I am reading a lot of very valid points pro- and against federal regulations of concealed carry. For a long time I lived in a may-issue (read: never-issue) state. I think I know how we can step over the strange regulatory habits in those states. The constitution reads "militia". The anti-gunners take that literally. Well - so be it. Create a national militia. Let anyone who wants to get a background check, take a course in law and use of firearms, and be called a "militiaman/woman". Let them be the "reserve" for law enforcement, and be armed accordingly, this time with no strange limitations. Bad thought - probably... but certainly almost undisputable as far as NY/CA etc are concerned.
National Carry Solution
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Joined
·
18,050 Posts
The overlords in DC do not need to be involved in CCW, just treat them the same as drivers or marriage licenses and allow the states to control licenses for their citizens. There is no need for the Federales to be involved in our lives any more than they already are.
Joined
·
108 Posts
If congress could just limit themselves to passing a law that said something to the effect that all permits will be recognized in all US states, territories and DC, I'd probably be happy with that. The concern is that congress is likely to find it hard to resist the urge to hang all kinds of restrictions, controls and fees on national reciprocity to get enough states to go along and pass the legislation. Of particular concern would be federally imposed limitations on carry around schools (already federal law), libraries, recreation centers, parks, playgrounds (any place where kids might have inhaled air molecules), government buildings (they're scared of gun owners), churches, hospitals, shopping centers, etc. Residents in gun unfriendly states might regain lost rights, but residents in more gun friendly states are more likely to lose rights they already have. Carry could become more complicated rather than simpler. I know, its hard to believe federal oversight could make things worse than they already are 
.
Federal courts currently apply the "intermediate scrutiny" standard to the second amendment, resulting in a relatively easy path to onerous, yet so far constitutional gun control. The second amendment is, I believe, the only amendment where the intermediate scrutiny standard is applied. A supreme court ruling that the second amendment must be reviewed by courts using strict scrutiny might give a better result, significantly restraining or dissolving a great deal of existing gun control at all governmental levels. But who knows how the court will rule? And when?
.Federal courts currently apply the "intermediate scrutiny" standard to the second amendment, resulting in a relatively easy path to onerous, yet so far constitutional gun control. The second amendment is, I believe, the only amendment where the intermediate scrutiny standard is applied. A supreme court ruling that the second amendment must be reviewed by courts using strict scrutiny might give a better result, significantly restraining or dissolving a great deal of existing gun control at all governmental levels. But who knows how the court will rule? And when?
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Uh, no. The Second Amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms is a right of the militia, it's a right of the people. The people, by the fact that they're the last line of defense against tyranny, are the militia.
Nobody needs to be joining anything and we certainly don't need to champion ideas that further erode that which is already eroded. The only real 'solution' to any of it is a supreme court who understands, without reservation or limitation, the meaning and purpose of the Second. That's the only thing that will stop any government entity from denying the right as it was set forth in the BoR.
Nobody needs to be joining anything and we certainly don't need to champion ideas that further erode that which is already eroded. The only real 'solution' to any of it is a supreme court who understands, without reservation or limitation, the meaning and purpose of the Second. That's the only thing that will stop any government entity from denying the right as it was set forth in the BoR.
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
There already is a national militia and most people, men, are already members, whether they know it or not.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Joined
·
1,307 Posts
Here's the reference in case anyone is interested. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Joined
·
311 Posts
Sounds like a pretty crumby deal for those of us who live in states that have constitutional carry or who don't have to pay for a basic pistol course to carry.
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
^^^THIS!^^^ I don't want the likes of Nancy Pelosi one day deciding who can and who can't have a CWP! The federal govt doesn't do a good job of administering programs that should be done at the state level, just look at the Obama-care trainwreck!:ticking: Just my .02 worth.
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
am I reading this reference incorrectly, or does this not exclude:
1) males over 45 years old?
2) females that are not members of the "national guard"?
:icon_neutral:
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
Curious how the right to keep and bear arms is so heavily regulated while the other rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights are pretty much left alone (yes, there are a few exceptions). Have to wonder why that is [sarcasm is deliberate].
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
I said it before, and I'll say it again. National Carry isn't going to happen anytime soon if at all. Yes, Trump's election has gun owners believing that all our wildest 2A dreams are going to come true, but many are setting themselves up for disappointment. The president does not create law. Although they still are the minority, Democrats picked up aka gained seats this past election. Many state legislatures and representives aren't going to like a blanket law forcing them to do away with the reprocity and carry laws they currently have in their respective states. Democrats will be unified against such a law. Some Republicans will be against it. As you can see from the debates on this site and others, it usually breaks down to about 25%-35% of gun owners being against it. Blomberg and all the other antigun billionaire/millionaires will spend a small fortune to to defeat it, and this isn't something I like to see the NRA going broke trying to push through.
Not only that, but it sets dangerous precedence. There will be a conflict of interest. Some states have stricter requirements than others. These states aren't going to want someone who would be disqualified under their laws (like for having a recent DUI for example) to be allowed get around local laws by having an out of state CCP. The only way to eventually solve this problem will be for the Congress to start adding universal standards.
