Are CCW permits an infringement?


PDA






skidder
April 1, 2011, 02:14 PM
Are CCW permits an infringement on our 2nd Amendment right?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are CCW permits an infringement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
April 1, 2011, 02:28 PM
Yes. There's a reason that states which require no license or permit are referred to as "Constitutional Carry" states.

mac66
April 1, 2011, 02:35 PM
One shouldn't have to ask permission from the government to protect oneself and one's family. To keep and bear arms, means just that, owning and carrying without restriction/infringement.

Pointedstick
April 1, 2011, 02:37 PM
Do you/should you need a permit to possess a mouth in public? Then given that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, licensing the mere possession of a firearm in public is as ridiculous.

Remo223
April 1, 2011, 02:49 PM
Yes, it is an infringement.

Also, the restrictions on short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, supressors/silencers, and full auto firearms are all infringements and should all be abolished.

as well as the restrictions on cross border gun sales

most of the unconstitutional infringements can be removed by repealing the gun control act of 1968, the assault weapon ban of 1984, the 1986 machine gun ban,(aka firearm owners protection act or 1986), and the national firearms act of 1934

harrygunner
April 1, 2011, 02:57 PM
Tricks used to keep Black people from voting are being used against gun owners. Pass a test and pay a fee to exercise a fundamental right that "shall not be infringed".

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 03:32 PM
No more so than a license to attend church, a permit to speak your mind about politics or to carry an unregistered Bible.

Shadow 7D
April 1, 2011, 03:42 PM
yes...
but how do you change it?

skidder
April 1, 2011, 04:35 PM
Last night there was a thread, in a different forum, named: "The best way to carry concealed weapon (or similar to this)". Everybody was talking about equipment and positions for better carry.

I being old school 2nd Amendment posted: "the best way is without a permit, if they know you have one it's not concealed". I also stated, "too many people died for our right, and not to rationalize our 2nd Amendment".

10 minutes later........ The all powerful admin with his mighty mouse reached down from his exalted throne and clicked my post into oblivion.:( My heart was broken into little pieces. ;)

22-rimfire
April 1, 2011, 04:45 PM
I feel it is in general as well and didn't get the CCW permit for this very reason for a number of years. But as I understand it, unless codified in state law, the state can regulate such things just like the Supreme Court decision indicated. Federal (US) is one thing and state is another. Places like Chicago, NYC, and DC want to place their own restrictions on firearm use.

geekWithA.45
April 1, 2011, 04:47 PM
Short Answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer: the magnitude of infringement varies with how enlightened/reformed the issuance policy is. In NJ, the defacto non issue of carry permits is nothing less than an instrument of abuse and oppression. In PA, for most people with clean criminal records, the infringement borders on an administrative triviality. Most states that have permits fall somewhere in between.


Also, and this is very important for people to understand:

Most humans are not fully enabled autonomous beings used to operating under their own authority. They seek sanction from what they view as "higher" authority.

Carry permits make their latent objections go away.

The removal of their objection, which could easily aggregate to significant numbers, is actually quite valuable to us.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 04:58 PM
skidder said:

Last night there was a thread, in a different forum, named: "The best way to carry concealed weapon (or similar to this)". Everybody was talking about equipment and positions for better carry.

I being old school 2nd Amendment posted: "the best way is without a permit, if they know you have one it's not concealed". I also stated, "too many people died for our right, and not to rationalize our 2nd Amendment".

The Founding Fathers knew that government is the one group that posed the greatest risk to the individuals life, liberty and property because government is the only group that can "legally" take these rights away. Registering your natural rights with ANY government is profoundly dangerous if the wrong group gets into power.

The Founding Fathers intended the Bill of Rights to be a list of Natural Rights that government would have no power to regulate.

mljdeckard
April 1, 2011, 05:07 PM
However:

This is a good case of using our enemies' tactics against them. Look at it this way. They used creeping incrementalism on us for decades. Chipped away at our rights in pieces so small most people didn't realize they were adding up. So, when WE started the carry revolution about 20 years ago, we snuck it in by saying; "Look it will only be people who have submitted to a background check, given their fingerprints, and taken a class. It's not like we are asking you to let EVERYONE carry a gun." and they grudgingly accepted it.

