Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Easy to say. But a criminal conviction can and probably will ruin one's future -- not to mention the utter miseries and degradation of a prison sentence.Don't be a pussy!
Carry your gun with you everywhere you go. And if you get caught, take your lumps like man.
Explain how to contact your state rep and what to say?! Come on. You are an adult, you can take it from here.Explain how. With specifics.Not reallyDenying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is most certainly a constitutional issue - in this case, a 2A issue as applied to the states thru the 14th amendment.It's not violating the 2nd amendment to put in rules.
In other words,, you cannot, with specifics, explain how denying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is "not really" a constitutional issue.Explain how to contact your state rep and what to say?! Come on. You are an adult, you can take it from here.Explain how. With specifics.Not reallyDenying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is most certainly a constitutional issue - in this case, a 2A issue as applied to the states thru the 14th amendment.It's not violating the 2nd amendment to put in rules.
According to the US 7th Circuit, I have a right to carry a loaded and concealed firearm in the state of Illinois; said right is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_moore_v_madigan.pdf
Since this ruling, Illinois changed its laws to be a shall-issue CCW state.
How then can Illinois constitutionally refuse to honor my Ohio CCW permit?
Uh huh. You are not listening and obviously, you have not read the Constitution, nor have you acquainted yourself with the laws of your state and gun laws in general. I am done spoon feeding you.In other words,, you cannot, with specifics, explain how denying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is "not really" a constitutional issue.Explain how to contact your state rep and what to say?! Come on. You are an adult, you can take it from here.Explain how. With specifics.Not reallyDenying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is most certainly a constitutional issue - in this case, a 2A issue as applied to the states thru the 14th amendment.It's not violating the 2nd amendment to put in rules.
Thank you.
Thank you for your concession of the point.Uh huh. You are not listening and obviously, you have not read the Constitution, nor have you acquainted yourself with the laws of your state and gun laws in general. I am done spoon feeding you.In other words,, you cannot, with specifics, explain how denying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is "not really" a constitutional issue.Explain how to contact your state rep and what to say?! Come on. You are an adult, you can take it from here.Explain how. With specifics.Not reallyDenying someone the exercise of their rights simply because they are not in their home state is most certainly a constitutional issue - in this case, a 2A issue as applied to the states thru the 14th amendment.
Thank you.
The Second Amendment is clear in its intent but governing authorities are so determined to deny citizens their right to carry guns they have erected such intricate barriers of legalistic bullshit and mumbo-jumbo it simply isn't worth the expense and effort to carry it through the court system.I fully expect that those who believe Illinois can deny me that right will have no sound argument as to how it can constitutionally do so.
Goes to show that certain people only believe a right is actually a right when they like it.The Second Amendment is clear in its intent but governing authorities are so determined to deny citizens their right to carry guns they have erected such intricate barriers of legalistic bullshit and mumbo-jumbo it simply isn't worth the expense and effort to carry it through the court system.I fully expect that those who believe Illinois can deny me that right will have no sound argument as to how it can constitutionally do so.
Didn't read Heller, huh?Regulation. Well regulated militia. A militia that is well 'regulated'
other than being in a militia, no one has a federally protected constitutional right to carry weapons in public
Incorrect.We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.If a state offers a license to (x), it cannot constitutionally deny a license to (x) from another state.
I'm a firm believer in states' rights, and any time the Feds step in to settle a dispute, there are no winners.
However, with the recent SCOTUS ruling on SSM, perhaps they could use the same convoluted logic on the topic of concealed carry and we wouldn't have to worry about conflicting state laws in the future - especially since the right to "keep and bear arms" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, while marriage (of any sort) is not.
When an Ohio resident becomes a resident of Illinois, he must surrender his Ohio driver's license and obtain a license in Illinois, no different than a concealed carry permit.Let me ask you this: Can a person with a valid drivers' license in Ohio drive legally in Illinois? There should be no difference; in fact, LESS difference. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to drive.We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.If a state offers a license to (x), it cannot constitutionally deny a license to (x) from another state.
