Gun Control Question

[jimlongley]

I seem to recall reading that in the beginning of the 20th century there were no traffic laws or license/insurance requirements until later on when the automobile did finally emerge as victorious over animal drawn carriages. Were these initially seen as "infringements" or as threats to our freedom?

I call "Red Herring" on two points:

1. The specific right to drive a motor vehicle is not enshrined in the Constitution, whereas the 2nd Amendment specifically states that the RKBA shall not be infringed.
2. Even so, the new traffic laws (which did NOT initially require insurance, by the way) did not restrict what kind of vehicle you could buy, or how many passengers it could carry, or how much engine displacement you could be allowed to have. They only codified responsible use from a public safety perspective. We don't allow you to shoot your pistola into the air on New Year's Eve in the middle of the town square either, not even in the most firearms enlightened states in the union. Public safety firearms laws only become illegitimate when they infringe on the right to keep and bear them.

While I agre with the thrust of your arguement, I would like to point out that traffic laws did indeed exist long before the automobile, or even the USA did. Licensure requirements existed as well.

I do consider the state allowing us to carry after obtaining a license to be an insidious form of gun control, but that is a vast improvement over the past. We came from no carry at all, to liberalized carry, and we have even incrementally chipped away at the restrictions even more and will continue to do so.

The driver's license arguement, as well as vehicle registration is intellectually dishonest, there is no comparison between licensing the use of public highways and licensing carry of a firearm (concealed or not) unless and until the government builds ranges for us to use as ubiquitously as the public highway system. You do not have to have a license to driv e a car, just to use it on a public highway, and you do not have to register a vehicle to own it, except on a public highway.

[Liberty]

I wish to bring to the table the 2nd Amendment. It presents as foundational law very clearly

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A few things should be understood by those who are a little squishy about who this applies too, and about reasonable restrictions.

1. This is our Constititution, the supreme law of our land. No other law can over rule it except that which is in the constitution itself. We are a nation of laws, not of the edicts of our leaders. Our constitution provides a strict method describing how it is to be changed. If the people don't like the Constitution they can change it or throw it out. Until this is done the 2nd amendment is supreme law.
2. We are allowed not only the right to keep and own, but also the right to bear which means carry and have on us. It does not specify the right to bear needing to be concealed.
3. There are no exceptions iterated. and no room for flexibility "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear phrasing and leaves little room for confusion for most functional minds.

While everyone is different and I certainly can't speak for all. We mostly understand that the world we live in has lots of people that aren't quite as smart as we are. Many of us also understand the realities of the world we live in. We may resent the licensing procedure, but it is a step forward. We understand that the best way is to work within the system. We have made a lot of progress over the last 15 years, state wide and federally. We believe, not only do we have to work at changes at the legislative level but in peoples hearts and minds. I don't know of any formal study but I believe that CHL holders as group are amongst the most politically active and astute groups that one will ever find. I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of us know there is comprimise in understanding what our rights outa be, we do understand that we live in a world of people who just aren't as smart as us :)

[marksiwel]

You do have a Right to Travel even if its not the constitution.
The 9th Amendment basically (and I'm paraphrasing here) says "You have rights that arent listed here."

The Airforce was never mentioned in Constitution does that make it Unconstitutional? No of course not.

I forgot my point, because I'm tired and going to work. But I'm posting this anyway

[Headless Roland]

So as I read it there are those who see our state's CHL licensing requirements as an "abomination" and at best only merely a "step in the right direction"

So basically as I posed this topic:
Everyone here is unanimously opposed to any/all "gun-control" or past,present or future laws of any sort pertaining to firearms. (violates the 2nd)

That would basically mean that we are opposed to the law that requires a person be at least 18 to purchase a long arm and 21 for a handgun?
We have no problem with convicts legally owning/carrying ANY firearm ANYWHERE?
Diagnosed sociopaths and schizophrenics should be allowed to carry pistols on playgrounds un-restricted?

Since all of the above are "infringements" against our Second Amendment they will receive the wrath of all who are present on this forum?

As I plainly and clearly stated elsewhere:
I do NOT rely on laws to protect. My family's safety and security is my own responsibility.

However,I am grateful that I do live in a land that has MOSTLY sane and reasonable laws that act as both a guideline and a barrier.

At least then,when the smoke clears and the law arrives,they will be able to say:
"This guy standing here was licensed and legally compliant--
and that guy laying over there was a convict who had no business being armed"

The way you guys here seem to want things--that line could get awful blurry.