Fast forward to the present, three states don't require permits, and several others are in the process of lifting the requirement as well. The 'right denied' states look very foolish now. Because we had such a success in 'shall issue' laws, it has now opened the door to constitutional carry. If we had just started demanding all or nothing 20 years ago, we would still have nothing. This is working smart.

RimfireChris
April 1, 2011, 05:13 PM
^^ Ya know, I never thought about it like that before! :evil:

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 05:20 PM
I met a man who used to be involved in smuggling Bibles into China in the 1960's. This was a very serious crime back then and he would have been shot if he had been caught. There were some legal Bibles in private hands in China, but they had been imported back before the Communist takeover but get this; They had to be serial numbered and registered with the government to be legal.

Sound familiar?

Rail Driver
April 1, 2011, 05:25 PM
Yes. Any "state requirements" in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right is an infringement.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 05:28 PM
Rail Driver said:

Yes. Any "state requirements" in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right is an infringement.

Wasn't this the main legal argument used against the poll tax and literacy tests for voters in the South?

ZeSpectre
April 1, 2011, 05:32 PM
Strictly speaking YES, absolutely YES.
However a "power majority" managed to override this in the past so we are in the situation that mljdeckard mentioned in post #13

in part...
This is a good case of using our enemies' tactics against them. Look at it this way. They used creeping incrementalism on us for decades. Chipped away at our rights in pieces so small most people didn't realize they were adding up. So, when WE started the carry revolution about 20 years ago, we snuck it in by saying; "Look it will only be people who have submitted to a background check, given their fingerprints, and taken a class. It's not like we are asking you to let EVERYONE carry a gun." and they grudgingly accepted it.

merlinfire
April 1, 2011, 05:44 PM
CCW Permits aren't an infringement. The fact that you'll get taken to prison for not having one while concealed carrying is an infringement. This depends on your state of course.

skidder
April 1, 2011, 06:02 PM
I heard when you get pulled over they know you have a gun. This to me is a scary thought. If my wife gets a minor traffic violation, I find it absurd that she should be approached with more cation then the guy who is about to rob the liquor store. I have nothing against people who choose this route, but my privacy is more important to me. ;)

22-rimfire
April 1, 2011, 06:50 PM
Privacy is very important to me. You would have to ask a LEO if the carry information is available to LEO's on routine kinds of checks that LEO's do with potential traffic violations. It does not bother me if they have access to this information.

I would prefer that no special permit be required to carry legally in my state. But I am comfortable with the way things are for now. TN has never been the most free state when it come to firearms (previously waiting period for handguns), but things are okay with the current set of laws on carry and purchases.

XxWINxX94
April 1, 2011, 07:13 PM
In Illinois & Wisconsin, we'd be fine with CCW permits, or even CCW at all. The FOID card in Illinois is pretty 'infringing' though, if you ask me.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 07:28 PM
If you get pulled over in a non friendly state and they run your license and find that you have a concealed carry permit they will find an excuse to search your car. "I smell marajuana" works every time. Again, if you have a permit it is not concealed.

leadcounsel
April 1, 2011, 07:41 PM
Yes, but in my view a necessary short - term evil. We've made huge ground in the last decade or so, going from rare CCW to shall issue and reciprocity in most states, to Constitutional and open carry in many states.

While I feel an infringement to apply for a permit to do what the 2A guarantees, I think this is necessary at this point in history to show that carry is a GOOD thing for society. As more people are comfortable with it, more states will follow the way of no-permits-necessary.

JohnBiltz
April 1, 2011, 07:47 PM
I'm pretty OK with requiring a course to carry as a legitimate safety reason. The same thing you would expect to operate an automobile. And shall issue carry comes pretty close to that. I don't consider shall issue an infringement. May issue on the other hand is a totally different story.

