in both Houses that will just continue business as usual, but with few tweaks. The NRA supports the bills, and the NRA-ILA gushed how great are these few crumbs.

The House of Representatives bill has been sent to the floor for a vote with a do-pass from committee.

The reality is that the Idaho Constitution forbids licensing for possession of a firearm. The text: No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Historically Idaho has applied this only to open carry and long guns. (I suppose it would be legal to carry my Mini-14 under a trench coat.) There is no rationale to the notion that concealed carry of handguns is not a form of possession.

To give the NRA the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they are waiting for the bills to pass, then swoop in with a lawsuit based on the Idaho Constitution. Fat chance, but one can hope.

 

[CWOUSCG]

To play devils advocate:

If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed then tell me where it says in that statement that a felon cannot own a gun, carry a gun or shoot a gun.
If a felon is so bad that they cannot have a gun then why are they out of prison, just a question?

The courts have said felons should not have them but the courts have also said other folks should not have guns as well but they were proven wrong before. They were called Jim Crow laws.

Just food for thought.

I agree however I would think no guns as a condition of parole would be acceptable but as soon as you've paid your debt to society all rights are restored.

 

[Riot]

One could argue that as long as the States do not "infringe" upon the "peoples" right to keep and bear arms ..... meaning an all out ban which would be prohibited under the 2A. The State or it's people could place conditions on how (open or concealed) you carry, where you can carry, training requirements, etc. In other words, the State it seems could legislate it much like alcohol is treated differently in different States even though it is legal per the 21st Amendment.

First off, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution is known as the "Bill of Rights", meaning these rights are granted to you the day you become a citizen of the United States (and arguably should be granted to all humans on Earth because they are RIGHTS).

Comparing the purchase of Alcohol with Firearms is like me comparing your rights to free speech, saying that you cannot say "Fire!" in a crowded theater (thus it should be okay to have "Free Speech" zones) then saying you have the right to no taxation without representation- but your property taxes go up every year.

What I want to do is reason out an effective argument FOR Constitutional Carry but am having a hard time based on the 10th Amendment.

Don't base it on the tenth Amendment...hell, don't even base your argument on the 2nd or the 3rd Amendment...base it on the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION and NATURAL LAW.

Natural Law and <broken link removed> (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

As people, we can only be ruled by consent. If we do not consent to our rulers, we can have them removed- regardless if they've not served their full term and were even voted into office by legal elections (hence impeachments, recall elections, etc.). However, if our rulers no longer have consent of the governed and attempt to force their will upon us, our Natural Rights (firearms, speech, religion, etc.) always take precedent...always.

So, how can we defend our Natural Rights? Heck, how can we defend any right? With firearms.

Before I lose you...don't confuse "firearms" with "force" or "violence". I mean just that...firearms. If we do not have firearms, all of our other rights are literally meaningless...if we can consent to the alienation of our rights to defend our rights, then we have no rights at all! They're imaginary!

So, for a government to claim any requirements to exercise a right...to claim you need to have a "license" or require "training" is a hinderance on that right. Although it may seem small or even guided towards the justification of safety...like making it a requirement to shoot at a target twenty times and wait a week before you can carry a firearm- you just turned a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE.

Rights can never be taken away unless you forfeit them.
Privileges are given and taken at the justification of the State.


It's my RIGHT to own a firearm.
It's my RIGHT to defend my other rights.

Does that help? Where we usually get lost is in our intent behind laws...we make background checks mandatory so that felons can't own any of them (although can a felon not defend himself and his property just the same as you or I?) and transition our rights into privileges simply to make our place "safer".


Lastly, the words "Constitutional Carry" are actually a misnomer...if it was truly "Constitutional", it wouldn't matter if you carried into a Post Office...but I digress.

 

[ikemay]

Riot,

Actually, the Bill of Rights were not included in the original ratification of the Constitution. The original 10 Amendments were added about two years later. Yes, they are also known as the Bill of Rights, but since they were added to the Constitution later ...... they are known as Amendments. In addition, as I read my Pocket Constitution it lists them as Amendments.

Far as comparing them to Alcohol, I was not. I was stating that firearms could possibly be regulated by the States per the 10th Amendment. But as others have pointed out, the question of "infringement" and "regulation" may also come into direct conflict.

Though I agree with people gaining benefit from reading John Locke, Plato, Socrates, etc, we can only base our law on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they are what we are governed by. Unfortunately, John Locke's works were not ratified. Though the founders did take much of his work (and other works) into consideration.

I do appreciate your passion, you are a true patriot.

Mike

 

[Riot]

Riot,

Actually, the Bill of Rights were not included in the original ratification of the Constitution. The original 10 Amendments were added about two years later. Yes, they are also known as the Bill of Rights, but since they were added to the Constitution later ...... they are known as Amendments. In addition, as I read my Pocket Constitution it lists them as Amendments.

Far as comparing them to Alcohol, I was not. I was stating that firearms could possibly be regulated by the States per the 10th Amendment. But as others have pointed out, the question of "infringement" and "regulation" may also come into direct conflict.

Though I agree with people gaining benefit from reading John Locke, Plato, Socrates, etc, we can only base our law on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they are what we are governed by. Unfortunately, John Locke's works were not ratified. Though the founders did take much of his work (and other works) into consideration.

I do appreciate your passion, you are a true patriot.

Mike

Did you know that George Mason refused to sign the Constitution because he wanted it to include a "Declaration of Rights" to curb federal overreach?

On December 15, 1791, the United States Bill of Rights, which was based primarily on George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, was ratified in response to the agitation of Mason and others.

