testtest

Is Constitutional Carry a Mistake?

The only practical downsides I see to constitutional carry are that there's a difficulty with reciprocity in some cases, and the fact that without a permit that includes investigation, you still have a problem with the federal Gun Free School Zones Act.
 
Bassbob said:
The supreme court has at some point said the NFA is constitutional. That doesn't mean it actually is. It does mean it effectively is, but the fact is it is unconstitutional.

At any rate, I didn't specify a specific right. I responded to the comment " no right is absolute", which is absolutely bullshite. And worse, it is a very common response from gun control proponents. I've heard Biden say it several times this year alone.

And I really hope you're a lawyer, because then I won't have to feel bad riding you down every chance I get. Because lawyers are, well, lawyers. If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers.
Click to expand...
An old law professor once said, in 100% of trials, exactly 50% of the lawyers are wrong.
 
At no time has the SCOTUS *ever* ruled that NFA1934 is unconstitutional, and anyone who knows anything about 2A jurisprudence already knows this. Anyone who tells you that your constitutionally enumerated rights are absolute and cannot be constitutionally violated does not understand Law or the law. I'm not going to argue these points, because there is no arguing them. You either know the law, or you don't, and the fact that this even has to be said multiple times is only proof that too many Americans don't understand Law or the law. Feel free to provide actual case citations, if you think otherwise.

' Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and forwhatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote26] '

— J. SCALIA, writing for the majority, DC v. Heller (2008)
 
Last edited:
babaylan said:
At no time has the SCOTUS *ever* ruled that NFA1934 is unconstitutional, and anyone who knows anything about 2A jurisprudence already knows this. Anyone who tells you that your constitutionally enumerated rights are absolute and cannot be constitutionally violated does not understand Law or the law. I'm not going to argue these points, because there is no arguing them. You either know the law, or you don't, and the fact that this even has to be said multiple times is only proof that too many Americans don't understand Law or the law. Feel free to provide actual case citations, if you think otherwise.

' Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and forwhatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote26] '

— J. SCALIA, writing for the majority, DC v. Heller (2008)
Click to expand...
Are you an attorney?
 
jschmidt said:
You can carry and shoot in any National Forest. National Parks too, I think, but I don't know for sure.
Click to expand...
Many like myself carry at the Campground I’m hosting at however I tell everyone that although shooting is allowed in the
Flathead National Forest it is NOT allowed within the campground unless it’s required to protect yourself and/or family from predators, ie Bears.
I tell everyone straight up, last resort and know your backstop.
 
Bassbob said:
You don’t understand the question ?

If you don’t know for sure, why would you comment on it ? And if you somehow know that it is in fact a common question, why don’t you know the answer ? 🙄
Click to expand...
I was responding to your question grumpy. I understand the topic.
 
jschmidt said:
I was responding to your question grumpy. I understand the topic.
Click to expand...
But you weren't responding to my question with any useful information.

You were telling us that you didn't know for sure but you thought you could carry or shoot in any national park or Forrest.

I mean you might as well have said it's an interesting question but I have no clue what the answer is
 
The Night Rider said:
But you weren't responding to my question with any useful information.

You were telling us that you didn't know for sure but you thought you could carry or shoot in any national park or Forrest.

I mean you might as well have said it's an interesting question but I have no clue what the answer is
Click to expand...
I was giving you some positive information you could check. Turns out, I was right.

Firearms in National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

Details about the carry and use of Firearms in National Parks.
www.nps.gov www.nps.gov

You're welcome.
 
jschmidt said:
I was giving you some positive information you could check. Turns out, I was right.

Firearms in National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

Details about the carry and use of Firearms in National Parks.
www.nps.gov www.nps.gov

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
I live on the edge of one of the larger National Forests (Pike National Forest) in the country I know the rules.
 
bc22wm said:
Spot On!
Much like "there will beblood in the streets, shoot outs over parking spaces".
Idiots with guns "concern" just allows the "pro" A2 people to pat themselves on the back, fluff up their own ego, with I'm so great, well trained, carry the "right stuff" and if you don't do thing my way, YOU'RE WRONG! Now they have an excuse to wring their hand pee their panties and tell everyone else what to do or should be doing. They may add in a bunch of fluff to sound reasonable, but the bottom line is CONTROL.
Even the title of the article “Is Constitutional Carry a Mistake?” twists my tail, and you can tell where this @$$hats going.
Click to expand...
Well said! (y)
 
southtex said:
Constitutional Carry is great but for my purposes I still maintain my license, portability being at the top of the list. I also live in Texas and noticed after the carry bill passed there were several businesses that didn't allow carry, changed to licensed carry and some stayed no carry. It is a strange dynamic to own and carry a firearm (shouldn't be) as we navigate the maze of laws. The loss of the expectations of Responsibility and Accountability in our Society only adds to the issue. Neither can be legislated (although tried with futility) but must be taught which is where the shortcomings start. Train, Carry, and protect seems simple to me.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution is VERY explicit- "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".. a lot of people, in and out of government have forgotten- or never knew what "right", "keep and bear" and "infringed" meant to the Framers and those who ratified the Constitution in the 1780's. Infringement has been the name of the game since bowie knives were outlawed in certain states in the late 1830's. Anti-gun laws were passed in the post-Reconstruction South to keep firearms out of the hands of former slaves.
As someone has pointed out, there is no other enumerated, pre-existing, not granted right in the Bill Of Rights that is so fervently abridged and for which we must pay to exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top