Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by sig87, Jun 8, 2009.
For your SC gunlaw questions:
Twenty bucks plus shipping. Can't beat it.
I guess I differ in opinion than some folks here. True the Second Amendment covers Ownership and possession of a firearm. I don't recall any language in the amendment dealing with concealed carry, a concept that didn't exist in those days. I agree about ownership; that it is covered by the 2nd.
I believe that there should be some training as a pre-requisite to obtaining a CCL. I would feel safer knowing that the person who has a CCL knows enough and has enough skills to not endanger other citizens. A quick trip to the firing range shows us enough folks are idiots when it comes to firearm safety. And that is in a formal setting.
For heaven's sake; a hairdresser or barber has to have more training than we have to have in Washington to obtain a CCL. We all know you can recover from a bad haircut in two weeks or so. Can't say the same about the victim of some un-trained idiot with a CCL who shoots the wrong person.
So I support firearm training as a pre-requisite for obtaining a CCL. I really support the need for education on the law and ethics of carrying a handgun, or any firearm for that matter.
I also believe that a reasoned rational approach to this topic will do more to convert Anti-Gunners to Second Amendment Supporters than the stand currently espoused by the NRA or the most vocal of the Rabid Second Amendment Supporters.
I agree 100% Ralph. And to pee some people off even further; I also have no problem with background checks. Without a background check; albeit it isn't perfect; there would definitely be more people with guns who definitely shouldn't have one. "I know; you're going to say that criminals, mentally ill, etc... can still get them on the black market or through private sales". Yes, that's true; but we don't have to contribute to them getting them. And background checks keeps them out of the legal hands of the younger kids. (Although I think the legal age for ALL activities; e.g. hand guns, drinking alcohol, etc... should be at the same age as legal to vote; 18 years old. Back in the old days, back ground check wasn't necessary, because when someone committed a crime; the punishment was harsh. And there was no difference between a crime committed with a gun or a different weapon. They understood that a gun was a tool. In our modern day legal system; "UBER LEFT LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART"; too many people get off of crimes with probation, good behavior, etc... There are definitely some that shouldn't have a gun.
And if you're a law abiding citizen who isn't committing crimes; then you should have absolutely nothing to worry about with a back ground check. And as far as it being an invasion of privacy and your rights; I don't see it that way. The government isn't infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. They have simply made certain rules on WHOM this right is bestowed upon. And NO, this right isn't bestowed upon ALL CITIZENS!!! Some citizens have their rights either temporarily or permanently restricted. E.g. felon:voting; Free Speech:Yelling fire when there isn't one; Free Speech:Slander; Religion:Sacrificing Humans (Especially against their will); etc... So there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting up rules that don't allow illegal residents or non citizens from having a gun; criminals/felons from having a gun; etc... and a way to CHECK out the people.
And to be honest; I really LIKE the government knowing how many guns are out there. Granted, except for CCW, they don't actually know that John Doe has a gun, because the FFL paper work is in the Dealer's possession; however the MAIN PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment (It's main intent); was to protect the citizenry against a dictatorship and/or repressive government. I like it when the government KNOWS that there are 80 MILLION gun owners in the United States; 1/4 25% of the population: And that there are approximately 200 MILLION actual firearms in the United States: And that they KNOW that they don't have enough Military, Guard, Reserves, Police, Sheriffs, CIA, FBI, NSA, etc... COMBINED!!!! To take them away from us. There's no way for them to have a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY!!! The fact that they will concentrate on those that pose a threat to the law abiding population, is fine. Granted; some states like New Jersey and California make it very DIFFICULT and DISCOURAGING to "Keep and Bear" arms. But it isn't impossible. The best thing you can do is to encourage MORE people to become gun owners, sympathetic to our rights; to ALL rights; and get those state laws changed.
As soon as the .gov starts back ground checks and licenses crooks, I'll agree. Try this on for size - substitute "voting" for "firearms" in your rants and see if that changes things.
Interestingly enough, there are zero issues with states not requiring training. We (GRSC) looked hard at the difference as Georgia requires no training and has about the same accident/CWP rate as we do and SC requires 8 hours of training. Vermont obviously requires no license at all.
