• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What would it take to get this before SCOTUS?

Custodian

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
283
Location
The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
Okay, as we all know, the first amendment, seemingly is not subject to licensure or permission slip, aka a permit. (though the free speech zone, shows how silly the feds can get)

And further down the line, the third, fourth, fifth (which is nearly dead)

Why is it that the second amendment is the only amendment subject to licensure/permit?

I heard quite often, we need to first repeal GCA, NFA, etc, etc.

I disagree.

I believe this is the heart of the matter that must be attacked and slayed with haste.

You see we are past the time where few alive, if any, remember living freely at a time before NFA, GCA and other gun control laws. And we are on the cusp of the concealed carry permit, concealed weapons permit, firearms permit, firearms id card, etc, etc. THE RIGHT is slowly fading and the LICENSE is rising.

In a generation, will the majority of Americans honestly remember what it will be like to NOT apply for some sort of permit that stabs at their natural born rights?

The permit must go, but how does one repeal this and, sadly get it before the Rights Hangin' Judges of this land?

Molon Labe, while often used as a phrase of bravado, if you are honest to yourself, it tends to be a joke, if you ask me, as many Americans, had to get permission to obtain and keep their weapon, from a bureaucrat or elected politician and another permission slip to bear it, and its subject to be lost under a laundry list of rules (Lautenburg amendment, and no I don't recall a 28th amendment passed as of recent, DO YOU?)

Your take?
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Not sure what issue you wish to see before SCOTUS - collectively all gun restrictions/laws?

My take?

I remember when a 12yo could buy a gun and ammo at the local emporium or through a catalog. Then the pendulum swung the other way.

Still in most recent years we have made great advances in regaining the RKBA - dramatically so where states embraced Constitutional Carry.

We are on a roll - let nothing deter us - not rain, sleet, or snow jobs.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Not to split hairs, but we have a Constitutional right to travel, yet vehicle license, drivers license...

Nobody's infringing on your right to travel by making you get licensed and registered. You can always use public transportation or walk or ride a bike or a horse. There's an over-riding public good achieved by making sure drivers actually know how to point their vehicle in a safe and lawful manner, and that for the financial protection of themself and the public at large they carry a certain minimum of liability insurance.

Those are the main points I'm always told whenever the dichotomy between the right to travel and the government licensing/registering of the most common means of travel becomes the subject of conversation.

Now where else have I heard those explanations? They sound so familiar.

stay safe.
 

Custodian

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
283
Location
The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
this is my question

Not sure what issue you wish to see before SCOTUS - collectively all gun restrictions/laws?

My take?

I remember when a 12yo could buy a gun and ammo at the local emporium or through a catalog. Then the pendulum swung the other way.

Still in most recent years we have made great advances in regaining the RKBA - dramatically so where states embraced Constitutional Carry.

We are on a roll - let nothing deter us - not rain, sleet, or snow jobs.

My question to SCOTUS

How Is It Constitutional To License A Right Guaranteed By the Bill Of Rights?

How do the stages have this authority?

No other right is subject to licensure, except the second. If you ask me, though I am probably wrong, I'd say automobiles and other vehicles are covered by the ninth or tenth amendment.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
My question to SCOTUS

How Is It Constitutional To License A Right Guaranteed By the Bill Of Rights?

How do the stages have this authority?

No other right is subject to licensure, except the second. If you ask me, though I am probably wrong, I'd say automobiles and other vehicles are covered by the ninth or tenth amendment.

Automobiles etc. are covered by the tax code. Registration and the requirement for insurance coverage is covered partly by the tax code but IMHO mostly by Common Law limitations of liability against the state and imposition of responsibility on owners/operators of things that could hurt someone else. Licensure of drivers is covered by the Common Law duty of the state to ensure the safety of the citizens, but again the power to tax comes into play.

IIRC in those states that do not have "Constitutional Carry" it is a crime to carry a handgun outside the home and curtilege - sometimes only a crime to carry it concealed and sometimes a crime to carry it in any manner. The license is defined as the affirmative defense against the crime.

We need to keep in mind that at this moment the right to keep and bear arms has been narrowly defined as an individual right to keep and carry them in the home for home defense. As much as that irritates the "Shall not be infringed!!!!!!ELEVENTY 1111!!" crowd, that is the current state of affairs. Every discussion of "how can they __" must begin there and then may move on to what and how things "should be" and possibly even how to get from where we are to there.

One of the arguments that is deafening by its absence is the clearly established lack of any duty by the police to protect any specific individual not in their immediate custody and care, contrasted by the clearly established right to self defense including by the use of deadly force. Will the courts actually go so far as to specify what means of deadly force we are limited to? (Are you interested in some oceanfront property in Death Valley?)

stay safe.
 

