Alabama becomes the 22nd Constitutional Carry state...no permit needed to carry a gun if you are a law abiding citizen.

[Esdraelon]

I am still mindful of some of the stupid crap I have seen on ranges, know, some people have no business carrying in public.

No one ever said freedom was easy or safe. The idiots will cull themselves eventually. IF there was sufficient desire for it, a media campaign among the youth making the idea of proper handling "cool" could do more than government restrictions.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Dude: White 6 is a Biden-supporting Democrat and a Trump misanthropist. He most likely believes in the same socially-liberal policies you do, except he probably owns what you'd call an "assault weapon."

Yes, I was replying to his/her post in general, as in, I'm on their side. Americans use guns for alledged 'self protection'. It's a fucked up gun nation. Are you having a moment?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yeah, we don't have to stand back and submit to being victimized like in your country. We're really fucked up...lol

Who's victimising you?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Who's victimising you?

No one, yet and if anyone does attack me, I'm going to bus' a cap in his ass.

You? You'll just have to take and hope you survive.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Just one of the numerous benefits of being a rural landowner. I can go to the range without leaving my property.

I can too at the homestead, but I'm living out of state for a few years.

 

[Captain Caveman]

No one, yet and if anyone does attack me, I'm going to bus' a cap in his ass.

You? You'll just have to take and hope you survive.

Who's attacked you in your lifetime, excluding the playground at school.

I have to survive what?

Sorry for injecting reality.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Who's attacked you in your lifetime, excluding the playground at school.

I have to survive what?

Sorry for injecting reality.

Nobody, yet. Mostly because a would've assailant knows I'm not helpless. They take one look at me and say, "that white boy's probably strapped. I ain't fuckin with him". At that point, my carry piece has done exactly what I need it to do. That and my situational awareness keeps me out of positions where a bad guy would have the upper hand.

You? You've just been lucky up til now...lol

 

[Abatis]

"Constitutional carry"

lol

A ridiculous political contrivance having nothing to do with the Constitution or law.

It is obviously a much less ridiculous a political contrivance than calling the onerous laws in NY or NJ or CA, etc., "gun safety laws".

There is no power granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen and certainly no power has been recognized that would force states to enact what anti-gun douche nozzles in the federal government, feels they are lacking.

The state government's enacting "constitutional carry" are exercising legislative and executive powers under their state constitutions, just like restrictive states with no RKBA provision have and are (for now) enacting strict gun control.

Requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is likewise Constitutional carry, in no manner violating the Second Amendment.

Well, it depends on what kind of permit. If the permit is just a vetting process allowing the state to ensure the permittee is not a prohibited person, with no other requirements except being a law-abiding citizen or qualified alien, then requiring a permit is permissible under the 2ndA.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry and concealed carry specifically -- primarily and simply because the 2nd was not applicable to the states.

That "state's right" to require a permit, must be tempered with the fact that states lost the "right" to enact gun laws that require distinctions between citizens be recognized in law.

A fine line exists where a limited power to discriminate between citizens has been recognized, e.g., allowing convicted criminals to be excluded from being granted a permit, but that can not be applied in a discriminatory manner on citizens with no rights disability and who are in fact owed full deference and respect of their rights.

There is no "Bill of Rights Free-Zone" in the USA.

 

[Abatis]

Not likely.

Florida, for example, will never abandon its beloved License to Carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm.

Why would you think any state going constitutional carry for its own residents would eliminate its permit system? Even in some constitutional carry states, non-residents are not granted the full concealed carry rights of residents. A non-resident is allowed to carry according to the reciprocity agreements the AG's have entered into. Those reciprocity arrangements require a permit from your home state.

With the combination of constitutional carry states and reciprocity agreements, a Florida resident with the Florida permit can carry in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Even in full constitutional carry states, it is a good idea for a non-resident who is carrying to have a permit from their home state, if only to shorten one's encounter with police, at say a traffic stop.

.

 

[Abatis]

Because you are willing to shoot your own countryman. The least qualified person to be allowed near a gun. The 2nd amendment allows the gun nuts like that to have guns. What a fucked up nation.

And all of us Americans would be very happy if you never cast a shadow on our country. Even better would be if you would refrain from commenting about us; it has been a long time since we cared what a piss-soaked Brit thought about us.

