Are State permit "need" requirements unconstitutional ?

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; Is State (carry) Permit legislation, that requires an applicant to demonstrate " need ", unconstitutional? In reading the Second Amendment, I saw NO reference to ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Are State permit "need" requirements unconstitutional ?

  1. #1
    New Member Array Discoveror's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    down to earth
    Posts
    3

    Question Are State permit "need" requirements unconstitutional ?

    Is State (carry) Permit legislation, that requires an applicant to demonstrate "need", unconstitutional?

    In reading the Second Amendment, I saw NO reference to "need", regarding the "right to bear arms". I read the Wikipedia 2nd Amendment page, which goes through pertinent case law, and so no reference to requirement(s) to demonstrate "need" there, either.

    Rhode Island and California pull this, though California phrases it as requiring that an applicant demonstrate that "good cause" exists for the issuance.

    Thus, I'm wondering if State Permit "need" requirements inherently violate the Second Amendment?
    Mike


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array Happypuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Small Town USA
    Posts
    893
    A good question. The last Supreme Court decision in the IL case seemed to affirm 2nd amendment rights , but also says states can regulate. Which to my non legal mind says very little. The other concern I have have over states such as CA is the " need" clauses. For instance carrying large amounts of money or jewels can qualify you. This is property and would appear to imply a handgun can be used to defend property. It also puts a precedent of property over personal safety which makes no sense.


    Sent from my 300 baud modem
    MleeC likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    943
    A "permit" itself seems unconstitutional to me. A "license" is even stretching it. SCOTUS seems to disagree, and they've got the hammer.

    Given that, Happypuppy has a superb point - the needs clauses tend to put your profession and/or possessions before the lives of your loved ones.

    Here in NH (shall issue), self-defense, hunting, and target shooting are all "acceptable purposes."

    Personally, I believe my license to carry should be based upon my birth certificate or naturalization papers, in the absence of conduct or characteristics that make me unsuitable to exercise that right and give the state a compelling reason to restrict me from doing so.

  4. #4
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Not only is the ‘need’ unconstitutional, but the entire permit(s) system is unconstitutional.

    Article 6 Clause 2 states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
    The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.

    As such, the 2nd Amendment has ALWAYS been incorporated to the states as well as the Federal government. So, McDonald and Heller were totally unnecessary.

    Chris

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    According to a federal district court judge in the 4th Circuit, Maryland's concealed carry statute that required one to demonstrate need is in fact unconstitutional. It remains to be seen how this issue plays out in higher courts as the appeals go up the chain.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array txron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Not only is the ‘need’ unconstitutional, but the entire permit(s) system is unconstitutional.

    Article 6 Clause 2 states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
    The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.

    As such, the 2nd Amendment has ALWAYS been incorporated to the states as well as the Federal government. So, McDonald and Heller were totally unnecessary.

    Chris
    Agree 100%

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,690
    The last time I mentioned anything about the constitutional worthiness of a particular practice in this country, I got a demerit for hijacking a thread with the admonition that unless I was a supreme court justice or nominee, I was not qualified to post an opinion. I guess it all depends on the topic.
    The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.
    Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    Ex Member Array apvbguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NE FL
    Posts
    1,076
    I would love it if NYC and NJ who both have impossible to meet need requirements got challenged

  9. #9
    Member Array VNvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    259
    Personal Protection. That is all you need to put down.

    Safe shooting,
    Vv

  10. #10
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,920
    You shouldnt need to put anything "down".

    Shall Not Be Infringed
    .
    Any requirement is an infringement. Period.

    The Right to Bear Arms
    means to carry...openly...for ones defense.

    Anthing else added to this is wrong.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,298
    Comes down to this if they can regulate. Then you only have the rights they want to give you. And that is not what a right is.
    In the end they are going to do what ever they want. They can put so many restriction on you no one can carry.
    Just wait it is coming.

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    Comes down to this if they can regulate. Then you only have the rights they want to give you. And that is not what a right is.
    In the end they are going to do what ever they want. They can put so many restriction on you no one can carry.
    Just wait it is coming.
    So sad, but I fear, so true!

  13. #13
    Member Array scott625's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    According to a federal district court judge in the 4th Circuit, Maryland's concealed carry statute that required one to demonstrate need is in fact unconstitutional. It remains to be seen how this issue plays out in higher courts as the appeals go up the chain.



    His argument was more nuisanced than that. Maryland wants to restrict the number of ccw so it uses need to ration ccws. The judge argues that this rationing does no more to combat crime then issuing it randomly to ever 10th person.


    It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the*privilege to those who can demonstrate good reason beyond a general desire for self-defense. In support of this limitation, Defendants list numerous reasons why handguns pose a threat to public safety in general and why curbing their proliferation is desirable. For example, they argue that an assailant may wrest a handgun away from its owner, and cite evidence that this possibility imperils even trained police officers. See Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. 15, Docket No. 26. They note that when a police officer is engaged in a confrontation with a criminal, the presence of an armed civilian can divert the officer’s attention.Id. at 16. In addition, Defendants urge that while most permit holders are law-abiding, there is no guarantee that they will remain so. They cite studies purporting to show that the majority of murderers have no previous felony conviction that would have prevented them from obtaining a permit. Id. at 35. Thus, they argue, a permitting scheme that merely denies permits to convicted felons is inadequate.

