CCW Licensing seems contrary to The Framers' intent

This is a discussion on CCW Licensing seems contrary to The Framers' intent within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A post by Sailormnop got me to reckon a bit on this: When our Constitution was being adopted, the 2d Amendment (and 9th, and 10th) ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: CCW Licensing seems contrary to The Framers' intent

  1. #1
    Member Array FLSquirrelHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FL, The "Stand Your Ground' State
    Posts
    383

    CCW Licensing seems contrary to The Framers' intent

    A post by Sailormnop got me to reckon a bit on this:

    When our Constitution was being adopted, the 2d Amendment (and 9th, and 10th) was added to overcome objections that the federal goverment might become too powerful. The Second Amendment was originally framed, I believe, to allow individuals and states to protect themselves from the government.

    Individual gun rights were not intended to allow us to defend ourselves from other (criminal) individuals.

    Over just a few generations, we built a government we trusted and reached a point where we carried guns primarily to fight criminals. Now many generations later, we are concealing our guns, carried for 'personal defense,' and slowing losing faith in that government.

    I offer that the idea of a state licensing individuals to carry for personal defense is somewhat contrary to the original purpose of the 2d Amendment. Vermont law, which (as I understand it) allows carry without licensing, seems much closer to the original intent.

    People have a right, individually, collectively, and as States, to defend themselves from bad government. And 'when, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another' then the use of force must be a last resort, but the right to argue ad baculum assures fair hearing. We're not there, not even close, but being raised in the former land of the Confederacy, having seen the street fighting for civil rights, I would not guarantee civil war will never happen here again.

    So what's the point?
    1. We should press our state legislators to allow unlicensed open and concealed carry.
    2. We should tell our federal republic to defer restraints on 'Class III' weapons ownership to the States.


    We face real and imminent violent threats from outside our nation (ideological terrorists like al Qaida, state-sponsored terrorists like Hizballah, terrorist states like N Korea, and major foreign powers like China), and we also face real and imminent non-violent threats to strip us of the ability to defend ourselves from foreign enemies.

    Our active military is back to Post-WWII, pre-Korean War levels, so the need for civilians to be ready to take up arms for national defense may be nearer than any of us imagine.

    Unlicensed carry makes us, as a people, a 'hard target' for any aggressor. Militarily significant weapons extend our ability to deter aggression. The Civilian Marksmanship Program doesn't even come close.

    Having civilians competent with military weapons provides a great strength of reserve -- and that is precisely the intent I read from the Second Amendment.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    Agree 100 %

    Im afraid that many programs have become cash cows for the state, so getting rid of the fees would be extremely difficult.
    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/

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Colin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    1,863
    Up here in Canada, any fees by the federal government have to be based on the actual and reasonable costs of issuing the approval/licence of whatever it might be. Unfair licencing that are deemed punitive have been struck down by the courts.

  5. #4
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,894
    The thing is...

    The government ought to foot the bill for the cost. Period.

    They force you to have a permit to exercise a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution, let THEM pay for it.

    There is no "reasonable cost of administration". Your taxes ought to cover that.
    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/

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,742
    I agree completely. Government regulation was what the framers were trying to get out of. They did not want government bodies to restrict those freedoms listed in any way. Getting a license from a government agency is a restriction.

    Government has forgotten that these rights aren't granted to us by them with whatever restrictions they feel like putting in place. They are given to us by a higher power than the government. They frequently forget there is a higher power.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  7. #6
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    I respectfully disagree with the first part, and this is why.


    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


    What does it mean? A disciplined people, trained in the use of arms, is necessary to the security of a free state, and the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed upon by federal or local government. That's it.

    The key word in the above is "security." Security from what is not defined. One day you may need to shoot a robber, and the next defend yourself and your countrymen against a foreign invader, and a year later against a tyrranical government regime. That means that to be secure is to be safe from all threats. Period. The Second Amendment protects our birthright as American citizens to keep and bear arms for our security, against anything that might threaten it.


    Do I believe in unrestricted open carry of any and all small arms? Absolutely. To forbid it is to directly infringe upon our rights. Do I believe in concealed carry? Absolutely, and for the same reason. Look at Switzerland and you'll see why I fully support the notion. As our nation stands, though, successfull implimentation of unrestrcted carry would requiring a phasing; step 1, remove this restriction, step 2, remove that, et cetera, until they are gone. Market prices and ease of carry will dictate weapons most commonly carried, and in which calibers.

    Conclusion: I completely agree that we ought to be well-disciplined and well-armed. I simply make it a point to disagree with the assessment that the Second Amendment was only about protection against a tyrranical government.


    -B

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    The word "infringement" seems pretty clear, but then we're talking about the same people who read the justifying clause of the 2A, and ignore the main clause.

    Ideally, yes, by the strict wording of the 2A, there should be no restrictions on who, where, when, how, or why any citizen can purchase, possess, or carry any man-portable weapon.

    Realistically, this will never happen. And to a certain extent, it's a good thing to issue CHL's because it forces people to learn about the laws they live under (deadly force laws, especially). Yes, it's a restriction, yes it's probably technically unconstitutional, and yes, it's almost certainly here to stay.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,271
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The thing is...

    The government ought to foot the bill for the cost. Period.

    They force you to have a permit to exercise a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution, let THEM pay for it.

    There is no "reasonable cost of administration". Your taxes ought to cover that.
    Umm...if the "Government" is footing the bill....that means, in reality, YOU are footing the bill. So either way, we're paying for it.

    And yes, I'm with you guys...I completely disagree with allowing the Government to tell us we can have a permit or license to carry. It is completely against the original intent. Anyone who feels otherwise should read the Declaration of Independence.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,767
    CCW Licensing seems contrary to The Framers' intent
    Yes, it does. The right to self-defense and firearms with which to do it is a preexisting condition acknowledged by the Constitution as being an area off-limits to our government's interference and infringement. How far we've come from that honorable day (the drafting) to this dishonorable one, when any two-bit holder of a seat can light fire to the Constitution's limits on government meddling.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    902
    I have heard it called a 2nd Amendment tax before. Open carry is OK in my state. At least thats something I don't have to pay for.

  12. #11
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by zero View Post
    I have heard it called a 2nd Amendment tax before.
    Which still makes it illegal and unconstitutional, since Congress's powers of taxation do not extend to constitutionally-protected rights.


    -B

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. What 2A Framers were thinking
    By Paymeister in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 19th, 2010, 06:47 AM
  2. J framers I need some help...
    By semperfi.45 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2008, 02:13 AM
  3. Intent Vs. Ability
    By KellyCooper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 1st, 2007, 12:17 PM
  4. The Framers vs. todays frightened pols
    By minerbill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 01:18 PM
  5. What the Framers said about our Second Amendment Rights to Keep and Bear Arms
    By Bumper in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 19th, 2004, 02:18 AM

Search tags for this page

ccw intent

,

ccw intent statement

Click on a term to search for related topics.