 

[Abatis]

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep them and bear them at the house, for protection of you, your family, and your castle or hovel as the case may be. You should be regulated as to carrying in public. I agree with most of the law enforcement organizations that have spoken out against it, but went ignored.

A state choosing to not require a permit for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun for self defense, is in fact "regulating" . . .

The word "regulating" means setting / adjusting for proper function, not restricting, or an even stupider take, eliminating function.

 

[White 6]

A state choosing to not require a permit for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun for self defense, is in fact "regulating" . . .

The word "regulating" means setting / adjusting for proper function, not restricting, or an even stupider take, eliminating function.

I think they call that deregulating, as they used to have a regulation against it.

 

[2aguy]

That is because you are not preaching to your congregation that want to have service in the streets. If you were, you would say it infringes your religious freedom. But, you are of the religion that wants guns in the streets (that have disrupted many lives by their misuse) with no regulation. I like guns and am wearing one now (having not taken it off), just as I was when I had to go to Home Depot for a pair of cabinet hinges. I just think they deserve some regulation out in public, off your private property. At present more states than not, agree with me.

A lot of states supported slavery as well and then Jim crow...

 

[Abatis]

My biggest disappointment with Trump is that he didn't push for national constitutional carry. I think Desantis would if he got the chance. I would be open to another amendment, actually, that specifically guarantees constitutional open and concealed carry for all law-abiding American citizens (or an addition to the 2nd that spells it out specifically so the anti-civil rights lefties can't object/lie).

I do not believe the federal government has any authority to impress constitutional (pemitless) carry on the states.

As a matter of law, the ability of a citizen to carry or bear a firearm outside their home is not something that has been historically prohibited by the federal government (except on certain federal property). SCOTUS' endorsements of the doctrine of "sensitive place" prohibitions would suggest that won't be disturbed.

Neither has there ever been any recognition of any 2ndA right as an immunity against the state or local laws that do forbid citizens to carry or bear a firearm outside their home (it is being tested for the first time right presently).

The states have always possessed the power to set the rules for the manner of carry in public without any reference to the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a restraint on the states and since the 2ndA was incorporated under the 14th (McDonald, 2010), that has been in suspended animation.

That state power to restrict the citizen's ability to carry or bear a firearm outside their home was only limited by their state's recognition and respect for the right to arms under their state constitutions if their constitutions secure the right . . . Remember, NY has no RKBA provision in their state constitution so NY's and NYC's lawmakers enjoyed unrestrained power to implement what they wanted on carry (and gun ownership as a whole), which makes the NYSRPA case argued in SCOTUS all the more important and interesting.

The only state or local laws on arms that can be argued to be unconstitutional right now, are outright handgun bans (Heller / McDonald) and stun gun bans (Ceatano).

There is no doubt the NY case is going to expand the protections of the 2nd Amendment in the context of concealed carry permits.

New York has conceded that a 2nd Amendment right to arms, even for self defense, even outside the home, exists in NY state, (rememeber the state has no RKBA provision) but made the irreconcilable argument that inside NY City that 2ndA right doesn't count, the city can limit it with its more restrictive than even the state permit system.

The NY brief, believing they were helping their position, discussed Circuit court decisions UPHOLDING various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they concede that those courts all say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home:

"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​

​

Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition, http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/169604/20210222170827872_20-843_Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf ​

We will see how far SCOTUS takes that; I was hoping Thomas was going to write NYSRPA but seeing the authorship of recent opinions that looks unlikely. I'm predicting Kavanaugh will write for the majority. If Kavanaugh is writing it, this NY case has even bigger potential to be groundbreaking for gun rights, not just for carry rights.

In oral arguments, there was extensive questioning of the lower court's bullshit "two-step inquiry", which was used to sustain NY's carry law being challenged and assault weapon bans and large capacity magazine bans and other gun laws (all in all, a total of 50 times).

Given Kavanaugh wrote what is the template for the "text, informed by history and tradition" doctrine in his dissent in Heller II, it stands to reason the "two step inquiry" is going to be invalidated.

That's an even safer bet because the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" is the proper interpretive process to decide the constitutionality of contested gun laws. (THANKS JOE!)

