Are CCW permits an infringement?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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".
 
No more so than a license to attend church, a permit to speak your mind about politics or to carry an unregistered Bible.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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 said:

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

Wasn't this the main legal argument used against the poll tax and literacy tests for voters in the South?
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Does your CCW admit defeat to the antis?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
ilbob
ilbob
A
  • Locked
Change of address on CCW permit
Replies
2
Views
495
RustyShackelford
R
P
  • Locked
The Second Amendment and the right for open carry
Replies
0
Views
309
Prosser
P
S
  • Locked
Does CCW licensing serve any purpose for our safety?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Defensory
D
H
  • Locked
interesting, troubling question about CCW
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
fjolnirsson
F
Back
Top