I can't believe the States are allowed to restrict the Bill of Rights by requiring a license to exercise said rights that is "sold" to the citizenry. In 2017 we in Missouri got Constitutional carry and it changed nothing because of all the Democrat run cities that simply claimed they would not allow it without a license. That should not be allowed to happen.
Constitutional Carry: Should it Become Law in Every State?
- Thread starter IJ1981
- Start date
- Status
Howland937
Member
The 2nd Amendment hasn't changed since it was added to the constitution. Throughout it's existence, states and municipalities have been allowed to let their lawmakers interpret it in their own way. Until and unless SCOTUS determines that any...ANY restriction to the RTKBA is unconstitutional, then constitutional carry is a pipe dream. I feel like that's about as unlikely as having background checks ruled unconstitutional. Not that it makes more or less sense...but if the issue is pressed too much, the people wanting to enact even more restrictions at the federal level will do so at the earliest opportunity. Simply put: don't like the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law? Change the law. And they will, eventually.
wiscoaster
Member
SCOTUS has already ruled that 2A is "not unlimited".
Trunk Monkey
member
I'm in Colorado too and I don't think we're all that blue, especially the Western Slope but as long as Denver exists we'll never have permitless carry here.
IMO If you can legally purchase a gun you should be able to legally carry it at your discretion.
I just think people have other things on their mind right now and I can't imagine state legislatures especially in states that are experiencing civil unrest passing legislation that does away with permits
IMO If you can legally purchase a gun you should be able to legally carry it at your discretion.
I just think people have other things on their mind right now and I can't imagine state legislatures especially in states that are experiencing civil unrest passing legislation that does away with permits
Deanimator
Member
Can the Federal government tell the states not to have slavery, a mandatory religion or confessions extracted by torture?
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
I lived on the Western Slope in the early 80s (shale oil project). Went through there a few years ago on vacation. Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, Aspen - as blue as Denver.
Trunk Monkey
member
I bet you the Western Slope is going to elect Lauren Bobert to Congress and Corey Gardner to the Senate
GBExpat
Member
IMO, yes ... but, as we all know (whether we admit to it or not) it will never happen.
Too many folks with a liberal mindset who are afraid of firearms and such a lack of control over the population.
They have spent decades insidiously infiltrating societal structures such as the educational systems in order to demonize both firearms and those who would want to own them.
One man's opinion ... based upon long observation.
Whiskeyhotel2020
Member
Is this where we sit down and give them the background checks however in return all persons cleared by said background check is then cleared to carry a firearm? I understand why we don't want to give an inch when it comes to 2a but, there needs to be some middle ground. I'm not trying to debate or argue on here so please if your initial response is to light me up instead take a breath and just really look at the issue.
Ivy Mike
Member
No. States rights are still a thing.
You can still walk it back in your state if you later decide such action was a mistake or no longer needed. It's a lot harder to do on a federal level. You end up with all sorts of unintended consequences that can be acted upon by later legislators.
Don't be lazy. Learn the laws of the states through which you travel and obey them.
-edit- for example, the only thing that incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states was a court decision. Should a later court look back at McDonald and/or Heller, they might find the pretty large holes in Scalia's opinion and in light of the mistakes of an earlier court, discard Heller. They might assert that Heller was actually very limited in that it only covered D.C. and as D.C. isn't a state, the decision doesn't actually apply anywhere else.
Want to know what protects me from such things?
The fact that NV's state constitution specifically protects my right to firearms.
You can still walk it back in your state if you later decide such action was a mistake or no longer needed. It's a lot harder to do on a federal level. You end up with all sorts of unintended consequences that can be acted upon by later legislators.
Don't be lazy. Learn the laws of the states through which you travel and obey them.
-edit- for example, the only thing that incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states was a court decision. Should a later court look back at McDonald and/or Heller, they might find the pretty large holes in Scalia's opinion and in light of the mistakes of an earlier court, discard Heller. They might assert that Heller was actually very limited in that it only covered D.C. and as D.C. isn't a state, the decision doesn't actually apply anywhere else.
Want to know what protects me from such things?
The fact that NV's state constitution specifically protects my right to firearms.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Honestly, if we had Constitutional Carry here in Virginia, it wouldn't make much difference. We already have unlicensed open carry, and easy-to-get concealed-carry licensing. The only change the legislature made this year was to eliminate online training (which was a joke) and require in-person training.
It's true that having a concealed-carry license puts you in the police database, so they have that information during a traffic stop. This may or may not be a problem for some people.
It's true that having a concealed-carry license puts you in the police database, so they have that information during a traffic stop. This may or may not be a problem for some people.
Deanimator
Member
There is no middle ground. The other side has been saying so for the last two years. Why doubt their word?
theotherwaldo
Member
The federal government can control what happens between the states, but it is up to the people and their representatives what occurs within the collective states.
A binding Constitutional Carry would involve either a Supreme Court ruling concerning the interpretation of the Second Amendment or an additional Amendment that enumerates a separate right to carry in all states.
A binding Constitutional Carry would involve either a Supreme Court ruling concerning the interpretation of the Second Amendment or an additional Amendment that enumerates a separate right to carry in all states.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
NOT true in Florida; the CWFL is issued by the AG Commissioner, not the FDLE, so no connection; (also no duty to inform either)
Roknstevo
Member
My sentiments, exactly. There should be no question.
OP
OP
IJ1981
Member
JTHunter
Member
And it may take some rather unpleasant methods to insure their removal from any position of "power", regardless of that position.
JTHunter
Member
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
That varies by state. I was referring specifically to Virginia. Here, the carry-license database is available to patrol cops. (But the machine gun registry is not.)
Trunk Monkey
member
Honestly this is kind of a dead end question.
I really DON'T think that most of the people here would support permitless concealed carry. I've seen too many posts in favor of mandating a training requirement for a permit now.
I also don't think it's really relevant because it's NEVER going to happen.
I really DON'T think that most of the people here would support permitless concealed carry. I've seen too many posts in favor of mandating a training requirement for a permit now.
I also don't think it's really relevant because it's NEVER going to happen.
AlexanderA
Member
There's an unwritten rule on THR that we try to avoid partisan politics. This frustrates me at times, too, but look at the alternative -- ar15.com, for example, is nothing but a right-wing echo chamber. Any other opinion will get you banned.
1. We stay on topic
2. We don't do threads that are mostly political
3. If you disagree with a moderator, you send a PM
4. If you can't play by those rules, your time here is limited.
Since folks can't stay on topic - this is closed. Lucky, I don't infract a bunch of baloney.
2. We don't do threads that are mostly political
3. If you disagree with a moderator, you send a PM
4. If you can't play by those rules, your time here is limited.
Since folks can't stay on topic - this is closed. Lucky, I don't infract a bunch of baloney.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