Gents, the facts don't support your elitist attitude at all. In fact, the harder you make the license, the fewer people jump thru the hoops. The fewer good guys and gals with guns, the more crime you get. And that is a fact. Google John Lott.
Oh, and for the law abiding folks who do not pass the background checks - guess that's just their problem huh? Based on 4+ years of dealing with NICS, hope you didn't seek out PTSD treatment at the VA, that seems to DQ you.
Al; moderator or not; who the hell are you calling an elitist? At no time did I, Ralph, or anyone else who happens to disagree with you present an appearance that we think we are better, higher stature, smarter, wealthier, etc... If you disagree with our opinion, then fine; argue the opinion. But how about not taking it personal or going personal with those you don't agree with.
Yes, the system that is in place is not perfect. I know of very few things in life that are perfect. And yes, the ultimate answer to all government issues lies in the voting booth. And that is why I recommend recruiting more people to get involved with owning guns; and becoming knowledgeable about our constitution, the bill of rights within it; and the "Process" of our government in general. There are numerous threads on this and other forums that deal with CCW, 2nd amendment rights, open carry, laws, bans, etc...; and eventually they will all go back to dealing with politics. That's what this is all about.
Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on how best to proceed with improving the perception/opinion of the general public (Meaning the non-gun owners and anti-gun crowd); as well as how to preserve our rights and take back our government. This thread was started because an individual took their CWP class and wasn't impressed with how it was handled. And rightfully, it has evolved into speaking of CWP, permits, background checks, etc... en mas. This is totally appropriate.
I stand by my opinion that the 2nd amendment; as well as the other rights given to or born with; are designed for the "Responsible and Law Abiding" citizen. I don't believe that criminals should have certain rights. I believe that people who ABUSE certain rights, should have those rights curbed. (Freedom of speech is a prime example). We should all be allowed to express our thoughts; but if you purposely harm or affect a person in such a way that it infringes on their rights; then I think action should be taken. I.e. Verbally insulting with racist comments in public should not be tolerated under the blanket of "It's my right of free speech". I feel the same about guns. I have no problem with a process in place; even if it's not the most efficient; to try and restrict gun sales and possession to those who are criminals, mentally ill, under age, illegal immigrants, etc...
Yes, there are times when a law abiding citizen falls through the cracks and is denied. But there is also a system in place to appeal and correct the situation. It personally happened to me; prior to having a CWP. I tried to buy a weapon and the instant check came back negative. No sale. Mind you, I worked for the government; spent 21 years in the military; had a background security clearance high enough to get a nose bleed; etc... Found out that when the gun dealer called it in, the SSN# was typed in wrong by one of the numbers. It got resolved. Most states have exceptions for CWP for those in potential danger; i.e. woman with an estranged ex-husband/boyfriend. In our state, a CWP can be given in such cases within 24 hours by the sheriff.
So no, the system isn't perfect. But some of the bureaucracy is warranted. I don't believe that ANY of the 300 million; plus however many illegal immigrants are in our country; should be able to just walk into any gun store; any place in the country; point to a weapon; and buy it in cash. And if there's going to be rules such as 18 years old, U.S. Citizen, Non-Felon, Non-Mentally Ill, etc...; then there's got to be a background check or some system in place to VERIFY that. For that, I am for. I am not for each state having DIFFERENT rules on who, when, how, where, etc... people may have and use guns. The 2nd amendment is a federal right given to citizens of all 50 states. It shouldn't be interpreted different by each state. A person should who can legally buy a weapon; should be allowed to go to any of the 50 states and buy a weapon. A person should be allowed to mail a weapon to themselves and from themselves at any time. (We should be able to trust the post office). A person authorized to be able to have a weapon, should be allowed to have ANY weapon and carry it. That includes class 3 or any other type. So, I'm all for a background check; and I'm all for a CWP permit (Free of charge); but these need to be national. I should be able to carry concealed in all 50 states; with the same restrictions (e.g. courthouse, police, jail, etc...) in all 50 states.
2nd amendment is a federal right
Thank you for making my point. That is incorrect, major fail. If you don't understand why, I have no desire to educate you.
For the rest of the folks, the "elitist" attitude is the thought that certain God given rights must be earned in some manner. An example of this was the "Jim Crow" laws in the south. Tests such as requiring literacy or land ownership prior to voting effectively kept blacks from doing so.