The Lone Haranguer
April 1, 2011, 08:36 PM
I tolerate carry permit systems as a compromise where the alternative is nothing at all.

skidder
April 1, 2011, 09:00 PM
I had my own preconceived Ideas about CCW's, but when the admin of the other site deleted my post, I started poking around the internet and found many who see like most of us. I don't believe that buying into the ccw's makes all that much progression but an option for safety. I believe the internet has aided more in this progression than people think. When I was able to see others were on the same boat I had more confidence in speaking out. The internet has crap, but it does unite individuals in a common cause, and lets people decide for themselves from the opinions of others. People can look up facts for themselves rather being force fed through the Holywood feeding tube.

Unfortunately, these changes from the internet go both ways.

Thanks a bunch guys for showing me some good nuggets.:)

General Geoff
April 1, 2011, 09:41 PM
I'm pretty OK with requiring a course to carry as a legitimate safety reason. The same thing you would expect to operate an automobile. And shall issue carry comes pretty close to that. I don't consider shall issue an infringement. May issue on the other hand is a totally different story.

Merely carrying a weapon carries as much safety concern as having a car parked in your driveway. Driving a car is something in which one engages regularly and for extended periods of time. Almost nobody shoots guns for a living, or even shoots guns for hours every day, unlike with driving cars. Shooting your sidearm in public generally means you're in a life or death situation, and frankly I wouldn't mind an unlicensed driver taking the wheel to drive a dying friend or family member to the hospital, or taking the wheel to escape an approaching threat. In the end it's still said unlicensed driver's responsibility to know his or her limitations and make a judgement call on whether them driving on the road constitutes more danger than they wish to avert by driving for whatever reason.

HD Fboy
April 1, 2011, 09:53 PM
FWIW, in my state a ccw permit cost $10 and requires no test but does require a background check.

In my state they use it as a way to further penalize the criminals. My 22 year old son got stopped for a minor traffic violation. Told the officer he was packing. The LEO check the gun, told my son nice choice and that it was the same weapon he carries off duty. He did not get a ticket. More importantly, my daughter and her husband were in the car. This turned into a very positive experience all around.

mes227
April 1, 2011, 09:57 PM
Don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.

BigN
April 1, 2011, 10:10 PM
Of course it is but keep in mind the true purpose of any permit/license. To separate you from just a little bit more of your money...

skidder
April 1, 2011, 11:46 PM
"well regulated" is what Hollywood does with the 2nd amendment.;)

orionengnr
April 1, 2011, 11:59 PM
Of course they are...but that is where we are at the moment. I have chosen to accept that and pay the fee in order to excercise my rights, and more importantly, to add to the number of individuals who possess a CHL.

For every gun owner who joins the NRA and gets his CHL/CCW/CWP/what-have-you, our collective power increases.

AARP is the most powerful lobby in Washington, due entirely to numbers. Nearly all retirees join AARP, regardless of their views on political issues. And AARP sucks. But that is a separate issue.

Just think of what would happen if 80-100 milion gun owners joined NRA and got their CHL.

Constitutional Carry would sweep across the Nation, and 10-round magazines would disappear.

NavyLCDR
April 2, 2011, 12:01 AM
Of course it is but keep in mind the true purpose of any permit/license. To separate you from just a little bit more of your money...

That's not necessarily true. In 1911 Tim Sullivan, a New York politician pushed through his handgun permit system which is still New York's permit system today. He did so because he was a crime boss and the criminal gangs that worked for him were getting shot by their law abiding citizen victims. They pushed Senator Sullivan to enact the permit system to take guns away from the law abiding citizens who couldn't afford the permits, so that they would quit getting shot at. Just like all the permit systems that have followed, they only affect law abiding citizens, to the benefit of the criminal.

skidder
April 2, 2011, 12:16 AM
I have chosen to accept that and pay the fee in order to excercise my rights, and more importantly, to add to the number of individuals who possess a CHL

You are not exercising your right by paying a fee and having your license plate registered with a weapon. :confused: The only way to exercise your rights is to obey the 2nd amendment. ;)

CapnMac
April 2, 2011, 12:34 AM
Don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.

