National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Just wait, till a concealed carrier obeys the law, disarms, goes to a restrictive state, and gets jacked, because he is defenseless in a crime filled area, then sues the state.

That should blow things wide open. NOT that the Lamestream Media would admit the case exists...
 

·
Last Stand on Earth
Joined
·
6,045 Posts
I think this attorney is overly optimistic. While I believe the right to bear arms should not have anything to do with state lines, not every right travels with you. You cannot, for example, vote in California if you live in IL. For that matter, you can’t even vote in the incorrect polling location within the same town here. I think with the right set of judges, he could win but I also think that long standing precedent is stacked against him. Drawing a short straw on judges on appeal is also likely.

The Bruen decision did not address this scenario. Further, in the Bruen decision, Thomas talked from both sides of his mouth. He boasted, text history and tradition but there is no history or tradition during the adoption of the second amendment that supports any licensing scheme to concealed carry at all. Most states relied on English common law which generally prohibited concealing a weapon. That is what was normal during that time. License to carry (open or concealed) is a modern concept. What should have happened was the licensing schemes as a whole should have been struck down, shall issue and may issue, both.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,751 Posts
Carrying a gun is a right and not a privilege. One state cannot tell a citizen that they won’t allow a person to practice a religion in their state because it’s a god given, constitutionally guaranteed right. The same should hold true of carrying a gun for protection, a God given and constitutionally guaranteed right. There is no difference. It’s the same for every amendment. These laws have been in the wrong for too long and are now being corrected. Thank you DT, for your brilliant court appointments from the circuit courts to the SCOTUS.
 

·
Keep calm & return fire!
Joined
·
14,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Carrying a gun is a right and not a privilege. One state cannot tell a citizen that they won’t allow a person to practice a religion in their state because it’s a god given, constitutionally guaranteed right. The same should hold true of carrying a gun for protection, a God given and constitutionally guaranteed right. There is no difference.
This is the exact point the lawyer in the video is making, Its a VERY valid point in my opinion and not just cause it fits my needs.
 

·
Last Stand on Earth
Joined
·
6,045 Posts
I am not arguing it shouldn't be that way, I'm simply stating the way it is and what they are up against. I think gun law being different in every state is the stupidest thing that was ever allowed to happen. In that same breath, states like TX and TN would have their hands tied with SBR and suppressor laws within their own state if it wasn't that way.

I also think that it is a gross dereliction of duty for a state to stand by and have one of their citizens bear the burden and expense to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law when the State should be bearing that burden to defend those right for all of their citizens. The fact that someone has to be thrown in prison and have their life destroyed for the Supreme Court to hear the case is the worst failure of our society. States should be leading that charge, not standing by while their citizens lives are destroyed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Carrying a gun is a right and not a privilege. One state cannot tell a citizen that they won’t allow a person to practice a religion in their state because it’s a god given, constitutionally guaranteed right. The same should hold true of carrying a gun for protection, a God given and constitutionally guaranteed right. There is no difference. It’s the same for every amendment. These laws have been in the wrong for too long and are now being corrected. Thank you DT, for your brilliant court appointments from the circuit courts to the SCOTUS.
I'm just a little at a loss, as to when the Chief Of Police gets to arbitrarily decide " Well, John Doe, who works nights in a bad district doesn't need a gun, because I SAY so; BUT, Mr. Millionaire, with a battery of Attorneys, following up the Concealed Carry Permit Application, gets a gun, because I can't handle the legal or political pressure, if I refuse HIM."

THIS is what is happening in New Jersey, and the few applications, in which a person IS issued a CC permit, somehow go to justify this inexcusable whitewash of Elitism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
This would be excellent and he makes some GREAT points.
As citizens of the U.S., we already have the Right to carry AT ALL TIMES. The Fed. Constitution does not define , restrict, or limit in any way, the manner in which we are allowed to "bear arms". In the fact the Constitution states that any law that is "repugnant" to the Fed. Constitution is invalid. Since our "...Right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", any legislation that does restrict or limit our ability to carry is invalid.
All they have to do is acknowledge this. Anything else is mute
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Just wait, till a concealed carrier obeys the law, disarms, goes to a restrictive state, and gets jacked, because he is defenseless in a crime filled area, then sues the state.