 

[ikemay]

Yep. If memory serves me right, the Constitution was only ratified after an agreement to include a Bill of Rights later was reached.

Mike

 

[balaperdida]

In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled (highly simplified in this comment) that individuals have a right to self-defense. In the text, the Court also recognizes that the self-defense weapon of choice is the handgun.

However, the Court also places limits on its holding in the excerpt below (emphasis added) taken from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf . I recommend strongly that you take the time to read the entire text. It is enlightening.

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 Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

It appears clear that Heller continues to treat concealed carry as some sort of special case. Although McDonald extended the Second Amendment right to the States, it did not reverse this part of the opinion.

Although the Court recognized that handguns are the self-defense weapon of choice, it did not take the logical next step of recognizing that concealed carry would be the personal strategy of choice, if allowed without restrictions.

Thus, the entire question of concealed carry is left to the States, including the Court's blessing for a total ban.

(To lighten the post somewhat, here is your homework: Find the phrase in Heller that makes the prohibitions in GCA68 for the under-18 people to own or possess firearms unconstitutional.)

 

[ikemay]

balaperdida,

Thanks for your input, most excellent. Oh, and thanks a bunch for the homework.

Mike

 

[balaperdida]

^^^^You are welcome. Glad to be able to participate. If you do the homework, please post what you found.

 

[ikemay]

balaperdida,

Ok, have read the DC versus Heller syllabus so far. Man....... this is pretty long (157 pages on my computer) but I too recommend people read this. This is the type of information that can really bolster ones 2A-fu.

Stay tuned,
Mike

ps Haven't forgotten my homework.

 

[balaperdida]

To play devils advocate:

If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed then tell me where it says in that statement that a felon cannot own a gun, carry a gun or shoot a gun.
If a felon is so bad that they cannot have a gun then why are they out of prison, just a question?

The courts have said felons should not have them but the courts have also said other folks should not have guns as well but they were proven wrong before. They were called Jim Crow laws.

Just food for thought.

Felons lose many rights. From what I understand, the concept was introduced in the USA by the Founders to replace the sentence of outlaw. A person sentenced to outlaw lost ALL rights, and could be used for target practice, no hunting license needed. The outlaw sentence was still used by some States until, IIRC, the early 20th century. Again, IIRC, the last State to eliminate the sentence was one of the Carolinas.

The text below is taken from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony . The red highlights for links appear that way in the original. Some links appear to be inoperative.

In many parts of the United States, a convicted felon can face <broken link removed>. The status and designation as a "convicted felon" is considered permanent, and is not extinguished upon sentence completion even if parole, probation or early release was given.[17] The status can be cleared only by a successful appeal or executive clemency. However, felons may apply for restoration of some rights after a certain period of time has passed.


The consequences convicted felons face in most states include:

• Disenfranchisement (expressly permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment, as noted by the Supreme Court)
• Exclusion from obtaining certain licenses, such as a visa, or professional licenses required to legally operate (making some vocations off-limits to felons)
• Exclusion from purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition, and body armor
• Ineligibility to serve on a jury
• Ineligibility for government assistance or welfare, including being barred from federally funded housing
• Deportation (if not a citizen)

Additionally, many job applications and rental applications ask about felony history (with the exception of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) and answering dishonestly on them can be grounds for rejecting the application, or termination if the lie is discovered after hire. This is because most bonding companies do not issue bonds to convicted felons, which effectively bars them from certain jobs. Additionally, most landlords do not rent to convicted felons due to the risk of legal liability if the renter commits another crime.


It is legal to discriminate against felons in hiring decisions as well as the decision to rent housing to a person, so felons can face barriers to finding both jobs and housing. A common term of parole is to avoid associating with other felons. In some neighborhoods with high rates of felony conviction, this creates a situation where many felons live with a constant threat of being arrested for violating parole.[17] Many banks refuse service to convicted felons, and some states consider a felony conviction grounds for an uncontested divorce.

 

[RB87]

In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled (highly simplified in this comment) that individuals have a right to self-defense. In the text, the Court also recognizes that the self-defense weapon of choice is the handgun.

However, the Court also places limits on its holding in the excerpt below (emphasis added) taken from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf . I recommend strongly that you take the time to read the entire text. It is enlightening.

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 Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

It appears clear that Heller continues to treat concealed carry as some sort of special case. Although McDonald extended the Second Amendment right to the States, it did not reverse this part of the opinion.

Although the Court recognized that handguns are the self-defense weapon of choice, it did not take the logical next step of recognizing that concealed carry would be the personal strategy of choice, if allowed without restrictions.

Thus, the entire question of concealed carry is left to the States, including the Court's blessing for a total ban.

(To lighten the post somewhat, here is your homework: Find the phrase in Heller that makes the prohibitions in GCA68 for the under-18 people to own or possess firearms unconstitutional.)

I'm convinced more and more that Heller was just a placation to hold off the gun rights groups and let the government keep their current control over firearms. A Supreme court that promotes the idea of a "pneumbra of privacy" for one's own health yet gives the government control over the right to self-defense is hypocrisy at its finest.

I guess I just don't understand how anyone can take any US Court ruling seriously since Obamacare was upheld as it so blatantly violates the actual Constitution under taxation as well as multiple amendments and the aforementioned Roe v. Wade justification for abortion.

 

[balaperdida]

I'm convinced more and more that Heller was just a placation to hold off the gun rights groups and let the government keep their current control over firearms. <snip>

Agree. SCOTUS had the opportunity in McDonald to revise the quoted section, but failed to do so.