CCW Licensing seems contrary to The Framers' intent

FLSquirrelHunter · July 8th, 2007, 02:34 PM

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?

We should press our state legislators to allow unlicensed open and concealed carry.
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.

HotGuns · July 8th, 2007, 03:32 PM

Agree 100 %

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

Colin · July 8th, 2007, 06:23 PM

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.

HotGuns · July 8th, 2007, 07:25 PM

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.

CopperKnight · July 8th, 2007, 11:51 PM

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.

BAC · July 9th, 2007, 01:33 AM

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

Bob The Great · July 9th, 2007, 03:15 AM

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.

packinnova · July 9th, 2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotGuns

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.

ccw9mm · July 9th, 2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

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.

zero · July 9th, 2007, 12:05 PM

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.

July 8th, 2007, 02:34 PM	#1
FLSquirrelHunter Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: FL, The "Stand Your Ground' State Posts: 199	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? We should press our state legislators to allow *unlicensed* open and concealed carry. 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. __________________ ACNT: *"Always Carry; Never Tell"*

July 8th, 2007, 03:32 PM	#2
HotGuns Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 5,879	Agree 100 % Im afraid that many programs have become cash cows for the state, so getting rid of the fees would be extremely difficult. __________________ AR. CHL Instr. If you are a socialist loving,left wing, limp wristed,girly man that is afraid to hear the truth and you whine about being "offended" because you arent smart enough to handle the truth, go find someone else to talk to...

July 8th, 2007, 07:25 PM	#4
HotGuns Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 5,879	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. __________________ AR. CHL Instr. If you are a socialist loving,left wing, limp wristed,girly man that is afraid to hear the truth and you whine about being "offended" because you arent smart enough to handle the truth, go find someone else to talk to...

July 8th, 2007, 11:51 PM	#5
CopperKnight Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Spokane area, WA Posts: 4,831	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. __________________ Being happy doesn't mean everything's perfect, but that you've decided to see beyond the imperfections. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 8th, 2007, 06:23 PM	#3
Colin Distinguished Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,421	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.

July 9th, 2007, 01:33 AM	#6
BAC Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 1,483	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

July 9th, 2007, 03:15 AM	#7
Bob The Great Distinguished Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Slidell, LA Posts: 1,468	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.

July 9th, 2007, 12:05 PM	#10
zero Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: new mexico Posts: 442	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.