Which actually means we ordinary citizens are supposed to be drilled and exercised and cognizant with "every terrible arm of the soldier" to borrow Tench Coxe's phrase.

Since Tench brings up swords in that quote, it allows me to again ruminate on how, recently, for public safety, the poltroons in Austin made it illegal to wear swords in public (and failed to address things like pipe bands, RenFaire, reenactors and the like). They tucked this in with a requirement that only LE and licensed Security could carry batons, asps, kubotan and the like, and then only under orders and after an official training class.

skidder
April 2, 2011, 12:40 AM
"well regulated" means highly trained, not Hollywood approved.;)

langenc
April 2, 2011, 12:57 AM
I'm pretty OK with requiring a course to carry as a legitimate safety reason. The same thing you would expect to operate an automobile. And shall issue carry comes pretty close to that. I don't consider shall issue an infringement. May issue on the other hand is a totally different story. From #25

Driving a car is NOT mentioned in the constitution. The founding fathers never dreamed of AUTOs, TV, radios.

The first amendment should not cover TV and radio....


"well regulated" is what Hollywood does with the 2nd amendment. From 3#2
I believe it is what the news media dose with the 2nd amandment.

skidder
April 2, 2011, 01:45 AM
Is "operating a motor vehicle" amendment #3 or #4. I hope we do not compromise beyond common sense. I fear for some that we have already accepted the norm.:(

Owen Sparks
April 2, 2011, 02:26 AM
Even laws regulating the operation of a motor vehicle only apply on government owned roads, not private property.

shootingthebreeze
April 2, 2011, 12:39 PM
I believe in the CCW rules-one has to get a more detailed background check to get a CPL. My question is, what's wrong with that?
Plus, the CCW class offers a lot of information, gun safety, tactics, legal. Education. What's wrong with that?
I found my class very instructive and helpful. If you have no criminal record or mental illness history then you should not worry about the application process. There is nothing wrong with screening someone who will be carrying a firearm concealed in public.
As a health care provider I don't want to see anyone hurt because either safety was violated or someone with a mental history slipped through.

mljdeckard
April 2, 2011, 12:44 PM
Ask yourself this way. What is wrong with requiring people to pass a literacy test before they are allowed to vote? I mean, it's a serious responsibility, and only those who have demonstrated their ability to do so responsibly should be allowed to do it, right?

Manco
April 2, 2011, 12:55 PM
Yes, the whole concept is absolutely an infringement as long as it exists in any form whatsoever. The reason for this seemingly extreme stance is that our right to life is one that the government cannot protect or in some way compensate for--if you're dead, that's it, there's no way to bring you back. Therefore our natural right to self-defense is absolute and we should all have the same freedom to be armed that criminals enjoy by breaking the laws of the land. For nearly everything else, the law-abiding citizen can generally feel adequately protected under the law, but protecting one's very life is far beyond the reach of the law and more fundamental.

Classified00
April 2, 2011, 02:00 PM
Yes.

:cuss:

00
April 2, 2011, 02:04 PM
Nope. You need a permit for a lot of things to ensure safety. Building permit, driving permit, and demonstration permit to name a few. It's part of living in a society, you can do it just as long as the level of safety is ensured and reasonable.

Don't like it, live away from society or find a new country.

mljdeckard
April 2, 2011, 02:12 PM
I have a better option. work to get the law changed.

The other things you named aren't rights. They are PRIVILEGES. Even for demonstrations, the right to assemble peacefully itself holds a condition, where the government may make reasonable restrictions to ensure it stays peaceful. The right to bear arms specifically says no infringements. The trouble with allowing REASONABLE restrictions, is that your idea and Diane Feinstein's ideas of REASONABLE are two very different things.

Mags
April 2, 2011, 02:32 PM
Post 2 summed it up for me.

NavyLCDR
April 2, 2011, 02:46 PM
Ask yourself this way. What is wrong with requiring people to pass a literacy test before they are allowed to vote? I mean, it's a serious responsibility, and only those who have demonstrated their ability to do so responsibly should be allowed to do it, right?

