Requiring a permit to carry a gun is Unconstitutional

[DustoneGT]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

The Statists have had a strong hold on this country from day one haven't they? Oh how I wish Jefferson could have been a stronger man who would have held to his convictions.

This whole garbage of incorporation sounds like excuses made by tyrants still wanting tyranny. Since the beginning of time, we've had certain types of people who have wanted to control everyone else's lives. These are the busybodies and the nannies or tyrants. These are the self appointed elites who think they're better suited than the unwashed masses to make decisions for everyone. The whole idea of State's rights in terms of incorporation of the first 8 in the Bill of Rights was directly due to Slavery. It's a little dis-concerning that since the founding of this country, it has been Democrats who have always championed some form of tyranny over freedom.

I thought that this was why our Constitution was made. How is the idea of incorporation as an option even justified Constitutionally????

It seems to me that this old precedent is now being used by the modern day slavers (the left in this country) to give States the right to ignore our rights, and abdicate them back to an ever tyrannical Fed.

Doesn't anyone (other than you guys here) yearn for Liberty and Freedom? Or are they all just satisfied with tyranny sprinkled with a dose of schadenfreude?

Absolutely! I would like to see the day that we don't have to worry about what some court wants to do with our rights.

My take: Come and take it!

 

[Citizen]

imported post

superdemon wrote:

SNIP And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

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.

The word that so many people overlook is regulated.

If I may, I would like to broaden a little bit.

"Regulated" actually meant something a little different in those days. It did not mean only having a variety of rules,restrictions,and regulations. Its concept included "operating properly" or "working correctly".

Even today, that meaning has carried forward a bit and can still be seen peeking through:

3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

One can, with a little inspection, discernthe similarities and connections between proper functioning, orderliness, rules, and even laws.

In terms of a militia, being discussed in the context of rights to arms and preservation against tyranny, it is unlikely the Framers meant a "well-restricted" militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nor"well-burdened-with-regulations".

My reading has shown me that "well-regulated" as applied to the militia meant drilled and practiced and ready to go when called. Put into and maintained in a condition for proper functioning. Maintained in a degree of readiness beyond just a rifle in the closet. If they were going to drill (marching in formations, deploying in formations, changing formations to respond to circumstances on the battlefield, practicing firing and loadingon command, etc), if they were going to drill, there was going to also have to be some organization and some officers established.

Thus, I no longer believe well-regulated means having lots of restrictions on guns, nor even the militia.

Especially when I see the connections between regulated, orderliness, proper functioning, and so forth. There is just no way the huge burden of thevast number of laws and regulations on guns actually promote the proper functioning of anything. They aremeant only to restrict, restrict, restrict.

If I recall correctly, at one time a regulation for the militia included a specification as to how much shot, powder, and perhaps flints each qualified male was required to keep, or perhaps bring with him to drill. And it was mandated that he had to keep his gun in working order/repair. Thoserules area regulating that promotes proper functioning.

The breakdown is the government's failure to maintain the militia in its proper condition and functioning. The vast sea of restrictions is just further movement in the opposite direction from what was contemplated by the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

Now gentle reader, in light of this information, I invite you to compare newly the meanings of the words "restrict" and "shall not be infringed". Makes even more sense now, doesn't it?

Is there really any conflict between "well-regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?

Do these two ideas not mesh nicelyin thecontext of theSecond Amendment,in the context of thatstatement about a right, about preserving against tyranny, about the security of not just any old state, but a free state?

Funny hownot having the correctmeaning of one single word can skew things. Funny how things make a lot more sense once thatmeaning is used.

One more little point. Inlaw, asI understand it, whenasentence can be read more than one way, it isproper to give it the meaning that gives effect to the rest of the text. Not the meaning that makes other parts of thetext nugatory (of little or no importance, invalid, having no force).

Does interpreting"well-regulated" as "well restricted" not render "shall not be infringed" nugatory?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

superdemon wrote:

SNIP And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

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.

The word that so many people overlook is regulated.

If I may, I would like to broaden a little bit.

