My Providence Concealed Weapons Permit does not allow open carry. So I’m applying for my Attorney General-issued RI weapons permit. Not only do I have to jump through all the same hoops again (and then some), I also have to get the Providence Police Chief’s signature on my RI application. And a letter proving I own my own business (signed and notarized). Meanwhile, my State rep wants to transfer all handgun license authority to the City. How should this be organized?
Out of 178,042 people there are only 20 some CCW permit holders? Really? Or you did you camp out in front of the police station as soon as your state got CCW?
RI has had CCW laws for a long time. RI is a dual authority state. The attorney general is “may issue” on “good cause shown.” Towns and cities are actually “shall issue.” Providence never got the memo and never issued. RF fought for his rights and you can see the result.
Also, matt, the judge who first ruled that “shall issue” actually means shall issue was the most notoriously liberal judge in the state. Maybe in the history of the state. So you never know.
thanks for all the info Ralph, your knowledgeable as always
Getting that permit was a bit of an ordeal. The City had issued so few of them (number 20 is number 20) that they didn’t have a set process for granting them. So it got kicked around and around and around, way past the statutory limit. I persisted with dozens of [respectful] phone calls. I’m hoping history doesn’t repeat itself. We’ll see next week.
Several years ago, I successfully sued the Sheriff of Ramsey County Minnesota over his blatantly illegal denial of my permit to carry. (I needed the permit for work and had held a permit in the neighboring county for more than five years). I intend to keep the experience in mind after I pass the bar in a few months.
Good for you! I was motivated to become a lawyer because I didn’t like anyone having the power to screw with me. Having access to the courts and the knowledge to fight back was huge for me, and I hope it will be for you, too.
Just don’t sell out, okay? If I can steal a little bit from the Eagles:
It’s the lure of easy money; it’s got a very strong appeal. Perhaps you’d understand it better standin’ in my shoes. It’s the ultimate enticement. It’s the lawyers’ blues.
Nah, the way the laws are, there’s plenty of opportunity to make a buck keeping people from getting screwed. There’s no need to sell out.
RI has a little over one million people and less than 5000 permits (4298 is the last that I could find). There are some towns that are really easy and others won’t even consider your application. Check out this link for RIFOL http://www.rifol.org/pistolpermitstudy.php
http://www.rifol.org/litigation.php This link has the ruling that Ralph mentioned and the site has a map with a breakdown of all RI cities.
Judge Fortunato was a piece of work. I always thought that he was crazy liberal and a real space shot, but maybe he was just crazy libertarian and a real space shot.
State and federal.
This is the United States of America. I’m a huge believer in federalism but I think folks today place too much emphasis on the national government.
I support the right of the national government to mandate a great many issues when it comes to gun laws but when it comes to permitting the states should be the ones deciding. Local governments have (almost) no business whatsoever playing this game.
There should be no gun laws other than the 2A. Enhanced penalties for using a firearm in a crime? sure; restricting the carrying, owning, possessing? no.
Then there would be no laws that pertain to speech or assembly? How about petitioning a member of congress at 3:00 AM? Just wondering?
I didn’t realize there were permits required to exercise those rights protected by 1A. I also didn’t realize that there are restrictions on what time you can write a letter or leave a message for a member of Congress.
Actually, there are permits required for exercising First Amendment rights.
Actually, no. the 1A is a restriction on on Congress (and the states via the 14th). Congress shall make no laws prohibiting religion, abridging free speech or press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble or to petition the Government.
I certainly don’t need a permit to partake in religious activities, speak my mind, to assemble with the neighbors or write a letter to Congress.
You certainly do need a permit to exercise your right to assemble and speak, at least if it is in a protest.
Those permits arent free either.
Bill,
None of that changes the fact that state and local governments have broad power to establish and enforce permit requirements limiting each of those practices. For example, you often need a permit to assemble and speak publicly and often must abide by certain conditions when doing so, and your church is bound my most of the same permit and zoning requirements as any other business. You are not legally permitted to say whatever you want, in whatever way you want, to or about a public official (and even less so to or of a private individual).