And don't forgot, they should have to pay for the literacy test, and pay for a certificate from the government to take to the polling place to certify that they are qualified to vote. I don't know, what do you think, shootingthebreeze, something reasonable like $150 for the test and $100 or so for the certificate? Nothing wrong with that, right, we don't want people voting irresponsibly!

I believe in the CCW rules-one has to get a more detailed background check to get a CPL. My question is, what's wrong with that?
Plus, the CCW class offers a lot of information, gun safety, tactics, legal. Education. What's wrong with that?
I found my class very instructive and helpful. If you have no criminal record or mental illness history then you should not worry about the application process. There is nothing wrong with screening someone who will be carrying a firearm concealed in public.

Nothing wrong with it other than it takes a basic human right to self defense and turns it into a privilege that only an elite group of people who PAY for training and PAY the government for permission can engage in. Other than that... nope, nothing wrong with it.

The permit system that New York State Senator Tim Sullivan put into effect in New York in 1911 in order to take away guns from citizens who were shooting at the criminal gangs that worked for him is still in place and doing exactly the same thing today - helping to increase the number of unarmed victims available to the criminal. But, at least we don't have people defending themselves irresponsibly in New York...

BeerSleeper
April 2, 2011, 02:51 PM
What about felons and the mentally ill? (Don't take me the wrong way, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) I don't want those people buying or carrying, nor am I suggesting they should be allowed, but strictly speaking from a constitutional standpoint, aren't their rights being infringed?

Yes, I think the permits are infringement.

General Geoff
April 2, 2011, 02:55 PM
What about felons and the mentally ill? (Don't take me the wrong way, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) I don't want those people buying or carrying, nor am I suggesting they should be allowed, but strictly speaking from a constitutional standpoint, aren't their rights being infringed?

ex-Felons? Absolutely. Anyone not a fugitive from justice has the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what they've done in the past. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

As for the mentally ill, usually severely mentally ill people are not legally responsible for themselves and thus cannot be expected to bear the weight of responsibility in personal discretion of exercising their rights. If they can't legally represent themselves in a court of law, then they have no place exercising the rest of their rights themselves.

yeti
April 2, 2011, 03:04 PM
What about felons and the mentally ill?... aren't their rights being infringed?


Permits are only an infringement on the law-abiding. The mentally ill and felons can't legally possess firearms so permit laws don't apply to them from the start.

skidder
April 2, 2011, 03:31 PM
Who has access to your "concealed carry" info? Local, State, Federal....hmm....I wonder who's the best at keeping secrets.:rolleyes:

NavyLCDR
April 2, 2011, 03:45 PM
ex-felons? Absolutely. Anyone not a fugitive from justice has the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what they've done in the past. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison in the first place.

exactly!

Remo223
April 2, 2011, 03:55 PM
Don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.
I doubt you have a clue what you are talking about.

mljdeckard
April 2, 2011, 04:05 PM
We have discussed the felon thing many times.

The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons, by definition, have had their day in court.

And really, let's be serious. Do you guys REALLY think that people who are let out of prison are ready to be reintegrated into society? Of course it would be nice to keep them in until they were, but seriously, for most violent offenders, they will NEVER be READY to come out and walk safely among other people. This leads to the obvious question; are you willing to budget as much money as it takes, and adjust sentencing guidelines so that we have the latitude and the space to keep them locked up until they are ready? IF NOT, you have to accept that most people released from prison shouldn't have guns.

Now somebody else put the thread back on track. :)

Owen Sparks
April 2, 2011, 04:23 PM
shootingthebreeze said:
I believe in the CCW rules-one has to get a more detailed background check to get a CPL. My question is, what's wrong with that?

The major problem with the state licensing a right is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused. The licensing structure is founded in the presumption that you are not compitent to be trusted with a weapon until YOU prove otherwise. This is the exact opposite of the way our system of justice puts the burden of proof on the accuser.