"Regulated" actually meant something a little different in those days. It did not mean only having a variety of rules,restrictions,and regulations. Its concept included "operating properly" or "working correctly".

Even today, that meaning has carried forward a bit and can still be seen peeking through:

3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

One can, with a little inspection, discernthe similarities and connections between proper functioning, orderliness, rules, and even laws.

In terms of a militia, being discussed in the context of rights to arms and preservation against tyranny, it is unlikely the Framers meant a "well-restricted" militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nor"well-burdened-with-regulations".

My reading has shown me that "well-regulated" as applied to the militia meant drilled and practiced and ready to go when called. Put into and maintained in a condition for proper functioning. Maintained in a degree of readiness beyond just a rifle in the closet. If they were going to drill (marching in formations, deploying in formations, changing formations to respond to circumstances on the battlefield, practicing firing and loadingon command, etc), if they were going to drill, there was going to also have to be some organization and some officers established.

Thus, I no longer believe well-regulated means having lots of restrictions on guns, nor even the militia.

Especially when I see the connections between regulated, orderliness, proper functioning, and so forth. There is just no way the huge burden of thevast number of laws and regulations on guns actually promote the proper functioning of anything. They aremeant only to restrict, restrict, restrict.

If I recall correctly, at one time a regulation for the militia included a specification as to how much shot, powder, and perhaps flints each qualified male was required to keep, or perhaps bring with him to drill. And it was mandated that he had to keep his gun in working order/repair. Thoserules area regulating that promotes proper functioning.

The breakdown is the government's failure to maintain the militia in its proper condition and functioning. The vast sea of restrictions is just further movement in the opposite direction from what was contemplated by the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

Now gentle reader, in light of this information, I invite you to compare newly the meanings of the words "restrict" and "shall not be infringed". Makes even more sense now, doesn't it?

Is there really any conflict between "well-regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?

Do these two ideas not mesh nicelyin thecontext of theSecond Amendment,in the context of thatstatement about a right, about preserving against tyranny, about the security of not just any old state, but a free state?

Funny hownot having the correctmeaning of one single word can skew things. Funny how things make a lot more sense once thatmeaning is used.

One more little point. Inlaw, asI understand it, whenasentence can be read more than one way, it isproper to give it the meaning that gives effect to the rest of the text. Not the meaning that makes other parts of thetext nugatory (of little or no importance, invalid, having no force).

Does interpreting"well-regulated" as "well restricted" not render "shall not be infringed" nugatory?

Bravo +1000

I could not have argued that better myself.

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

The Statists have had a strong hold on this country from day one haven't they? Oh how I wish Jefferson could have been a stronger man who would have held to his convictions.

This whole garbage of incorporation sounds like excuses made by tyrants still wanting tyranny. Since the beginning of time, we've had certain types of people who have wanted to control everyone else's lives. These are the busybodies and the nannies or tyrants. These are the self appointed elites who think they're better suited than the unwashed masses to make decisions for everyone. The whole idea of State's rights in terms of incorporation of the first 8 in the Bill of Rights was directly due to Slavery. It's a little dis-concerning that since the founding of this country, it has been Democrats who have always championed some form of tyranny over freedom.

I thought that this was why our Constitution was made. How is the idea of incorporation as an option even justified Constitutionally????

It seems to me that this old precedent is now being used by the modern day slavers (the left in this country) to give States the right to ignore our rights, and abdicate them back to an ever tyrannical Fed.

Doesn't anyone (other than you guys here) yearn for Liberty and Freedom? Or are they all just satisfied with tyranny sprinkled with a dose of schadenfreude?

You seem to mean well, but you BADLY need to learn about constitutional law. The U.S. Constitution is called that for a reason--it is primarily a check on the power of the national government.

Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . ."

Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States. . . ."

But suppose you are right, and 2A applies to state governments as well. What happens if 2A is amended or repealed? You will find yourself up a creek without a paddle. I, on the other hand, will simply go on relying on the Colorado Constitution, as I do now.