I personally happen to hold the opinion that looking at the Bill of Rights as the limiting factor on government power is backwards–the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated shouldn’t be understood to mean it doesn’t exist. However, Substantive Due Process, the legal doctrine by which state and local governments are bound by the Bill of Rights, simply doesn’t work the way most people think it does.
How about petitioning a member of congress at 3:00 AM?
It’s okay as long as you don’t disturb the hooker.
Do I get paid as your straight-man?
What if the hooker is already disturbed (by the fact that (s)he has stooped so low)?
So shooting someone is more heinous than hacking two people with a pickaxe and having multiple orgasms every time the pickaxe entered their bodies? If you are in favor of “enhanced sentences” for people using a gun, then you must think so.
I’m not Bill, but I read that as, enchanced sentences as in assault with a deadly weapon versus just assault. That I’m all for, tack on an extra 5 years or whatever the case may be for using any kind of deadly weapon in the comission of a crime, but no laws specifically forguns
Wow, let me try to address each one.
Matt, don’t confuse getting a permit to utilize public property for getting a permit to exercise your rights. Certainly a circus couldn’t use the county fairgrounds without getting a permit either.
Vermin said “For example, you often need a permit to assemble and speak publicly”
Again, on public property, if you’re not allowed to assemble and hold a press conference on your own property, you should be having a face to face with your representative Tuesday morning.
“church is bound my most of the same permit and zoning requirements as any other business.”
There is nothing in the 1st A about Congress (or the states) not passing laws to regulate business and a church is a business (although tax exempt in most cases)
“You are not legally permitted to say whatever you want, in whatever way you want, to or about a public official”
indeed you are, to the extent that you’re not committing an assault (the same as that you can’t threaten a person with a weapon). It is certainly legal to voice your opinion, of course you can’t threaten to kill someone, however, that falls outside of the protections of the 1stA.
Ralph: +1
Bruce W. Krafft: That’s not what I meant and Elliotte really summed it up pretty good.
Comment problem. I had to load this page a few times in order to be able to comment. The first few times, the comment box showed up like text editor box, with controls at the top for bold, underline, italic type. There was a button to insert a URL link into a word, and maybe a button to set the paragraph align left, center or right. While I had the text editor box, I couldn’t type in the box (which is why I reloaded the page a few times)
This is the second time I’ve posted this comment. I got a notice that it was posted, but it didn’t show up.
When an accepted comment doesn’t show up, hit F5 and it will be there when the page refreshes.
Try again.
I said nothing about a distinction between private and public property (nor does the text of the First Amendment make such a distinction). I simply pointed out that you often need a permit to assemble and speak, both of which are First Amendment rights.
I also pointed out that if it were actually true that you never needed a permit to exercise a your religious freedom, churches would be exempt from all permit requirements. They aren’t.
You clearly are not allowed to say whatever you want about anyone you want (even aside from your misunderstanding of assault). Defamation is both civilly actionable and, in some cases, a crime. Regardless, your contentions regarding threats defeat the rest of your argument. If freedom of speech were actually absolute, you would be able to say anything you wanted, up to and including making threats against someone’s life.
“Again, on public property, if you’re not allowed to assemble and hold a press conference on your own property, you should be having a face to face with your representative Tuesday morning.”
I’m curious. Are you arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t apply in public? If so, why should the Second?
Are you arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t apply in public?
No, I’m arguing that you can’t use public property (streets, sidewalks, fairgrounds, etc.) for an assembly without the expectation of having to get a permit. Clearly you can walk up and down the sidewalk all you want claiming the end is near so on and so forth.
“I also pointed…..churches would be exempt”
And I pointed out that there is no 1stA protection for businesses, which a church is, however, the zoning and business licensing doesn’t limit the religion that will be observed, whether it’s Jewish, Christian or the church of beer.
“even aside from your misunderstanding of assault”
I have no misunderstanding of assault, and my example was threatening to harm someone, which is an assault and yes, defamation, too, is an unlawful act that falls outside of the protections of the 1st A
All of which (aside from you misunderstanding of what assault is) is just a regurgitation of my initial point: The fact that there are cases in which speech, religious, practice, assembly, etc., fall outside of the protections of the First Amendment means, by definition, that those protections are not absolute, at least as they’ve been applied.
