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.
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to drive. The constitution does not guarantee the right to carry firearms in public sans regulation. A state can make it legal for everyone to open carry. Good luck with that. I'd favor it, but then again I'd have little compunction taking a life if the choice was protecting myselfWhen 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.
Dipshit...he is talking about driving in Illinois not becoming a resident of Illinois.....
^^^Otherwise, one state not acknowledging a concealed carry permit from another state violates neither the 2nd nor 14th Amendments.
Really?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!
huh?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!
JarlaxleReally?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!
Then why can you NOT carry your weapons openly in the streets and across state lines?
come on genius...tell the class....wow us all...
I do have the federally protected right. Now, granted states may, at this point in time place additional limits on my right to carry, but Alabama does not except in a school, courthouse or a police station.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.
or do you know of a case where all gun laws have been struck down?
Ernie?
"other than being in a militia, no one has a federally protected constitutional right to carry weapons in public" -- you have not addressed the statement. maybe one can carry unloaded weapons, but...
Ernie S.
Wow... The full faith and credit clause ( remember the supremacy clause) takes precedence....All it would take is to get the 7th District's decision kicked up to the SCOTUS and if the plaintiff(s) prevail, these namby pamby blue state gun laws get tossed in the crapper.Because your carry issue is not Constitutional in that it is binding on all states.
Of course not. These libs don't want people to have the means to protect themselves. They feel sorry for the criminals.So... you don't have an actual, sound response to my question?Don't be a pussy!
Carry your gun with you everywhere you go. And if you get caught, take your lumps like man.
True.The Constitution does not guarantee the right to drive. The constitution does not guarantee the right to carry firearms in public sans regulation. A state can make it legal for everyone to open carry. Good luck with that. I'd favor it, but then again I'd have little compunction taking a life if the choice was protecting myselfWhen 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.
Dipshit...he is talking about driving in Illinois not becoming a resident of Illinois.....
Let's see if I can 'splain it to you, numbnuts.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.
He can only drive because he has a new license. A driver who becomes a resident and does not change their license is open to liability in accidents and more. It's about regulation.
regulation
I can. I can carry openly in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and in some cases, Florida.JarlaxleReally?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!
Then why can you NOT carry your weapons openly in the streets and across state lines?
come on genius...tell the class....wow us all...
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?
Oh . . . wow. This has all been explaned to you, and your outstanding reply is "nuh uh".Wow... The full faith and credit clause ( remember the supremacy clause) takes precedence....All it would take is to get the 7th District's decision kicked up to the SCOTUS and if the plaintiff(s) prevail, these namby pamby blue state gun laws get tossed in the crapper.Because your carry issue is not Constitutional in that it is binding on all states.
Another lie."How can Illinois deny my right to carry?"
It hasn't
It if far more basic than this.Let's see if I can 'splain it to you, numbnuts.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.
He can only drive because he has a new license. A driver who becomes a resident and does not change their license is open to liability in accidents and more. It's about regulation.
regulation
It is universally accepted that you must obtain a drivers' license in your state of residence.
BUTWhen one moves from Illinois to Ohio and obtains an Ohio drivers' license, he is free to drive in Illinois. Why cannot an Ohio citizen with a valid concealed carry permit from Ohio carry his weapon in Ilinois?
Granted. Current case law allows states to issue resident and nonresident permits and to decide which other states' permits I/we are arguing that a state that allows reciprocity for the unprotected right to operate a motor vehicle across state lines while not allowing the PROTECTED right to keep and bear LOADED) arms across the same lines. It is now mandated that states recognize marriages from another state. Why not CCPs?
In this particular case, Ohio recognizes Illinois permits, but not vice versa. How is that just?
JarlaxleReally?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!
Then why can you NOT carry your weapons openly in the streets and across state lines?
come on genius...tell the class....wow us all...
Because, flea brain, the states are ignoring the Constitution. You drunk again, boy?
I do have the federally protected right. Now, granted states may, at this point in time place additional limits on my right to carry, but Alabama does not except in a school, courthouse or a police station.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.
or do you know of a case where all gun laws have been struck down?
Ernie?
"other than being in a militia, no one has a federally protected constitutional right to carry weapons in public" -- you have not addressed the statement. maybe one can carry unloaded weapons, but...
Ernie S.
I frequently carry open and intend to a lot more once my new gun belt arrives.
So if one state says 15 year olds can drink? What if three states say It's okay beat the crap out of your kids?Wow... The full faith and credit clause ( remember the supremacy clause) takes precedence....All it would take is to get the 7th District's decision kicked up to the SCOTUS and if the plaintiff(s) prevail, these namby pamby blue state gun laws get tossed in the crapper.Because your carry issue is not Constitutional in that it is binding on all states.
