Are State permit "need" requirements unconstitutional ?

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...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Are State permit "need" requirements unconstitutional ?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,176
    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 .

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,150
    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."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  4. #18
    Member Array Outer_Heaven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    156
    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.

  5. #19
    New Member Array Discoveror's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    down to earth
    Posts
    3
    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?
    Mike

  6. #20
    Ex Member Array apvbguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NE FL
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Discoveror View Post
    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?
    you have a very weak case, the supreme court has ruled that some restrictions or limitations can be imposed, I believe it was the hellar decision. therefore some restrictions would be ok, where it gets dicey is who is to decide what is a legal restriction and what restrictions go too far. the court has left that question unanswered.
    I would suggest that places like NYC, NJ, IL are way past having restrictions that would pass constitutional muster.

  7. #21
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Well apvbguy,

    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.

    Rant off

    Chris

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array apvbguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NE FL
    Posts
    1,076
    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.

  9. #23
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    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.

    Chris

  10. #24
    Ex Member Array apvbguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NE FL
    Posts
    1,076
    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?

  11. #25
    Distinguished Member Array Knightrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,324
    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

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array jblives2ride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    901
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    So sad, but I fear, so true!
    Not if we all use are right to vote and let the people in congress see what the majority of the people want in November...
    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.
    God Bless

  13. #27
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    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?
    BINGO.....we do have a way.

    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.

    Chris

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    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."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  15. #29
    Ex Member Array apvbguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NE FL
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    BINGO.....we do have a way.

    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.

    Chris
    too bad that you are so wrapped up in this that you don't realize that congress would probably not pass any such laws and that we gun owners are actually a very small segment of a very ignorant about guns population.
    you can scream and yell about the injustice of the situation all that you care to but I doubt it would have any effect.

  16. #30
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    too bad that you are so wrapped up in this that you don't realize that congress would probably not pass any such laws and that we gun owners are actually a very small segment of a very ignorant about guns population.
    you can scream and yell about the injustice of the situation all that you care to but I doubt it would have any effect.
    Yep. You are right. The apathy that you just exhibited speaks volumes about, not only you, but the majority of the population in this country. But there are those who actually are trying to change things.

    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.

    Chris

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

any gun requirement is against the constitution
,
gun license requirements are unconstitutional
,
is it unconstitutional to legislate new restrictions to the 2nd amendment
,
licensing requirements unconstitutional
,

maryland carry permit unconstitutional

,
nyc gun pistol permit unconstitutional
,
the right to bear arms in california
,
unconstitutional requirement to provide need to carry a firearm
,
what part of the constitution denies felons the 2nd amendment?
Click on a term to search for related topics.