CWP pertaining to Second Amend

D

DCougar

New member
Hey friends, been a while since I've been on, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the above issue.
Seeing as how the Second Amendment gives us the "right to bear arms," why then should we have to have a permit to do so? I understand that driving is not a right, so we have driver's licensing, vehicle registration, etc, but if we are given the right to bear arms, then why should we have to register to do so? True, we have to register to vote, which if I'm correct is also a right to do, but we also have many additional freedoms that we do not have to register for, yes?
If we have to register to carry a firearm, why not freedom of speech or religion, etc? So would having to obtain a CWP be unconstitutional?
 
We shouldn't have too. A couple of states have no permit requirement for carrying concealed if you can legally own a gun, Vermont and Alaska, I believe. I think the biggest arguement against concealed carry permits being unconstitutional is that the carrying of weapons is something states must legislate on individually. In order to apply to state laws, the second amendment would have to be incorporated via the 14th amendment. It hasn't been done yet, to my knowledge. The Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal government, except in those cases where the courts have said a state can't screw you out of your rights any more than the Feds and this is usually done using the 14th Amendment.

However, I will point out that most states have done at least a decent job of protecting peoples right to keep and bear arms, either by recognizing that right in their own constitutions or with appropriate legislation.
 
The problem is that the Supreme Court has never made an official ruling as to whether the 2nd Ammendment is an individual right or a "state's" right. You and I interpret it as an individual right. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way.
 
Yellowfin, you bring up a good point. I should add that I do have a CWP and adhere to state & federal laws with my firearm. While I may not agree with some laws, I do feel that one should respect them, but push for change.
 
Seeing as how the Second Amendment gives us the "right to bear arms
Click to expand...
It does not GIVE us the "right to bear arms". The second amendment RESTRICTS the government from infringing on our inherent right to keep and bear arms. - Where's the banging head on brick wall icon?
 
Since the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and judges in all states must abide by it, state laws notwithstanding - it SHOULD be unconstitutional to force arms restrictions on we the people, because that not only infringes on our inherent rights, it also restricts our effective role as THE well-regulated Militia, which the constitution requires. If the constitution was followed as written, and so as intended, there would be no real issue with infringements on our rights - ever.

Our govts though tend to usurp power - supposedly due to some "compelling interest" (real or imaginery), depending on who's in charge and their "interpretation" of plain english. They also tend to appoint judges who think the same way they do - no matter how unconstitutional that may be.

Leaving the power with the people as intended doesn't sit well with many politicians, and unfortunately alot of we the people don't have a problem with giving away their power OR their rights - it makes things more convenient for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top