That should blow things wide open. NOT that the Lamestream Media would admit the case exists...
Wait ? I would have thought it’s happened numerous times. Just missing the sue part.
 

·
Keep calm & return fire!
Joined
·
14,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
As citizens of the U.S., we already have the Right to carry AT ALL TIMES. The Fed. Constitution does not define , restrict, or limit in any way, the manner in which we are allowed to "bear arms". In the fact the Constitution states that any law that is "repugnant" to the Fed. Constitution is invalid. Since our "...Right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", any legislation that does restrict or limit our ability to carry is invalid.
All they have to do is acknowledge this. Anything else is mute
In principle I complete agree with you. In practicality our laws are unfortunately not set up like that. Try coming to NJ, Cali., Md. or any other state that requires a permit and have police contact and not have a permit. It isn’t going to work out well for you or anyone else in that situation. The argument that the constitution protects your right to self defense, while 1000% correct is not going hold water. The states have laws and carrying a firearm without a permit is against those laws.

I say this as someone that emphatically believes constitutional carry should be nationwide without question. The fact is we are not there yet.

I despise grammar police as much as anyone but Russ is correct. The word in the context you are using it is “moot” not “mute”.

Nonetheless I absolutely agree with the point you are making. Any law that runs counter to the second amendment should be found unconstitutional. I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
In principle I complete agree with you. In practicality our laws are unfortunately not set up like that. Try coming to NJ, Cali., Md. or any other state that requires a permit and have police contact and not have a permit. It isn’t going to work out well for you or anyone else in that situation. The argument that the constitution protects your right to self defense, while 1000% correct is not going hold water. The states have laws and carrying a firearm without a permit is against those laws.

I say this as someone that emphatically believes constitutional carry should be nationwide without question. The fact is we are not there yet.

I despise grammar police as much as anyone but Russ is correct. The word in the context you are using it is “moot” not “mute”.

Nonetheless I absolutely agree with the point you are making. Any law that runs counter to the second amendment should be found unconstitutional. I agree.
The biggest problem is there aren't any individual or lawyers who have the willigness or the fortitude to stand up and fight the Constitutional battle. With all the corruption within the judicial system it has taken until now to get a SCOTUS that may actually set things right.
 

·
Keep calm & return fire!
Joined
·
14,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The biggest problem is there aren't any individual or lawyers who have the willigness or the fortitude to stand up and fight the Constitutional battle.
Yes sir!
We also have a supreme court that doesn't hear 2A cases and allows lower court rulings to stand.
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
32,049 Posts
IMHO, this should be the same as having state issued license plate on your car or truck, or a state issued driver's license. If a conceal carry permit (or Constitutional carry) is legal in your state, the other 49 states need to accept it in their respective state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gvaldeg1 and Speed

·
Keep calm & return fire!
Joined
·
14,031 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I am well aware of the Heller case and the Bruen case. I am speaking to the 100's of other cases the SCOTUS chose not to hear.

 

·
Last Stand on Earth
Joined
·
6,045 Posts
What we have is a nation full of Judges that are cowards. We sit here and complain that the Supreme Court doesn’t take 2A cases (myself included), but the truth is, every one of these judges is completely aware of the hierarchy of the laws in this country. “Unconstitutional” is a taboo word that judges are apparently afraid to use.

Until they are no longer afraid to use that word, we will continue to live under communist rule. It needs to be dealt with the first time it goes before the courts, not 20 years later after the fact and the Supreme Court decides to take the case. I believe that more judges are derelict in their duties of keeping the legislative and executive powers in check.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top