 

[40s-and-wfan]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

But suppose you are right, and 2A applies to state governments as well. What happens if 2A is amended or repealed? You will find yourself up a creek without a paddle. I, on the other hand, will simply go on relying on the Colorado Constitution, as I do now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Second Amendment reads: "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.

Does this mean the free state of Colorado or the free state of __________, except those mentioned here?!

I still find it odd that some states consider the right to bear arms a privilege and others consider it a right!! I, for one, interpret the Second Amendment to mean this right pertains to all states in the UNITED STATES. Therefore I feel Mr. Washingtonian has hit the nail on the head!!

I think he also said it pretty well when he said this: "I see no exception clause in the Constitution that somehow gives the States the right to override the Constitution. I only see their right to override Federal statutes because the Fed is specifically limited by the Constitution."

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

You seem to mean well, but you BADLY need to learn about constitutional law. The U.S. Constitution is called that for a reason--it is primarily a check on the power of the national government.

Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . ."

Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States. . . ."

But suppose you are right, and 2A applies to state governments as well. What happens if 2A is amended or repealed? You will find yourself up a creek without a paddle. I, on the other hand, will simply go on relying on the Colorado Constitution, as I do now.

I don't think you understand my definition of "Power" when I say that the "people" are supposed to be the ones with the power. Being able to legislate does not mean you are a duke or a count... it means you are to do the will of those who elected you. Being able to make legal decisions on laws and statutes does not make you the final word, you still must hold strictly to the US Constitution. And being the president does not make you a king. You are the servant of the people... not the other way around.

Of course, the Democrats seem to have completely forgotten this. In fact, they basically coronated Obama and the press just recently calledthe ObamasAmerican Royalty. Liberals make me sick. We have no royalty but the sycophantic press worship the guy and if they keep pushing their elitist positions, they'll have a peasant revolt on their hands.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

+1 flyer, for your accurate assessment of the true scope of the Federal constitution...

The constitution was meant to limit the authority of the new Federal government to those things that the Fed needed to function properly...

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

40s-and-wfan wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Second Amendment reads: "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.

Does this mean the free state of Colorado or the free state of __________, except those mentioned here?!

The definition of "state" is not "a political subdivision of the national government".

"State" means "the government", at whatever level.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

In this case, "state" does not refer to any government, federal or state. It refers to the collective people of the nation, and the principles that the nation was founded upon.

It CANNOT refer to government, because if you read the writings of the founding fathers responsible for writing the Constitution, you will find that tyrannical government is exactly what the amendment was meant to secure the state AGAINST.

Note that it says, "the security of a FREE state". IOW, "securing the freedom of the state"; not, as the antis would have you believe, "providing security for the state."

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Read the Federalist papers. These outline many of the ideas, thoughts and fears our Founding fathers had.

John Jay, James Madison andAlexander Hamilton were the authors of the Federalist papers and had some pretty strong feelings about Federalism. There is a reason our country is a Republic and not a Federation.

The Founder most modern wannnabe tyrants relate to is John Adams. He was an elitist. He didn't trust or want the common man to have the controls over government the rest of the founders wanted. He was all for strong central controls and rumor has it, he and some others were a group that floated the idea of George Washingtonbeing king of the newly independent America. Of course, these stories are only rumors started in or around 1820 and they conclude that George Washington wanted nothing to do with an American Monarchy and refused.John Adams was very much like a modern day politician. He would easily align himself with which way the political wind was blowing.He wasvery much like anoble from England who was a little power hungry himself. His goal was to create a very strong central government. Jefferson opposed the idea and worked tirelessly to make sure that the power was mostly distributed among the States and that all leaders would be subjects of the people and not the other way around. This was one of the reasons that Adams and Jefferson really disliked each other.

Rumors and innuendo aside, I think that the majority of the Founders would hate what our government has become and would be at the forefront of a new liberty movement.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

In this case, "state" does not refer to any government, federal or state. It refers to the collective people of the nation, and the principles that the nation was founded upon.

It CANNOT refer to government, because if you read the writings of the founding fathers responsible for writing the Constitution, you will find that tyrannical government is exactly what the amendment was meant to secure the state AGAINST.

