Author Topic: Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case  (Read 2226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4800
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2021, 06:34:31 PM »
While I don't think it's going to happen, I'd love to see the SCOTUS come out with if may legally own a firearm, you may open or concealed carry it.  That's what the founders intended.    It's also important to remember that the constitution specifically comprehends private ownership of artillery.   Look at the words about letters of marque and reprisal.

 As much as I'd like to see a lot less restrictions on gun 'ownership', I still think a competency class should be part of getting a carry permit. Way too many times I see careless handling of firearms. I do some buying,selling and trading, and the first thing I do is check the chamber on a gun I'm looking at. I'm still shocked at the number of people who will show up with a gun for sale, or trade, that has rounds in it. They usually say, "bleep I forgot it was loaded", or "I didnt know it was loaded".   But its a common sense thing. Heaven forbid the potential buyer just pulls the trigger when they pick it up.
Then you TOTALLY contradict yourself here in your first sentence. Can't have it both ways. Rights are not privileges and shall not be infringed means just that. You can't legislate stupidity out of society no matter what sweet lberal BS they trot out. Keep in mind we've licensed drivers since the earliest days of the automobile yet the vast majority of accidents are caused by those who have drivers licenses.

Offline Rcher

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2021, 08:28:50 PM »
Sometimes it's hard to codify "common sense". The Constitution doesn't say that "criminals" or "mentally incapable people" should be prohibited to bear arms.

Guess what percent of US citizen had read Constitution? I doubt it would be > 10%. Ironically, those who're going through "naturalization process" to become US citizens might read it to pass knowledge test.

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19303
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2021, 05:32:26 AM »
There should be no restrictions on possession or carry of a firearm. There are no grounds for placing any limits on how a person may exercise this right.

It is a 'right', not a privilege and is not subject to any limit that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Exactly. The only thing I support is education in schools, since education by parents as I grew up with is not quite so commonplace. Arizona has an excellent firearms program in law, the Arizona Gun Safety Program, which is offered as an elective for high schools in this state. It requires a student to safely discharge a firearm at a target on a range to receive credit. However, no school has elected to offer this course. I think it should be a required elective, meaning the schools should have to offer it, whether or not the students take it. It also should not have a government required testing to be able to exercise the right, simply safety and historical education.
Having said all that, there can not be any government requirements for training or permitting, or the right is infringed, like poll taxes and literacy tests for freed slaves after the Civil War, to prevent them from voting.

Offline Tok36

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6101
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2021, 03:55:03 AM »
There should be no restrictions on possession or carry of a firearm. There are no grounds for placing any limits on how a person may exercise this right.

It is a 'right', not a privilege and is not subject to any limit that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Exactly. The only thing I support is education in schools, since education by parents as I grew up with is not quite so commonplace. Arizona has an excellent firearms program in law, the Arizona Gun Safety Program, which is offered as an elective for high schools in this state. It requires a student to safely discharge a firearm at a target on a range to receive credit. However, no school has elected to offer this course. I think it should be a required elective, meaning the schools should have to offer it, whether or not the students take it. It also should not have a government required testing to be able to exercise the right, simply safety and historical education.
Having said all that, there can not be any government requirements for training or permitting, or the right is infringed, like poll taxes and literacy tests for freed slaves after the Civil War, to prevent them from voting.

This one bugs me. I have often pondered the possibility of mandatory firearms training and education, but even if it could work in some places for a time in a productive way, it would soon become politicized and corrupted.
Will work for CZ pics! (including but not limited to all CZ clones)

Offline Atomic Punk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2021, 07:13:36 PM »
This one bugs me. I have often pondered the possibility of mandatory firearms training and education, but even if it could work in some places for a time in a productive way, it would soon become politicized and corrupted.
Exactly. Massachusetts gives the police chief discretion in issuing carry permits. Rationale being s/he might know the person is irresponsible and/or dangerous even though the person doesn't have an arrest record. On it's face, many would think this seems reasonable, a "common sense" check to make sure some kook doesn't get a gun. 

Like Tok36 says, it got abused. Some Chiefs, straight up, do not issue them to any one. Some felt citizens shouldn't be able to carry, it was safer for their officers, and/or they were afraid of the liability.

A right is a right, not a privilege. 

 

anything