Some then say we should treat CCP like drivers licenses. To that I say they aren't being realistic. Firearm ownership WILL NEVER be treated like car ownership. We can sell cars privately across state lines, we don't need to do background checks in order to buy cars from a dealer, it's not a felony to drive a car without a license, people do not typically get banned from driving for life for being bad or irresponsible drivers. There aren't strict NFA type laws governing cars and the features and alterations there of making several dozens things a felony on cars like there are on firearms... The two are already treated and regulated differently, so it's so utterly dumbfounding to me that some people actually believe that, if enacted, National Carry would resemble the vehicle licensing model even if it originally started out that way.
Not only that, but it sets dangerous precedence. There will be a conflict of interest. Some states have stricter requirements than others. These states aren't going to want someone who would be disqualified under their laws (like for having a recent DUI for example) to be allowed get around local laws by having an out of state CCP. The only way to eventually solve this problem will be for the Congress to start adding universal standards.
Some then say we should treat CCP like drivers licenses. To that I say they aren't being realistic. Firearm ownership WILL NEVER be treated like car ownership. We can sell cars privately across state lines, we don't need to do background checks in order to buy cars from a dealer, it's not a felony to drive a car without a license, people do not typically get banned from driving for life for being bad or irresponsible drivers. There aren't strict NFA type laws governing cars and the features and alterations there of making several dozens things a felony on cars like there are on firearms... The two are already treated and regulated differently, so it's so utterly dumbfounding to me that some people actually believe that, if enacted, National Carry would resemble the vehicle licensing model even if it originally started out that way.
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
That's my point. That's the way things are and will continue to be. Gun ownership is a right, and obtaining a drivers license and driving is a privilege. Yet, the right to own and carry a firearm is already much, much more regulated with much harsher penalties than the privlage to own and drive a car, so why do people believe that, logically, that's not going to carry over into a National Reprocity bill sooner or later? IMHO, people are fooling themselves and it's wishful thinking to believe that car licenses and firearm licenses will be treated equal...
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
I am all for national carry being enabled by the repealing all unconstitutional laws that infringe on 2A. That's the right way to do it. But it's not going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.
I would like to carry nationally, no matter how they do it. When state CC permits came in, I recognized they were an infringement, but I still got my permit because I wanted to be able to carry where I couldn't before. If they come up with a national permit system, I will apply for it. Not because I think either state or federal permits are right, but because I want to carry the most places I can. It's that simple for me.
Why should state permits, which I think most people on this site have, be OK but a federal permit that gets you more places to carry be bad, just because of the possibility it might later be used for some nefarious purpose? Let's eliminate one restriction at a time. LEOSA showed that a national permit could work and actually it's been expanded three times, twice by Obama. Also, LEOSA doesn't preclude ex-LEOs from still getting state permits for extra coverage. I see a national permit like a LEOSA for non-LEOs.
I would like to carry nationally, no matter how they do it. When state CC permits came in, I recognized they were an infringement, but I still got my permit because I wanted to be able to carry where I couldn't before. If they come up with a national permit system, I will apply for it. Not because I think either state or federal permits are right, but because I want to carry the most places I can. It's that simple for me.
Why should state permits, which I think most people on this site have, be OK but a federal permit that gets you more places to carry be bad, just because of the possibility it might later be used for some nefarious purpose? Let's eliminate one restriction at a time. LEOSA showed that a national permit could work and actually it's been expanded three times, twice by Obama. Also, LEOSA doesn't preclude ex-LEOs from still getting state permits for extra coverage. I see a national permit like a LEOSA for non-LEOs.
Joined
·
11,157 Posts
Its an individual right. Not a group right..I would have to say no to this type of idea....
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
No, you are reading it correctly. It excludes those people from being automatically considered "part of the militia" but, it does not exclude them from the right granted in the second amendment. As stated by a member above, the reason for the second amendment is to ensure we have a properly regulated (which meant 'equipped' at the time) militia. But, the right was granted to the People.
The 2nd amendment is the only place in the Constitution where the the term "the people" is used where some want to argue that it does not apply to everyone due to the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause is a comment on the justification for the right, not a qualifier on the right.
"In order to have a competitive band program, we will allow the students to bring instruments to school"
I see no difference in that sentence than the 2nd amendment. Would anyone read that to mean that only students in the band program can bring instruments to school? Those that want to state that the "militia" was only referring to the Gov't organized groups (i.e. military) make a mockery of the constitution. It's ludicrous to think that a right was added to the constitution to ensure that our military could have arms.
Joined
·
8,417 Posts
Read this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
The Second Amendment protects and individual right to keep and bear arms. The "militia" prefatory clause is not limiting.
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
Absolutely correct.
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
All of us should always push the fact that there is no such thing as group rights in the system setup by our Founders. That is a concept which is the child of the despotic officials over the years who want nothing more than to divide us and install their idea of total government. Advancing the concept of group rights is one of the most powerful fuels for their engines of ruin.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!