Note that it says, "the security of a FREE state". IOW, "securing the freedom of the state"; not, as the antis would have you believe, "providing security for the state."

Actually, the State is exactly what is meant by the State.

At the time of the Founders, the States were the governments of the people, as is how it should be today.

It was believed that in order for tyranny to take hold in that Republic, that the STates would have to have been eliminated as Sovereign entities first, which is exactly what Adolph Lincoln did.

"the security of a free State means just that, the security of a free State.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

In this case, "state" does not refer to any government, federal or state. It refers to the collective people of the nation, and the principles that the nation was founded upon.

It CANNOT refer to government, because if you read the writings of the founding fathers responsible for writing the Constitution, you will find that tyrannical government is exactly what the amendment was meant to secure the state AGAINST.

Note that it says, "the security of a FREE state". IOW, "securing the freedom of the state"; not, as the antis would have you believe, "providing security for the state."

Actually, the State is exactly what is meant by the State.

At the time of the Founders, the States were the governments of the people, as is how it should be today.

It was believed that in order for tyranny to take hold in that Republic, that the STates would have to have been eliminated as Sovereign entities first, which is exactly what Adolph Lincoln did.

"the security of a free State means just that, the security of a free State.

Good point, Unrec. I hadn't given it much thought. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

SNIP Read the Federalist papers. These outline many of the ideas, thoughts and fears our Founding fathers had.

Forum, (not just Wash.)

Its a little dangerous to assign too much meaning to the ad copy known as the Federalist Papers.

They were letters written to major newspapers in battleground states to sway public opinion into accepting the constitution. As such, their promises and analysis should be a little suspect.

If you want an interesting read, also get a copy of a book called the Anti-Federalist Papers, a collection of writings and speeches by men opposed to the constitution. Its amazing how many of their warnings about a large tryannical government have come true.

If you want a very interesting read, get a copy of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce aka "Boston T. Party"available by mail from www.gunlaws.com While I don't agree with all of his conclusions, his information is a real eye-opener.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

SNIP Read the Federalist papers. These outline many of the ideas, thoughts and fears our Founding fathers had.

Forum, (not just Wash.)

Its a little dangerous to assign too much meaning to the ad copy known as the Federalist Papers.

They were letters written to major newspapers in battleground states to sway public opinion into accepting the constitution. As such, their promises and analysis should be a little suspect.

If you want an interesting read, also get a copy of a book called the Anti-Federalist Papers, a collection of writings and speeches by men opposed to the constitution. Its amazing how many of their warnings about a large tryannical government have come true.

they were almost prophetic...

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Forum, (not just Wash.)

Its a little dangerous to assign too much meaning to the ad copy known as the Federalist Papers.

They were letters written to major newspapers in battleground states to sway public opinion into accepting the constitution. As such, their promises and analysis should be a little suspect.

I wasn't saying that these papers and letters were an infallible source of information on the thoughts and feelings the founders, I made it clear that these were some of the founders ideas, thoughts and worries. There is so much more out there to read on the founders and how contentious the Constitutional Conventions were. Many times, they would be yelling at each other from across the room out of frustration.

I was just directing people's attention to those documents. I also think that reading all sides of the arguments for and against the type of government we now have is interesting as well. Their fears of Democracy were well founded. And their understanding that Democracy leads to tyranny was also quite true.

The unfortunate issue we face today is that millions of Americans want to be taken care of by some big nanny state and they want the "so called rich" to be punished and have their wealth confiscated by force to make that possible. They also are the same people who think the 2nd Amendment was only for hunting and since we can now go to the corner store to purchase our meat, we no longer need guns.

My family, a bunch of bleeding heart liberals, believe Barrack Obama to be the savior of the US... and they also don't think that Fascism is a problem if the Democrats are in charge of it.How's that for scary?

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

SNIP Read the Federalist papers. These outline many of the ideas, thoughts and fears our Founding fathers had.

Forum, (not just Wash.)

Its a little dangerous to assign too much meaning to the ad copy known as the Federalist Papers.