You see how your logic is circular, right? You keep saying that a law–against defamation for example–does not violate the the First Amendment because the conduct it prohibits is illegal and, therefore, outside of the protection of the Bill of Rights. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that it prohibits certain things from being made illegal (but, in practice, it really only restricts the power of government to make things illegal).
“aside from you misunderstanding of what assault”
Educated me, then.
“You keep saying that a law–against defamation for example–does not violate the the First Amendment because the conduct it prohibits is illegal and…”
No, the conduct is not protected because it encroaches on the rights of others.
“fall outside of the protections of the First Amendment means, by definition, that those protections are not absolute…”
Anything that you’ve misconstrued that would indicate that I said these protections were absolute is a mistake on your part.
Okay, then let’s review:
At 14:13 on the 27th, you argued that the Second Amendment should be applied absolutely, as prohibiting all gun laws. Another poster then pointed out that the First Amendment was applied in the same way, there could be no regulation at all on freedom of speech. You then claimed that permits are not required in order to exercises First Amendment rights. I responded by pointing out some of the many instances in which such permits are required.
Your argument regarding the Second Amendment necessarily creates the premise that the First Amendment should be applied absolutely because you’re citing the application of the First to support your conclusion that the second should be so interpreted. Even if you’re now retreating from that premise, you’re still wrong about your claim that permits are never required to exercise First Amendment rights.
I certainly agree with you that restrictions on speech such as laws against defamation are in force because the conduct they prohibit violates the rights of others. However, that does nothing to change the fact that if they would be struck down if First Amendment were to be applied as prohibiting any regulation of speech. It also doesn’t change the fact that states are often allowed to regulate speech even were no one’s rights are violated, as in cases of obscenity.
As I said in my initial post, regardless of how I think the Bill of Rights should be applied, substantive due process has simply never been applied so as to limit the states to regulation only of things that violate another person’s rights.
Since you can’t be arsed to Google it, you’re wrong about assault because assault requires both imminence and apparent capability. Merely threatening to harm someone is not assault, nor is it defamation.
Oops, this sentence should not have the first “if” in it:
“However, that does nothing to change the fact that if they would be struck down if First Amendment were to be applied as prohibiting any regulation of speech.”
“I responded by pointing out some of the many instances in which such permits are required.”
No, you cited instances in which permits are required to occupy publicly owned property or to operate a business.
“Merely threatening to harm someone is not assault”
Texas Penal Code Title 5, Chapter 22, Section 22.01
(a) A person commits an offense (of assault) if the person:
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person’s spouse.
Under the above penal code, capability is not an element of the crime of assault.
I think I’ll just agree to disagree with you and move on.
Trust me, it is. When it’s not specifically named as an element, it’s part of the imminence requirement. (The harm cannot be imminent if the person making the threat can’t carry it out). For example, I can’t assault you be threatening you with mind bullets (except maybe if you believe I can, and I know that you believe I can).
It occurs to me that our original disagreement can be resolved by your answers to two simple questions:
1) Do you agree that there is a First Amendment right to speak in public?
2) If so, do you agree that governments may require you to obtain a permit in order to exercise that right?
In ST’s perfect world, the only gun law would be the 2nd Amendment, and the individual state law enforcement agencies would punish people for crimes committed WITH the guns.
Since we live in a reality where a corrupt shill like Barrak Obama is president, id just as soon leave things as they are.Much as I would like to pretend otherwise, anti-gun hoplophobes aren’t going anywhere. Rather than set the bar for gun laws exclusively at the Federal level where the Disarmament Lobby’s reps can hijack the system and impose oppressive gun control for everyone nationwide, let us keep things as they are. New York, Chicago,Urban California and other such places serve as liberal containment areas where people looking for a benevolent government to order them around will find exactly what they desire, without the need to create a new one for the rest of us.
Let us remember that the current push for CCW laws has come from the States, and not from the Feds. Much as its annoying to have to jump through state hoops and such, its a better alternative than a nationwide imposition of New York State style gun control.