I'm a firm believer in states' rights, and any time the Feds step in to settle a dispute, there are no winners.
However, with the recent SCOTUS ruling on SSM, perhaps they could use the same convoluted logic on the topic of concealed carry and we wouldn't have to worry about conflicting state laws in the future - especially since the right to "keep and bear arms" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, while marriage (of any sort) is not.
And what exactly will the 'challenge' be – there's no Second Amendment 'violation' if residents of each of the 50 states are afforded the right to carry a concealed firearm, which is currently the case.Perhaps it is time to get the SCOTUS involved in the matter again. After all, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does state that the people have the right to "bear" arms. Taken literally, it means that the people have the right to "carry" weapons. One concealed carry permit, along with one firearms safety course, should be good for all states. After all, the general populace doesn't feel threatened if they cannot see the weapon and thus don't know the person is armed for their personal safety/protection.....and.....if an unarmed citizen is in danger for their life, the person near them, carrying a concealed weapon, would more than likely be their savior. The police are a "reactionary" force. They arrive "after" the unarmed citizen is already a victim.
Of course he must, but he can still drive in Ohio, can he not?When an Ohio resident becomes a resident of Illinois, he must surrender his Ohio driver's license and obtain a license in Illinois, no different than a concealed carry permit.Let me ask you this: Can a person with a valid drivers' license in Ohio drive legally in Illinois? There should be no difference; in fact, LESS difference. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to drive.We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.If a state offers a license to (x), it cannot constitutionally deny a license to (x) from another state.
I'm a firm believer in states' rights, and any time the Feds step in to settle a dispute, there are no winners.
However, with the recent SCOTUS ruling on SSM, perhaps they could use the same convoluted logic on the topic of concealed carry and we wouldn't have to worry about conflicting state laws in the future - especially since the right to "keep and bear arms" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, while marriage (of any sort) is not.
When an Ohio resident becomes a resident of Illinois, he must surrender his Ohio driver's license and obtain a license in Illinois, no different than a concealed carry permit.Let me ask you this: Can a person with a valid drivers' license in Ohio drive legally in Illinois? There should be no difference; in fact, LESS difference. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to drive.We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.If a state offers a license to (x), it cannot constitutionally deny a license to (x) from another state.
I'm a firm believer in states' rights, and any time the Feds step in to settle a dispute, there are no winners.
However, with the recent SCOTUS ruling on SSM, perhaps they could use the same convoluted logic on the topic of concealed carry and we wouldn't have to worry about conflicting state laws in the future - especially since the right to "keep and bear arms" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, while marriage (of any sort) is not.
States have the first say. States rights trump federal. That is in the constitution. So things like concealed carry are controlled by each state. We all have the right to bear arms thanks to the 2nd amendment but states set specific limits.Yes. The question is how can IL constitutionally do this.Alas, the right to bear arms is not quite straight forward. Happily, as Alystyr said, some states honor concealed carry permits from other states. You have to check before you travel. AAA should add that need to know detail on their triptiks!
Regulation. Well regulated militia. A militia that is well 'regulated'
other than being in a militia, no one has a federally protected constitutional right to carry weapons in public
natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; the general government Only secures Due Process.Regulation. Well regulated militia. A militia that is well 'regulated'
other than being in a militia, no one has a federally protected constitutional right to carry weapons in public
No matter how many times you and your socks regurgitate that, it is still a LIE!
To keep and bear arms. Carrying weapons in public. All regulated by state laws, because there is no constitutional protection to open carryDidn't read Heller, huh?Regulation. Well regulated militia. A militia that is well 'regulated'
other than being in a militia, no one has a federally protected constitutional right to carry weapons in public
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Held:
1.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Vastly different? In what world?Of course he must, but he can still drive in Ohio, can he not?When an Ohio resident becomes a resident of Illinois, he must surrender his Ohio driver's license and obtain a license in Illinois, no different than a concealed carry permit.
VASTLY different as far as I can see. You're too easy.