They were letters written to major newspapers in battleground states to sway public opinion into accepting the constitution. As such, their promises and analysis should be a little suspect.

If you want an interesting read, also get a copy of a book called the Anti-Federalist Papers, a collection of writings and speeches by men opposed to the constitution. Its amazing how many of their warnings about a large tryannical government have come true.

If you want a very interesting read, get a copy of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce aka "Boston T. Party"available by mail from http://www.gunlaws.com While I don't agree with all of his conclusions, his information is a real eye-opener.

I actually have that book, but havent' read it yet. I think I may start.

I've always thought it odd that perhaps the strongest voice for personal liberty, Thomas Jefferson, was serving in France as ambassador during the time the Constitution was being pounded out.

One wonders how much better it would have been had he been there. One wonders if the Constitution would have ever been written at all. After all, the purpose of the convention originally was to shore up the Articles of Confederation, not create a whole new document that basically shifted the balance of power from the states to the central government.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

SNIP I've always thought it odd that perhaps the strongest voice for personal liberty, Thomas Jefferson, was serving in France as ambassador during the time the Constitution was being pounded out.

There was much more than that oddity.

Read that book.

You will be reminded that there was supposed to be a convention to tighten the Articles of Confederation. But, secretive elements turned it into a convention to scrap the Articles, going way beyond the authority the conventioneers were initially given by their states. Several quit the proceedings, recognizing it went beyond their mandate.

The convention was in the summer of '87. There is a letter from (Alexander Hamilton?) to George Washington as early as April '87 revealing an intention or desire to scrap the Articles. You can bet the plan was already under way, already in motion by the time the convention rolled around.

Want moresneakiness from the Framing politicians? Back then the wordsfederation andconfederacymeant the same thing. We already had a federation under the Articles of Confederation.Yet the proponents of the new constitution called themselves Federalists. Leaving the guys who were opposed to the new constitution stuck with the name Anti-Federalists. Sneaky word twisting tactics by the Framers, eh?

Read the book.

Onevery interesting point. There was only one state where the new constitution was submitted to a referendum.Rhode Island. It was rejected by something like 11 to 1. Rhode Island was the last state to join the union. Read abouthow the new, supposedly weak, government pressured Rhode Island into joining the union.

 

[buster81]

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

buster81,

Coincidentally, Canadians are of the same heritage (England) America is (was)...so how they went about selling-out their rights for a beer and TV -- as the rest fo the UK an Australia-- so likewise Americaseems to be following.

Germans and the rest? Wrong cultures, they're just drunks sitting in front of a TV. Besides, historically speaking, they never had much in the way of gun rights to give up anyway, did they? But the Swiss seem to be getting more restrictive on guns...but are they just drunks, too?

-- John D.

Not coincidently, the political environment in Canada is polluted with French influence. It still has nothing to do with sitting in front of the Tee Vee and watching pointless crap. And how dare you call Hockey pointless crap!

As one of their Subjects,I mean Citizens, I never sold anything out for beer. Did I miss my allotment?

 

[Overtaxed]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, how can any government get away with requiring permits?

A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.

I think that every gun owner in this country needs to stand up and say we're not going to take it any more. We need to join together and challenge every single law requiring a permit to own or carry a gun as unconstitutional.

"shall not be infringed"

Who would ever put up with having to get a permit to speak our minds or to write a blog or to post in an online forum? I bet if a State began requiring permits to blog and post online and write in newspapers that you'd see every Liberal group in America challenging it and holding mass protests.

My first response to your posting is "preaching to the choir," although I could hardly agree more.

I wish the few people that are given fair time/airtime to rebut the gun controllers on TV would mention more often how the State of Vermont treat its adults like adults... you go to a gun store, pass a background check, and take your weapon home, whether long gun or pistol. You can then proceed to carry it as you wish - openly or concealed, no "government permission slip" needed...

 

[SteveInAshand]

imported post

Same with a marriage license, who the hell is the government to tell me that I need a license to marry when I take a vow before God and witnesses.

As with any license I guess it can be revoked ?

With any government structure such as the IRS they will just use force to enforce what they want You to do.