If the state asserts that you should not be allowed to exercise your Second Amendmant right to keep and bear arms, the state should have to PROVE that you are incompitent before denieing that right.

BigN
April 2, 2011, 04:26 PM
Of course not, if you're a Liberal. They can justify anything, no matter how far-fetched the explanation is...

c1ogden
April 3, 2011, 12:38 AM
"Yes. There's a reason that states which require no license or permit are referred to as "Constitutional Carry" states."

Actually, no state has Constitutional carry since all states have some places where guns are statutorally prohibited. Vermont, for example, prohibits guns on school property.

Is requiring a permit an infringement? Absolutely! That being said, I like it when people have permits but, like in Arizona, the permits should be optional.

As a police officer, if I am called to "check out" a suspicious person I will have to detain him or her for about 20 minutes while my dispatcher runs a bunch of checks to see if the person is legitimate. If you have a permit then I know that someone else has already done those checks and you get back about your business much sooner. On the other hand, if you do have a permit I'll probably still detain you but only so we can argue about who has the better gun!

belercous
April 3, 2011, 01:24 AM
So far as our (2A) federal constitution goes, no. The 2nd Amen. is still in flux, we are not sure of what it means until SCOTUS rules on it. And that, if it comes before the Court, will be decided by justice Kennedy.

Under the law as it stands today, not even close.

Under a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution, considering that now the 2nd Amen. has been "incorporated" by the 14th Amen., yes it definitely is.

Under an "originalist" view of the Constitution, no. The Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to limit a state's right to govern its citizens. (In 1789 a state could limit its citizens freedom of speech, religion, etc., The fedreal gov. could not.)

Under a "living constitution" interpretaion of the Constitution, presently, no. But that could change in the future as the Constitution needs to change with the times to meet the needs of the present day, albeit with the Framer's general intent in mind. This view requires one of two things, depending upon the school of thought derived. (A) If the originalist view is used, no, CCW permits are valid. (B) If a strict constructionist view is held, go by what the words of the document say + how is it applicable for today's world. In such case, CCW permits are certainly an infringement under the "bear arms" clause of the 2nd Amen.

Basically, it could go either way depending upon what school (or combination of schools) of thought are predominate on the Court when/if it rules on the subject. If I had to bet on how SCOTUS would rule with its present composition (and I'm not a gambler), I'd say that justice Kennedy would find CCW permits to be within the ambit of state's rights. I wish otherwise, but that's how I'd bet.

tyeo098
April 3, 2011, 01:25 AM
Of course not, if you're a Liberal. They can justify anything, no matter how far-fetched the explanation is...
Now wait a second.
I can think of one thing that many conservatives hold near and dear that has no other explanation than an old book.

That was severely off topic, but I had to make that point, being in the middle on the aisle and all...

But addressing the felon topic, there should be some way to determine that they are ready to be integrated into society, and when they can pass that (or fake it as best they can) they should have their rights restored. Kinda like a governor's pardon, but more accessible to the common man.
Ive had my scare with a felony(thank the Big Guy up top that they were reduced to misd.) and staring in the face of losing your rights is one helluva scary thing.

22-rimfire
April 3, 2011, 02:02 AM
You might want to read this article about some proposed legislation. It gets far worse than you might imagine if passed. It could easily affect qualification for carry permits nationwide as an unintended result. This is at the federal level versus state level. This addresses felons as well as other "disallowed" folks from firearm purchases. It even has the Brady people concerned. http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/NRA-ILA-Schumer-S436-Gun-registration_2827-1.html?typpf

belercous
April 3, 2011, 03:29 AM
"Proposed legislation" is just that, "proposed." It makes for political points back in one's district, but that don't mean that the bill's gonna be a law. The NRA has used this as a fund-raising tactic for so long that its time-worn. "Fear, fear, fear, donate to eradicate the fear."

And this bill has exactly what chance of passing in the GOP-controlled House with pro-gun Democrats? What are the chances that the bill will make it out of committe? Or even make it out of committee with a favorable vote?

Did I miss something?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are CCW permits an infringement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!