    These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve. Maryland’s good and substantial reason requirement will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime. Indeed, issuing permits specifically to those applicants who can demonstrate an increased likelihood that they may need a firearm would seem a strange way to allay Defendants’ fear that when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others. Id. at 15. If anything, the Maryland regulation puts firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime. Id. at 40.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    As written the 2nd amendment is a very simple amendment and not complicated in anyway. However, over the years the Supreme Court and state legislators have watered down the 2nd amendment.

    As has been mentioned most of the federal/state laws/requirements violate the 2nd amendment but a ordinary citizens we do not stand a chance against the "black robes"(judges).

    Am I crazy or does it seems that more and more violations of law are now being "tagged" as various degrees of felony by the feds, state and local. If fact some violations that are felonies that have been such for many years really shouldn't be. I am of the belief this is just another way to deny citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment.

    Am I wrong in the 2nd amendment allows felons to bear arms since it states shall not infringe. No I am not advocating allowing violent criminals from having weapons. The problem I have with anyone convicted of a felony not being allowed to have a firearm is that there or felony charges that are in no way connected to the person being violent and should not be allowed. By know means would it so difficult to allow someone convicted of a felony that was not because of a violent act.

    Here is one example of how wrong it is to lump all felony convictions in denying having a firearm.
    An Illinois statute makes it a felony to audio record any part of any conversation unless all parties consent and applies regardless of whether the conversation was intended to be private. The offense is elevated to a class 1 felony, with a possible prison term of 4 to 15 years, if a recorded individual is performing duties as a law-enforcement officer. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1).

    So if someone audio records an law enforcement officer performing his duties they can be convicted of a felony and denied being able to have a firearm. Wow!!!! I can really see how this person is a danger to society. Not!!!!!

    Here is the stupid part of the law:
    Illinois does not prohibit taking silent video of officers performing duties in public.

    Example:
    One can take a silent video of the officers beating someone but not the audio that would clearly show it was because the person was Japanese.

    I won't even get into not allowing firearms in schools, courthouse and various other places.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  15. #15
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,920
    It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the*privilege to those who can demonstrate good reason beyond a general desire for self-defense.
    There is no better reason than self-defense. The Defendants seek to limit firearms because they don't like them, therefore ignoring the reason of self defense as a valid reason and insisting that a better reason than that is needed.

    In support of this limitation, Defendants list numerous reasons why handguns pose a threat to public safety in general and why curbing their proliferation is desirable. For example, they argue that an assailant may wrest a handgun away from its owner, and cite evidence that this possibility imperils even trained police officers. See Defs.í Mot. Summ. J. 15, Docket No. 26.
    The anti-gun Defendants list numerous reasons that handguns pose a threat to public safety because some trained police officers has their guns wrestled away from them,while ignoring the fact that police officers routinely inject themselves into harms way on behalf of the public. There is no direct correlation here when compared to citizens bearing arms for their self defense.

    They note that when a police officer is engaged in a confrontation with a criminal, the presence of an armed civilian can divert the officerís attention.Id. at 16. In addition, Defendants urge that while most permit holders are law-abiding, there is no guarantee that they will remain so. They cite studies purporting to show that the majority of murderers have no previous felony conviction that would have prevented them from obtaining a permit. Id. at 35. Thus, they argue, a permitting scheme that merely denies permits to convicted felons is inadequate.
    So they admit that permits are but a scheme, yet they insist that there is no guarantee those with permits will remain law abiding.

    That kind of statement proves that these educated idiots aren't capable of using real logic. There are little more than snake oil salesman that peddle lies. There is no real guarantee of anything, not even ones next breath.

    These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve.
    Yep, its pretty apparent that they have no real threat or reason to deny citizens the right to self defense, so they have to make stuff up.

    Marylandís good and substantial reason requirement will not prevent those who meet it from having their guns taken from them, or from accidentally shooting themselves or others, or from suddenly turning to a life of crime.
    Maryland has no good and substantial reason at all, in fact they sound more like tyrants that need to be removed from office, one way or the other.


    Indeed, issuing permits specifically to those applicants who can demonstrate an increased likelihood that they may need a firearm would seem a strange way to allay Defendantsí fear that when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others. Id. at 15.
    Yeah right. The handgun makes you dangerous to the public. God forbid that a citizen save his life with the use of a handgun, being such a dangerous thing. It would seem that they rather you die, in order to protect others. If that isn't flawed logic, I don't know what is.

    If anything, the Maryland regulation puts firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime. Id. at 40.
    Seriously, who makes this stuff up, and who is actually foolish enough to believe this crap?

    Its time for Maryland to quit the word games and get in line with the rest of the United States and allows its citizens, any one that wants to defend themselves with a gun if they so desire it.

    WOW. Just WOW.

    It would seem that the state of Maryland is more hosed up than I originally thought.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 1 of 3 123 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
,
permits are 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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors