I just put down to protect my virginity
This is a discussion on Are State permit "need" requirements unconstitutional ? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I just put down to protect my virginity...
I just put down to protect my virginity
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
Funny thing is, as it used to be in Iowa, when you demonstrate a need, say "carry large sums of money." In most of the states where you demonstrate the need by possession of property, it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property.
Go figure. Laws seem to be designed to "create"criminals.
It could be worse.
"The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
"A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".
I agree with every person who believes a permit system is unconstitutional. I believe that every bit of the constitution should remain un-infringed, and it bothers me that there laws are in place that keep those of us who love and respect the country from forming groups that would force the government to abide by the constitution.
Well, while I haven't noted Replies from Constitutional law specialists, it seems that the general opinion is 'yes, "need" predicated permits ARE un-Constitutional'. Given that, the follow-on question, that springs to mind is:
Why haven't these un-Constitutional "need" predicated permit laws been challenged? ... e.g. by the NRA or individuals?
Is there some legal basis that justifies States usurping basic Constitutional "Bill of Rights"? ... such that challenges would be prohibitively expensive?
I would suggest that places like NYC, NJ, IL are way past having restrictions that would pass constitutional muster.
You have just opened a can of worms.
First of all. It is up to each of us, not only to read and understand, but to voice our interpretation. Failure to do so is a delectation of our duty. In this day of age, your interpretation is most likely more valid that the Supreme Court’s. Don’t forget, the SC does NOT have the authority to make a decision which goes against the Constitution. This is spelled out in the Constitution itself.
We need to get back to what not only what the Constitution itself says, but refer to old dictionaries for definitions of various passages and words which indicates what the Founders actually intended. In addition to that, all one need to do is consult the relevant Federalist paper(s).
The minute we accept the SC said “such and such”, and that decision does not abide by the Constitution, that decision, in itself, is null and void as provided by the Constitution itself.
The vast majority, including many here, have no idea of not only what the Constitution says, but also what it means.
maybe you didn't grasp what I said and what the supreme court has said, they ruled that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, that said they also said that some sort of rules and regs. regarding ownership and possession can be implemented, what they didn't elaborate on was what and how imposing those rules and regs can be. As you can see places like DC, NJ, NYC, IL still have laws that virtually ban concealed carry and DC and IL practically ban ownership, despite the recent rulings by the supremos.
First of all, apologies if the following upsets you. When it comes to the Constitution, I get very upset with those who profess their rights granted them by the Constitution, are being infringed.
In actual fact, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, does not grant anyone any rights. If you doubt that, then point me to the article, clause, or amendment that says otherwise. Also, be prepared to argue your case.....politely of course.
I DID grasp what you said.
The SC ruled that the 2ndAmendment cannot be infringed. If you can point that ruling out to me I would appreciate it.
If by chance you are possibly referring to either McDonald or even Heller, may I suggest you read the both opinions in their entirety.
The vast majority of each of those opinions were unconstitutional. The SC does NOT have the authority to rule against the Constitution. The Constitution itself upholds that.
Neither McDonald nor Heller was necessary not only as argued, but also as decided.
Article 6 Clause 2.
Then consult the 2nd Amendment.
It is so simple, even for the SC, it is pathetic.
If we don’t get BACK to the Constitution, as it is written, then we are lost.
assuming that your assessment of the constitutionality of the rulings referred to are correct there is no higher level to appeal to, so short of getting arrested and going through the system how would you address this possible miscarriage of justice?
The whole having a permit thing is unconstitutional IMO
Glock: G22 .40 S&W and G23 .40 S&W Sig Sauer: P938 9mm Smith and Wesson: Model 437 .38 Spl, Model 65 357 Mag, and Sigma SW9VE 9mm
I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
And die to find out there isn't, than live my life
As if there isn't, and die to find out there is.
This is why I’ve said that while the presidential election is important, the congressional election(S) ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.
If nothing else, Congress can change the law which will render a SC decision null and void.
We the people hold the power in the form of the ballot box. It’s time we not only voted, but KNOW the issues of which we are voting.
Sounds easy. But, if we as gun owners, who spout off about the Constitution, without even remotely understanding it ourselves, how can we make any decision about any candidate who professes an agenda.
The 2A was designed to keep the citizens armed against their own government. Where then is the logic in giving that government any power to disarm?
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
you can scream and yell about the injustice of the situation all that you care to but I doubt it would have any effect.
This article, while not gun related, gives you an idea of how we begin to change things.
Walter Williams: Should We Obey All Laws?
While this article is very gun related.
NW gun activists
People need to connect the dots and take action. Apathy, such as even exhibited here, is killing this country.