Agreed. I admit, the reality is that we do need a uniform firearms code, akin to the uniform commercial code — a set of model rules that states should be encouraged to adopt, occasionally making a few exceptions here and there for reasons peculiar to the locality.
Any effort to promote a uniform code at the state level would be in danger of being hijacked by the left at this point.
The grass-roots push at the state level has worked well so far. If there are some places that have been left behind (California, Illinois, et al,) all that means is that we need to adjust our approaches in those states and be willing reach out to different sorts of people to bring them on board.
Because the 2A references “militia”, it is traditionally agreed that regulating guns is a state matter. Which makes the ATF and Justice Department even harder to defend in most respects. I have to disagree with the idea that this is somehow Obama’s fault. If anything, his efforts to regulate banks, guns, and insurance companies have been too lax.
You know, the inability to talk about one issue, like the regulation of guns, without talking about another, like the regulation of banks, is probably a symptom of some kind of pathology.
Much more corrupt gun-grabber than Obama: Reagan.
I don’t know about corrupt, but we did get thrown under the bus a few times under Reagan…
Apart from USC Title 18 Section 930 (which Obama partially repealed in 2010), and the whole James Brady situation, there’s that little matter of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA.
I’ll admit that FOPA was a mixed bag, and it wasn’t a TOTAL loss, but if Reagan had vetoed it, there’s no way Congress wouldn’t have sent it back to Reagan, and possibly without Hughes’ little amendment.
Jeez Robert, as many hoops as you had to jump through for that LTCF (if I’m remembering correctly), you’d think the town bureaucrats could pretty it up a little with some graphics or holograms or a little secret code magnetic strip or something.
No lower than State level. I live in Florida (obviously) and I’m about 2 hours from my folks’ house. There are several municipalities between my home and theirs, one or two of which I know would be the kind of places to pass stupid and/or draconian rules and regulations if they had the opportunity. I would not want to have to worry about running afoul of one of those laws if I happened to exceed the speed limit in some anti-gunner’s bailiwick. State-level laws, with a specifically stated preemption statute like Florida has, are the way to go.
This is one area I would like to see Federal oversight. I understand that those who have rights don’t want to loose them and I am with you. For folks in my state “CA” we are screwed and need help from more gun loving states. We need to get the 68 some odd pages of laws at the state level thrown out. We also need to take away the ability for individual counties and cities to make decisions. Yes I know this takes away from state sovereignty but it also adds equality to all of us regardless of where we live.
Go here to sign a petition to pass hr822:
http://www.change.org/petitions/us-senate-pass-h-r-822-national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2011
I understand the plight gun owners in California confront.
The problem at hand is that gun laws in a state are a *symptom* of political leaning, not the *cause*.
The politicians in California, to name one example of the dozens in America, didn’t just wake up and decide to become Senators and House Reps. They got elected by winning the majority, which means when we gun owners see Chuck Schumer we are literally seeing thousands of people who think his attitude best represents them. Its a hard reality to swallow, but the majority electorate in NJ and California would just as soon amend the 2nd out of existence with the same vigor that Texas and Montana would vote to defend it.
Short of deporting our Anti-Gun neighbors to Venezuela,resorting to political persecution, or turning to violent Civil War we have to find a way to live together.While I don’t suggest that we merely abandon the fight to broaden acceptance of the RKBA , we must also respect the voters’ choice to reject it if they so chose. We who keep & bear arms cannot demand that the Anti’s respect our state’s CCW laws and policies if we don’t respect their (onerous) regulations and infringements. CA didn’t get to where it is in one day, and it will take time to undo generations of bad indoctrination regarding the RKBA.
It’s hard to add much to what’s already been said here, so I’ll merely state my thoughts. No other state needs my “help” by turning over my state’s power to the federal government. Residents vote and in the aggregate get what they voted for. Each state has its “personality,” so to speak. That, to me, is the beauty of this country.