Amazing how prior to 1968 one could order a firearm through the mail.
FWIW, just as the ability to tax is the ability to destroy, the ability to license is the ability to deny.
We need to have as our goal Vermont or Alaska style carry.
WHOA! Wait a goddamn minute.
The government bestows rights on citizens??? What happened to being born with certain inalienable rights?
Try that again. The government does NOT give you your rights. You are born with them! The constitution merely guarantees that the government will not interfere with those rights that you have been born with!
Listen; before going ballistic!!! 1st; Al; I apologize. When I said FEDERAL, I did not mean that in the sense that the federal government gives you the right. I meant it as in THE ENTIRE NATION has that right and that's it's NOT just for 1 particular state. As such; any use or restriction of said right should be done at the NATIONAL level. I.e. New York, Texas, Wyoming, and Illinois shouldn't have different rulings on the same right. It should be the same for everyone, everywhere!
2nd; Larry; you need to cool your "GODDAMN JETS". And I'd appreciate it if you DIDN'T use that language. And NO larry; you are wrong. The government has every right in the world to determine WHO those rights are bestowed upon. If you were BORN with those rights, then those would be rights enjoyed and cherished all over the ENTIRE PLANET. They aren't. That means it comes from a supreme being. How do you explain that to a large portion of the world who don't believe in a supreme being. We, as Americans, have decided (Or rather our founding fathers decided), that certain rights are to be enjoyed by all CITIZENS upon their birth. However, it was never acceptable that these rights didn't have certain levels of responsibilities by the citizen. I.e. You can't yell fire if there isn't a fire. Your right to the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you can deprive someone else of theirs (Steel from them). When you were 7 years old; were you allowed to speak to your parents the way you responded to me in your last post? NO YOU WEREN'T. (If you say you were, you're lying.) Well, if you were BORN with the right to FREE SPEECH, then why weren't you allowed to say such things to your parents? WHY were your RIGHTS suppressed??? Same with the 2nd amendment. When you were 8 years old, did YOU have the right to carry and shoot a hand gun of your choosing? Why not? Did your parents or the law curb that right? Yes they did. And that is what I'm talking about. The government has the right, and they ALWAYS HAVE, to determine upon WHOM certain rights are bestowed. E.g. Illegal immigrant: Yes/no; Certain age limit: Yes/No; Mentally Ill: Yes/No; Convicted Felon: Yes/No. Now, if you don't understand that, then there is absolutely nothing to talk to you about.
But again Al; if you understand my meaning when I said Federal, as in NATIONALLY and not an individual state right/law/etc... And that any legal citizen in any state should be able to follow the same laws concerning our rights, then cool. If you think that because it's a "RIGHT", and therefor the government has no place whatsoever in ensuring that those PRACTICING and EXERCISING their rights aren't infringing on the RIGHTS of OTHERS; then I don't know what to say. Rights are ONLY rights if: A) You're allowed to exercise such actions freely and B) It doesn't interfere with the RIGHTS of someone else. And this can possibly be a philosophical argument; but I don't believe that we, as HUMAN BEINGS, actually have ANY RIGHTS in the world. If it was a RIGHT, then it wouldn't be possible for it to be taken away from us or infringed upon. It may just be semantics, but a TRUE RIGHT is something that NO MAN can take from us. Guess what; there isn't one "RIGHT" that we speak of that hasn't been taken away from someone, someplace, at some time. The question here is rather the ordering FREEDOM to exercise a certain activity.