Have Gun - Will Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
290
Location
Kenosha County, Wisconsin
IIRC in those states that do not have "Constitutional Carry" it is a crime to carry a handgun outside the home and curtilege - sometimes only a crime to carry it concealed and sometimes a crime to carry it in any manner. The license is defined as the affirmative defense against the crime.

We need to keep in mind that at this moment the right to keep and bear arms has been narrowly defined as an individual right to keep and carry them in the home for home defense.

That's true for some states, but not all or even most of them (sorry, I don't know offhand which ones.) For example, Wisconsin has never had any kind of law restricting (or even mentioning) open carry, so it's been ostensibly legal for our entire history as a state.

With 10+ years of concerted effort by activists pushing the OC envelope, a constitutional amendment stating that "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose", plus a written opinion by the Attorney General clarifying that open carry by itself cannot be construed as a crime, the right to bear arms - in public - is well-established here.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Not to split hairs, but we have a Constitutional right to travel, yet vehicle license, drivers license...

There is no license required to travel, only to drive. But it is a valid argument that DL infringe on the right to travel. To have the same level as firearms control one would have to pass a background check to buy a motor vehicle. To put free speech on the same level tongues would have to be licensed, or mouths sewn closed. Most punishments for acts that abuse rights come AFTER the crime, not guesswork before a crime that you might commit a crime.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
My question to SCOTUS

How Is It Constitutional To License A Right Guaranteed By the Bill Of Rights?

How do the stages have this authority?

No other right is subject to licensure, except the second. If you ask me, though I am probably wrong, I'd say automobiles and other vehicles are covered by the ninth or tenth amendment.

SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution. If you think they do please cite where it is written. You won't find it. SCOTUS just does it with no authority.

As far as people who don't get the right to travel. Did they require a license to ride a horse or horse and buggy? No.

It is all a money making scheme. All in the name of safety. The excuse that is always given to take away our rights.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution. If you think they do please cite where it is written. You won't find it. SCOTUS just does it with no authority.

As far as people who don't get the right to travel. Did they require a license to ride a horse or horse and buggy? No.

It is all a money making scheme. All in the name of safety. The excuse that is always given to take away our rights.

Not just a money making scheme, but also a people registry scheme.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Horses will avoid a collision, same as a pedestrian and HPV cyclist, the properly unlicensed users of the road. Motor vehicles are auto mobile.

Bullhockey. A car is a conveyance for travel same as a horse, mule, bicycle, motor bike, etc, etc, etc....

People who rationalize otherwise are culpable in the erosion of rights, like needing a permit to carry.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The ex governor of Washington admitted that licensing is about Law enFORCEment and knowing who's on the roads when explaining why she approved of giving licensing to "undocumented".

It's not about safety.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Shift the focus of the discussion with your state legislators to "Why is the exercise of my right (OCing) a criminal offense that requires a permit to be exempt (hold a affirmative defense) from punishment for exercising my right (OCing)?

Do not focus on the permit, focus on the criminalization of a right...that is the issue, not the permit.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Shift the focus of the discussion with your state legislators to "Why is the exercise of my right (OCing) a criminal offense that requires a permit to be exempt (hold a affirmative defense) from punishment for exercising my right (OCing)?

Do not focus on the permit, focus on the criminalization of a right...that is the issue, not the permit.

Hmmmm...+1

good point & to be honest hadn't truly thought about that from this perspective...

damnedest things make me go HMMMM ~ fascinating!

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Hmmmm...+1

good point & to be honest hadn't truly thought about that from this perspective...

damnedest things make me go HMMMM ~ fascinating!

ipse
Everybody in the legal world knows of this and yet courts, cops, and elected critters do not wish to connect the dots.

It has been addressed for one of those other BoR rights:
Prior Restraint

In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint
Now, why in the world cannot the SCOTUS not see what they have done for the 1A and not then apply that premise to the 2A.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
The ex governor of Washington admitted that licensing is about Law enFORCEment and knowing who's on the roads when explaining why she approved of giving licensing to "undocumented".

It's not about safety.

Ultimately it is about control and revenue.

You know how you can tell a politician is not telling the truth? Their lips are moving.........:lol:
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Nobody's infringing on your right to travel by making you get licensed and registered. You can always use public transportation or walk or ride a bike or a horse. There's an over-riding public good achieved by making sure drivers actually know how to point their vehicle in a safe and lawful manner, and that for the financial protection of themself and the public at large they carry a certain minimum of liability insurance.

Those are the main points I'm always told whenever the dichotomy between the right to travel and the government licensing/registering of the most common means of travel becomes the subject of conversation.

Now where else have I heard those explanations? They sound so familiar.

stay safe.

False.

The citizen funded freeways prohibit walking, biking, and horses being used on them.

Vehicle denotes commercial transport. Do I really need to pull out Title 18 USC?
 
Top