Should I find myself at odds with my state’s overall governance (and thus my neighbors’ preferences), I’m free to relocate to a state more attuned to my own beliefs. No way is this necessarily easy! It will likely involve hard decisions, weighing pros/cons. But if something’s sufficiently important to me, I have the freedom to make the necessary choice. A one-size-fits-all federal “solution” would negates that freedom. (And truly, one size never fits all, does it? In fact, it fits darn few.)
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think it applies.
To wit, I don’t see a problem with the Federal government coming down on states like CA, NJ, NY, et. al. over their gun control measures.
Specifically, such states are in violation of the 2nd amendment, therefore the federal government can act against such states on 10th and 14th amendment grounds without having a negative effect upon the positive gun laws in most states.
I’m a fan of state-level preemption of local laws. Traveling state to state is cumbersome enough. Passing through multiple jurisdictions with conflicting laws daily is just too much of a headache. Uniform firearms laws at the national level would be great. But the problem is such laws would look more like California’s than Georgia’s, and be interpreted by the ATF. So, all in all, I think I’ll keep the current set up (Georgia, like Florida, preempts local jurisdictions from enforcing statutes that are more restrictive than the state code)
If you think State-level preemption is necessary where you live, you should try PA. I’m roughly 25 miles from Philadelphia, and there are well over a dozen municipalities I’d have to pass through in order to get into the city.
Hell, my county alone has over 50 municipalities.
Wait, you have to be a business owner to carry in RI? That reeks of ye’oldie landed gentry privileges. I guess us peons can’t be trusted with carrying in RI.
Well I have to admit to being an anti federalist. (Yay for instant automated watch-list registration.) But this is one of the few case that I feel should be relegated purely to the federal level.
How-EEVVEERR I say this with a huge Death Star sized caveat attached to it. That being that while I support a unified national firearm policy I don’t think any of the laws on the books should be. I’m fully a fan of the only real law being the Second Amendment itself. I MIGHT support regulation of true military weapons. But no prohibition upon them. Perhaps a licensing scheme that doesn’t include registration.
Whether cities can regulate guns is up to the states. Some cities, such as New York City, have sovereign status under state laws and can make up their own rules. Other states have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over firearms, although they vest great discretion in the cities and towns when it comes to issuance. I couldn’t get a carry permit if I lived in Boston, but I had no trouble getting one when I lived on Cape Cod (and I can carry in Boston while Boston residents can’t, which is delightful). The federal rules should obtain when it comes to regulating conduct on federal property, and license reciprocity should be the law of the land in furtherance of 2A.
State all the way. Just not counties or cities. Having Big Sister in DC support nationwide Constitutional Carry would be great. But I wouldn’t entrust the national government with any more power than it currently possesses. If they can grant you anything they can take anything.
Agreed. The Constitution should be amended to more specifically state that the Second Amendment protects the right of EVERY citizen to keep and bear ANY/ALL arms for his own defense, and the defense of the state.
Furthermore, the Justice Department should prosecute any official, elected or appointed, who passes or enforces any statute which contradicts the Constitution.
don’t forget that it’s easiest to change laws at the smallest most local level. This is my experience.
Not in Chicago.
Not in any big city. Nor most small ones.
Glad to be in Florida. I think I’d go nuts in those crazy states with crazy laws.
Eventually, national reciprocity will become the law of the land thru case law. Just as long as the 2AF and others keep suing over dumb laws.
E) None Of The Above.
If it’s too dangerous for me, it’s too dangerous for the government.
“None of the Above”
+1
Federalism was a good idea 230 years ago, and it still is. And sad to say that though state gun laws aren’t consistent across the country, the places where they’re stupid make great object lessons for the rest of the country. Chicago, NYC, DC, and others show the rest of us how not to do things. Then there’s the benefit of having states with freedom to escape to.
But there should be a limit on vagaries municipalities and counties can inflict on residents and those passing through. We make our share of other mistakes out here, but New Mexico’s constitution forbids cities and counties from regulating any incident of the right to bear arms. That has certainly limited a lot of foolishness.
“Question of the Day: Should Gun Laws Be Local, State, Federal or All of the Above?”
That’s a trick question.
The PROPER and the ONLY CORRECT Answer is NONE of the Above, as ALL GUN LAWS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
PERIOD.