If the 2nd amendment was actually a RIGHT; as many here want to DEFINE it; then all 50 states would have the exact same interpretation; all laws concerning the exercising of said Right, would be identical NATIONALLY. The same limits on those whom the "Right" was not allowed would exist; etc... But unfortunately, this is not the case. And as such, that proves that the 2nd amendment has been allowed to be interpreted by the states in the power that they have been given in the 10th amendment. Basically; the constitution/Bill of Rights "Different meaning than we use today"; says in the 2nd amendment that we, as citizens, are afforded the right to Keep and Bear arms. Now; because some people don't see certain restraints on the bill; they automatically assume there aren't any restraints. (Wrong deduction from a constitutional law perspective). The fact is; as long as the local state governments don't stop it's citizens from being allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in it's entirety; then those states via the 10th amendment (Because it's not clearly stated by the constitution as having given the power to the federal government); can put constraints on the 2nd amendment right. Such as where, when, how, etc... And because the constitution was written for AMERICAN CITIZENS who are LAW ABIDING; the states can go through whatever process they want to to DETERMINE IF you are an American Citizen and are Law Abiding. And if this means permits, license, etc... they are free to do it. I don't AGREE WITH THIS; but it is a fact. That is why New Jersey, California, etc... have laws that are different than Wyoming, Idaho, and Vermont. And that's why the Heller case vs D.C. hasn't made a very good dent in certain restrictions. A) Washington D.C. is NOT A STATE!!!! What happens there does NOT carry over as precedence to what the states must do. Many states WILL use it; but many won't. B) The constitution doesn't specify HOW to ensure those exercising certain RIGHTS are ALLOWED to based on the constitution. Therefor the states can determine their own method.
What Mr. Ashcraft just said!!
If any of you gentleman would like have a discussion about rights, perhaps you need to first aquaint yourself with the reality that the Constitution and BoR do not grant any rights to anyone. Those documents limit and spell out the powers granted the government by us, the people. That's the brilliance of the founders; a foundation of limits on government, not on people.
A discussion based on the notion that the only rights we have are granted by the government is an exercise in futility and elitist by definition.
Only if you give up those rights. I don't, and won't. Look, I could go on a rant here about statists, but I won't.
What I will say though, is that as so-called "free" Americans, we are a sad bunch...
And in the United States, specific enumerated rights are described BY THE GOVERNMENT as inalienable and bestowed by mere existence and not by government fiat. That's what the preamble of the Declaration of Independence tells ya:
That's the context of the framing of our government, inc case you missed that day in Civics class.
The framers of the US believed that MORALLY everyone was born with rights. Those rights can be constrained through force or purchased from you, but they are STILL YOUR RIGHTS even when taken away. The fact that you grant yourself, and everyone else, no moral ground for intrinsic rights is likely the saddest statement I have ever read.
Let's move on to the Constitution.
Pay attention to Article 1, Section 8 - that's supposed to be the effective limit on the Federal Legislature.
Also pay attention to the 14th Amendment, which attempts to act as a limiter on state's efforts to abridge the liberties described in the Constitution. I suggest that you spend some time researching the notion of 'incorporation' - it speaks directly to the unevenness of the application of the Second Amendment.
The rights enumerated in the Constitution only applies to those of the age of majority. My eight year old does not have legal rights in the same sense that I do.
Wrong. The whole point of the Constitution is that the government DOES NOT have the right to decide who enjoys certain rights... right which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Seriously, guy, try reading it sometime. Then look up the word "inalienable".
What isn't specifically allotted to the Fed. gov. is reserved for the states and People. The states each carry their own Constitution...
-Oh, neverfriggin' mind. I'm not in the mood
I have a feeling we are going to slowly grind out the earth all the way down past the ages of time till we hit the Magna Charter.
And no one will still be satisfied.
We are the first frigging free NATION to be founded free from tyranny and anything else then in existance anywhere else on the Earth.
My thoughts exactly.
Topic Seems To Have Wandered
With the indulgence of the other mods who have posted in this thread . . .
Hope you don't mind, gents, but I don't see this thread ever coming back on track.
While I find it troubling that anyone who's actually taken a civics class can somehow conclude that the government "bestows" or "hands out" or "decides who shall have" rights, I won't engage in that debate here.
I see he managed to get Larry riled. That's really quite an accomplishment. I don't believe in all my time on the board I've seen that done.
There was a time on this board when we had a section called "Legal and Political." Because the "political" side of that section generated orders of magnitude more heat than light, and because the vicious arguments began burning tons of moderator time and effort, that section was closed and re-opened as "Legal," for the discussion of matters of law.
While it might be interesting to have a thread there that discusses the merits of rights, their origins, their observance, and their abuses over the decades and centuries leading up to the creation of our own constitution, this section would certainly not be the place for that.
And, should anyone open such a thread in Legal, be sure that it will be closely watched, as discussions of that kind get . . . understandably heated.
So, as I said, with the indulgence of the other mods, I'm closing this.
Separate names with a comma.