If the Circuit court two-step is invalidated, it will cause a tidal wave of new challenges and reversals of those decisions and dozens of laws will fall in short order.

As it stands right now, it has been over 120 days since NYSRPA was argued, Heller and McDonald each came in at around 110 days after argument. . . I can sense the leftist tears welling up!

.

 

[2aguy]

Wow. I can see why you favor constitutional carry. What the heck is GAT?
View attachment 614287
Plus a $10.00 FOID Firearms Ownder ID?
Jesus, how did you people lose control of that state?

This.....

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.
A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).
Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?
=======

National Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Surveys on Concealed Handgun Reciprocity and other issues


National Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Surveys on Concealed Handgun Reciprocity and other issues - Crime Prevention Research Center

Concealed carry reciprocity: Support

29th annual Survey..... 88.62%
28th.............................86.4%
27th.............................63.3%

Can armed citizens help lower violent crime activity: Support

29th......75.77%
28th......76%
27th.......76.4%

 

[Abatis]

The fact remains that requiring a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm is perfectly Constitutional – the Supreme Court having never invalidated such laws.

There has not been any challenge of concealed carry permit systems and restrictions in a post-Heller and McDonald legal landscape.

Until NYSRPA on Nov 3, 2021, no case was argued with the power of 14th Amendment incorporation behind it. There is no "precedent" supporting you, even Heller's mention that, "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues" can only be read to say that on that day in June, 2008, the law was that the 2nd Amendment had not been held to have any operation on state or local laws, McDonald (2010) altered that dynamic.

You saying these various state restrictions on carry for self defense are now all constitutional, is leftist dogmatic theory at best and pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking at worst . . .

.

 

[2aguy]

Poll tax is for going to the polls to vote and yes, illegal. Nothing wrong with fees for weapons permit, classes required, and certification, unless they are outrageous. Mine was something like $65.00 for 8 years, as retired military. That's not bad, but some states are high as a cat's back.

Yeah...it is the "outrageous" part you just don't want to acknowledge......given the power the democrats will make those fees and classes "outrageous," denying the Right to normal citizens who don't have the time and money to jump through all the hoops...

We do not require permits, classes or certification for any of the other Rights.........the 2nd Amendment is no different.

 

[2aguy]

When did the USSC rule that carry permits are constitutional?

I imagine the idiot will say because they didn't hear arguments for it.....and make a ruling...thus, until they decide they are Constitutional......

 

[Abatis]

Like all rights, the Second Amendment right is subject to limits, regulations, and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The enforcement of the 2nd Amendment is in its infancy.

Among those lawful, Constitutional regulations is that a permit or license must be obtained to carry a concealed firearm.

Mmmmkay . . . Do you believe panicked Hawaii's proposal for a new concealed carry law is constitutional? It will make the permit only valid for 6 months and for new and renewals, the state is going to require 22 hours of training with live fire and also require the person carry and deploy a taser before deadly force . . . Are those "regulations" constitutional?

Those who believe such laws violate the Second Amendment are of course at liberty to seek to have permit requirement laws repealed through the political process or challenge permit requirement laws in court through the judicial process.

Which is exactly what's happening in Alabama and Georgia and Nebraska and in SCOTUS with NYSRPA v Bruen! You act like you know what's going on in the gun rights scene but you sound like you are speaking from the 1990's . . .

Otherwise, nonsense such as ‘Constitutional carry’ is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem that doesn’t exist; it’s an example of the aspirational/political second amendment, a bad-faith partisan effort to garner votes and placate the conservative base.

What exact judicial decisions represent your judicial 2nd Amendment? My consideration of the 2nd Amendment is represented in all SCOTUS 2ndA precedent; are you claiming the now invalid / abrogated by SCOTUS collective right decisions from the lower federal courts? Given the origin of your theory (Blocher /Winkler) that seems to be the case.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, I was replying to his/her post in general, as in, I'm on their side. Americans use guns for alledged 'self protection'. It's a fucked up gun nation. Are you having a moment?

Europe is more fucked up.....another war on the continent......after the socialists in Europe murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children, and the Russian murdered 25 million...

When are you morons going to wise up and realize that only having the guns in the hands of government agents is never a good idea?