Just because a bunch of lunatic statists have codified it into Federal Register & State Legislature Register, or ‘been in practice for long’ don’t mean they’re ‘legal’ or ‘lawful’ Common Law.
“Shall NOT be infringed” means shall NOT be F’ng infringed! PERIOD.
+1
Agreed. We DON’T need gun control laws, we need GOVERNMENT control laws.
Firearm laws should be local, within a maximum limit set by the state, which is within a federal maximum limit.
I received my RI CCW from the AG’s office two weeks after I dropped off my application. Everyone I dealt with at BCI was very polite and helpful. The day I dropped off my paperwork they reviewed my paperwork to make sure everything was in order, and they told me that I should have an answer in about two weeks. Two weeks later I received my letter to pick up my permit. I was expecting it to take close to three months, but things went much smoother than I ever expected. I now have permits from eight states that cover a total of forty states that will allow me to carry a concealed weapon. The states that issued my permits faster than RI were AZ (5 days) and NH (9 days). I waited to apply for my RI CCW last because I was worried about being denied, and then I’d have to tell every state that I applied to that I was rejected in my home state. Now I going to start the MA process and I’m going to most likely be issued a restricted permit to transport to and from the range, and then I’ll hopefully be at 41 states. There are five more states that will issue me a non-resident permit but I have to travel to each state and apply in person. Each of these states are already covered by my current permits, but I’d like to add them to my collection.
Now I going to start the MA process and I’m going to most likely be issued a restricted permit to transport to and from the range
The MA State Police has a good record for issuing unrestricted permits to people who have a carry permit in Rhode Island. If you apply for an unrestricted LTC-A, you’re more than likely to get one.
Thanks Ralph, I sure hope so.
*
*I usually got screwed over by the local Police on May Issue so I am good with the State imposed Shall Issue. As far as uniform gun laws and carry among States, that actually is a job for the Federal Government. Just in passing, if you applied a lot of the infringement of the 2A to the 1A, it would become apparent how ridiculous a lot of the gun laws really are.
This site is acting up. Go to reply and can’t enter text. Posted a blank to get here….
Any way, I think national reciprocity of license, such as is the case with driver’s licenses, is the way to go. To many travelers fall into local traps (e.g., travelling thru NY) that such “local” regulation of “outsiders” should be disallowed. State regulation with pre-emption of local laws at the state level for licensure. States that do not rquire license should, like AZ, issue a license to those who ask. And then each licesee would be bound to follow the state law in the jurisdiction where they happened to be, just as it is with driving laws.
It is not necessary for state issue though–California has county and local issue (i.e., cities can issue but most have the county handle the task). This is sufficient as long as there is a u niform state standard that each local jurisdiction must apply. Through the federal courts California is slowily moving towards “shall issue” as a result of state bans on open carrying of loaded firearms of any type, and unloaded handguns. The City and Sounty autorities have kind of backed themselves into a corner–since the only way to carry is concealed, and since one can carry concealed only with a license, the only way to exercise the 2A out of the home is by concealed carry, thuse requiring shall issue in order to comply with the constitutional mandate. That wuld be fine by me. Ya’ll should be aware that it is only most of the urban areas where CCWs are difficult to obtain–Sacramento is virtually shall issue (except fot its year long backlog) and rural areas allow personal defense as good cause.)
I am presently working on the issue with editing/deleting comments. It is an issue that is caused by Firefox 9.X and IE 9.X, which both have different issues, but neither work. According to blogs over the last several months, the company that now owns the product is aware of it and evidently does not intend to fix it.
Over the next several days plan on trying to find an alternative to this module and restore this functionality. Have patience and I will get it worked out.
State level preemption is the best way to go. Texas is a HUGE state, for example, and travel thru here is vast and to get anywhere mean a lot of counties, townships and cities. The large cities, like the DFW area, you can go from city to city and never leave a neighborhood or business district. Road names change without ever leaving it or turning a corner. In the rural areas you can go from county to county without ever going thru a town.