[jimlongley]

So as I read it there are those who see our state's CHL licensing requirements as an "abomination" and at best only merely a "step in the right direction"

So basically as I posed this topic:
Everyone here is unanimously opposed to any/all "gun-control" or past,present or future laws of any sort pertaining to firearms. (violates the 2nd)

That would basically mean that we are opposed to the law that requires a person be at least 18 to purchase a long arm and 21 for a handgun?
We have no problem with convicts legally owning/carrying ANY firearm ANYWHERE?
Diagnosed sociopaths and schizophrenics should be allowed to carry pistols on playgrounds un-restricted?

Since all of the above are "infringements" against our Second Amendment they will receive the wrath of all who are present on this forum?

As I plainly and clearly stated elsewhere:
I do NOT rely on laws to protect. My family's safety and security is my own responsibility.

However,I am grateful that I do live in a land that has MOSTLY sane and reasonable laws that act as both a guideline and a barrier.

At least then,when the smoke clears and the law arrives,they will be able to say:
"This guy standing here was licensed and legally compliant--
and that guy laying over there was a convict who had no business being armed"

The way you guys here seem to want things--that line could get awful blurry.

First of all your first sentence negates your "Everyone here" position - the opinions presented in the thread are quite varied, hardly "everyone." It's a blurry subject, and you have done nothing to sharpen it.

Second, I don't think "everyone" is suggesting the things you represent. It used to be that a "convict" (you did not define whether you meant felonious or misdemeanant, so for the sake of brevity and debate I will assume felonious) lost their Constitutional rights, are you suggesting that those rights should be universally restored? Similarly, it used to be that minors and those who were determined to lack mental capacity, also did not enjoy constitutional protection of rights, such as the right to vote, but your arguement seems to suggest that you feel they should have these rights. Is this the basis for this debate, whether these people should have the same rights as the rest of us?

Of course it is our right and responsibility to protect and defend our selves and our families, so how does granting rights to felons and mental defiecients enhance that right?

[thorkyl]

Texas Constitution
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms , with a view to prevent crime.

US Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

10th Amendment US Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is what the entire McDonald v. City of Chicago case is about.

Does the Second apply to the States or not.
with the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) all but the second have been found to apply to the States.

I think that SCOTUS will find that it does apply to the States, the question is will they find that the "shall not be infringed" part applies.

[GaryAdrian]

An armed society is a polite society.
Today the common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into violent battle that would result in injury and/or death. The law abiding American who buys a firearm for self-protection today is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection."
People like Sarah Brady are saying, "I do not want to recognize that life involves danger. I deserve to live in a protected environment, and I should not have to think about protecting myself. This is the 21st century for GAWD's sake, and violence simply should not happen!"
Myself, I'd rather be would rather be a dead lion than a live mouse. I do not wish to live in fear of who may do evil to me or my family. I will do quick and deadly battle to preserve my life, my freedom and my rights in this country any time and in any place. Be well prepared and expect to live as long as you can.

...and yes, I do love Heinlein.


It is better to fight for something than live for nothing.
George S. Patton

[Charles L. Cotton]

So as I read it there are those who see our state's CHL licensing requirements as an "abomination" and at best only merely a "step in the right direction"

So basically as I posed this topic:
Everyone here is unanimously opposed to any/all "gun-control" or past,present or future laws of any sort pertaining to firearms. (violates the 2nd)

That would basically mean that we are opposed to the law that requires a person be at least 18 to purchase a long arm and 21 for a handgun?
We have no problem with convicts legally owning/carrying ANY firearm ANYWHERE?
Diagnosed sociopaths and schizophrenics should be allowed to carry pistols on playgrounds un-restricted?

Since all of the above are "infringements" against our Second Amendment they will receive the wrath of all who are present on this forum?

As I plainly and clearly stated elsewhere:
I do NOT rely on laws to protect. My family's safety and security is my own responsibility.

However,I am grateful that I do live in a land that has MOSTLY sane and reasonable laws that act as both a guideline and a barrier.

At least then,when the smoke clears and the law arrives,they will be able to say:
"This guy standing here was licensed and legally compliant--
and that guy laying over there was a convict who had no business being armed"

The way you guys here seem to want things--that line could get awful blurry.

"Everyone here is unanimously opposed to any/all "gun-control" or past,present or future laws of any sort pertaining to firearms. (violates the 2nd) " This is absurd and you know it.

If you want to troll, charter a fishing boat. Stop or your gone.

Chas.

[joe817]

If you want to troll, charter a fishing boat. Stop or your gone.

and

[GaryAdrian]

If you want to troll, charter a fishing boat. Stop or your gone.

and

and with your !

There are many things I like to see changed, but I wish to do so through legislation and not through some blanket declaration of rights I automatically give myself.

[mr surveyor]

just my opinion, but I think that citizens of Virginia should stir their own pot....and this ain't Virginia

Thank you Mr. Cotton for your attention to the ISP. You confirmed my suspicions.



surv