Comments on: NRA Compromises Rights . . . Again

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:40:32 +0000

Reality: For the present, we’re stuck with permits. And while that remains reality, national CHL is the best way to continue reclaiming the 2A — which includes slapping down gun hostile states such as Texas, which pride themselves on how restrictive their licenses are, and claim they will not recognize any other state’s license unless they are just as restrictive.
In Indiana, you have to be 18 to get a CHL. In the immediate neighbor to the south, Kentucky, you have to be 21. However, Kentucky not only honors Indiana permits; it honors Indiana permits held by Indiana residents under 21.
That’s a good neighbor. That, and not “my license is harder to get than yours!” should be the way states look at reciprocity. Unfortunately, far too many states are proud of how hard it is to get a license, so national carry is the best way to deal with that.

By: Dick Wells

Dick Wells — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:20:01 +0000

Xrlg: You do err sir, not knowing the law. However, you are in good company, John Ashcroft said it even better than you: “The second amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, but the state has a vested interest in regulating the right.” A regulated (taxed) right, is a mere privilege the legilature can grant or deny at will. You compound your error in citing the 14th amendment, here, the reference is to the “subjects” of the United States. If one enjoys the Bill of Rights, what need has he for “Civil Rights Acts?” If you care to learn about the issue on point, look to the SCOTUS case, “Twyning v. New Jersey,” (“…the right to keep and bear arms …are not held to be of the privileges and immunities, which the states are forbidden to abridge.”) and the “Slaughter house cases.” here you will see that there are the Citizens of the united states (Bill of Rights) and the citizens of the United States (the ones congress has as its subjects). Also note the similarity of language in the 14th and the preceeding articles in the body of the Constitution for the United States of America. Moreover, if you will go to http://www.gpoaccess.gov , you can view the text of the 2nd amendment (the one with only one comma after the word “state”) and read the comments, which say “…the amendment is a bar on the federal government.”

By: George Young

George Young — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:14:51 +0000

“…It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this LICENSE TAX is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. …But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The PRIVILEGE in question exist apart from state authority. IT IS GUARANTEED THE PEOPLE BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.” (JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 u.s. 105 (1943))
“A state cannot license a constitutional right and tax it, as it is not a legislative product of the state legislatures. This would amount to converting a Right into a privilege; controlled by a third party, as to the who, what, where, when, why and how to exercise a Right, which, at the bottom line, is the lost of a Right. The power to tax or charge a license fee for the exercise of a constitutional Right amounts to unsupervised supression of freedom and liberty.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional.” (FOLLETT v. TOWN OF MC CORMICK, 321 u.s. 573 (1944)

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:49:31 +0000

Just wanted to add that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled over and over that it is unconstitutional to require a fee to exercize ANY right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Here in the People’s Republic of Washington I have argued this point for years and have been ignored even by the ” gun rights organizations”. Each State that requires a fee for a concealed weapons permit is violating the law plain and simple.

By: Lee McGee

Lee McGee — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:10:27 +0000

WHy not “Vermont-style” carry? Additionally, in answer to Xrlq, the definition of “infringed” is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. To quote a famous liberal Constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz: “Foolish liberals who want to read the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

By: Duncan adams

Duncan adams — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:35:02 +0000

A quandary.
Licenses mandated before lawful and constitutional actions are wrong
and unconstitutional.
States have the power to issue licenses.
The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution mandates that
all States recognize each others.
The States have become selective in this recognition.
Marriage , divorce , drivers , police officers , car plates and registrations , yes.
Gun , professional , Power of Attorney . No
I agree that in principal that we should not have to get a CCW.
The practical side says , yeah get the national reciprocity law.
The bad thing about asking the government into your house is that they never leave.
I would not be surprised that if a fed. law on national CCW reciprocity came about.
We will have to take another test and a Federal CCW permit and course.
{ I wonder if this would be recognized to carry on a plane ? }
You didn’t think California , New York , and Illinois would welcome CCW’s with open arms did you ?
Passing a law that already is stated in the constitution is proper but redundant.
Why is the US Government not enforcing the recognition of CCW’s
nation wide already ?
Do you think that if Indiana , California and Alabama mandated that
people with a Mexican ancestry had to have separate bathrooms and
ride in the rear of the bus that the DOJ would not be there if not the National Guard
being ordered out to stop it.
Remember the school segregation’s in the south and the Guard was called out.
If a national CCW law was passed.
What makes us think that California , Illinois and New York will abide by it ?
They don’t follow the Constitution now.
Should our effort be to make the government do what it’s suppose to or just pass more laws … to make it do what it’s suppose to ?

By: john harvey

john harvey — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:58:22 +0000

As a law enforcement officer, I think it’s a GOOD thing that people carry weapons. I’ve strapped one on everyday,for over 30 years. As was demonstrated at the Schnucks episode recently, an armed citizen can be a good thing. Having said that, I also think it’s a good idea to make sure people are trained in the use of guns, so I don’t have a problem with imposing some restrictions on folks who arm themselves. I don’t want untrained people handling guns while they are close to me, my family or friends. If the worst the govt does is require some minimal training, I’m ok with that. Otherwise, if a person isn’t a convicted felon, they should arm themselves, after learning basic firearms safety – particularly if they live in the third most dangerous metro area of the country – Memphis.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:54:24 +0000

I think it’s a real stretch to argue that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Methinks you’re confusing the the 1791 definition of “infringe” (destroy) with the 2006 one (step on anyone’s toes in any way, shape or form to the slightest degree). The clue lies in the grammar: the right “shall not be infringed” as opposed to “shall not be infringed on.”
Even if your reading of the Second Amendment were accurate, what’s the argument against federal CCW? If the right to carry concealed is a constitutional right, and presumably one that should apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment, why shouldn’t the federal government enforce that right against the states that are failing to uphold it?

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:46:49 +0000

All valid points. However, that isn’t the intent of Hostettler, who has introduced national carry in the House since he was elected in the 90s. He comes from one of the original carry states, Indiana, where you have to take no test and pay 25 bucks (or 100 bucks for a lifetime CHL). The “upstart” carry states, starting with Florida, and including Tennessee, have all been playing “Our requirements are tougher than your requirements!” when it comes to reciprocity. Indiana recognizes ALL CHLs from ALL states.