Here, different requirements would be a logistical nightmare from county to county, town to town. The state of Texas has absolute rule on who gets issued, where you can carry, save private property rights. Rules are applied equally here to everyone. Most assume that Texas is a gun friendly state, not really that true. Its expensive and if approved after 60 to 90 days, you have to carry the type you qualify with. Example, qualify with revolver and thats what you carry. Qualify with a semi auto and you can carry either. Carry in conflict of your license and you go to jail. Can you imagine county to county or city to city rules on licenses here? It would be horrible! With local laws having control and driving across Texas would be worse than driving across th U.S.!
Even with a strong state preemption, encounters with LEOs can be ‘interesting’ at times because some of those uniforms in local levels think that they are the law rather than law enforcement is bad enough. State troopers seem to be the most consistent with the treatment of carriers of weapons, both unlicensed travel and licensed. Locals can be an encounter anywhere from “you dont show me yours and I wont show you mine” to being disarmed, handcuffed and thrown on the ground and treated like a mass murderer over a lack of a turn signal.
With that, I can not imagine local level rules! Total state preemption and a recognized U.S. carry would be enough. Following the state to state rules with a national recognition would be hairy enough, thank you!
absolutely no federal law. state law.
what difference does federal law make? they violate their own laws anyways…
I lean Federal, just like the rest of the Amendments. The Amendments apply to the nation. States can make small tweaks but the heart of the law remains. As viewed by all states all of the other Amendments are solid and in basic lock-step throughout the country but when it comes to the 2nd that isn’t so and that’s wrong. Our Founding Fathers were true visionaries and I think if they could foresee so many libtards misinterpreting their wording of the 2nd they may have worded it differently. To be frank, I don’t think our beloved Fathers anticipated so many pussies would be around these days otherwise they may have worded the 2nd in a way that said pussies would have no room to call into question the term militia or that pesky little comma they love to overlook.
Edit isn’t working for me but I wanted to add,
If you can buy a firearm you should be able to carry it concealed. I never understood the “levels of trust” between being GTG owning a firearm and GTG to carry concealed. Anything less is arbitrary and un Constitutional. Bless Arizona.
+1… took a class with an excellent instructor in Pinetop. Borrowed his Glock, carried it concealed and openly during and after his class.
Gun laws/licenses should be State-issued (just like drivers license), with a State supremacy law (no pre-emption locally)…otherwise you run the risk of a patchwork of gun laws by municipality, making it near impossible for people to stay legal…(just imagine if driver licenses were local – everyone would have something different). Further, licenses should be honored by other states, per Section IV, Article 1 of the US Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
“No, you cited instances in which permits are required to occupy publicly owned property or to operate a business.”
That’s just blatantly inaccurate. You have a First Amendment right to assemble and speak in public and to practice your religion. You often need permits to do those things. You also often need permits to exercise those rights on private property, so your whole point is moot.
And your point is further moot because the First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to free speech unless you’re in public, just as the Second Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to bear arms unless you’re in public.
“No, you cited instances in which permits are required to occupy publicly owned property or to operate a business.”
That’s just blatantly inaccurate. You have a First Amendment right to assemble and speak in public. You also often need permits to exercise those rights on private property, so your whole point is moot.
Choose which state you want to live in. IF you agree with the taxes, gun laws, right-to-work rules, etc then be happy. Vote in people who agree with you as long as those around you agree as well.
Expecting a state full of voters who do not agree with you to change is a foolish dream. Just be thankful we have 50 different states to choose from.
Personally I would like to see firearms laws all be handled at State level, but with a federal regulation of a minimum that States must allow. For example, if there was a federal law that said all states must institute CCW of some kind, then the states could make their regulations/requirements/prerequisites based on what they feel is necessary. I for one am a fan of National Reciprocity, but as long as there is a state that has no CCW whatsoever, it doesn’t totally fulfill it’s purpose.
I guess that’s all to say it should somewhat of a mix of State and Federal with the Federal being very broad and only laying down the minimums required of the states.
On a side note, I get that it would be nice if the 2A was all we needed and there were no other gun laws, but we do live in reality, at least most of us. I say work with what we’ve got and work to improve it instead of complaining about how much it sucks.
Shall not be infringed.
Comments are closed.