Trump publishes support for nationwide CC and elimination of gun and mag bans

The first link is the most encouraging, because it came out after the election. It shows (I hope) that The Donald intends to at least try to deliver on some of his promises.

As others have noted, in other threads here, and on other sites, the discussion of mental health in any context that also involves the NICS system is potentially troublesome. Any action on this front bear careful scrutiny. Stay tuned.
 
Until the SC rules that Carrying a Firearm is a individual Protected Right, then there will be no Federal mandate overriding State laws and no Nationwide CC.
 
I just don't see this happening, and I don't see the supreme court upholding it if it does. It just dips way to far into areas traditionally held by the states.
 
NJgunowner said:
I just don't see this happening, and I don't see the supreme court upholding it if it does. It just dips way to far into areas traditionally held by the states.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is a right in the U.S. Constitution which is Federal Law. How much more relevant do you need the issue to be?
 
It would be nice to carry in states I currently can't, which with my Florida, Virginia, and Utah permits is basically the zero-reciprocity states. However, I love states rights as much as the 2A... limiting the power of the Federal Gov't is more important than carrying in CA. I'm not gonna complain too loudly if it happens, but it's important to know the consequences/precedent/etc...

OTOH... getting suppressors off the NFA (as I've read) with the Hearing Protection Act is something that could be done in very short order, and could be low-hanging fruit for a right-controlled Congress.
 
Speaking of places like California, if it were possible to give the boot to all the anti-gun politicians this wouldn't even be an issue.
So, why do the citizens there keep re-electing the same kind of biased candidates?
Is the Second Amendment dead and buried there?
There must be millions of gun owners in the state.
I just don't get it.
 
SamNavy said:
However, I love states rights as much as the 2A... limiting the power of the Federal Gov't is more important than carrying in CA.
Click to expand...
Then I assume you'll be leading the movement to repeal the LEOSA ...

18 USC 926B said:
Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
Click to expand...
 
Getting rid of the restrictions on suppressors would be VERY nice.

I can't see how any reasonable person would be against removing restrictions on suppressors. I've been told some ranges in EUROPE even REQUIRE suppressors...they're so much more civilized than us.

And while we are at it could they get rid of the restrictions on putting a butt stock on a handgun. That one I've never much understood at all.

And while we're at it...since TC Contenders can fire traditional rifle cartridges and we've got handguns firing shotgun rounds and AR pistols and stuff...maybe get rid of the 'short barreled rifle' and sawed off shotgun restrictions too. Seriously, would that allow 'them' to concentrate on laws that matter and I really don't see 'gun violence' rising if ANY or ALL of these restrictions were lifted.
 
ATN082268 said:
The 2nd Amendment is a right in the U.S. Constitution which is Federal Law. How much more relevant do you need the issue to be?
Click to expand...

Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee an Individuals Right to Conceal and Carry?

If so, please post case law and or SC Ruling to back this up.
 
So now that 7,830,000 number for California gun owners doesn't look all that much like a small minority.
Now, I really don't get it.
Click to expand...

Its pretty simple, really. Despite what appears to be a sizable number, the reasons that CA keeps electing people who pass gun control are, not all the gun owners vote, and they don't vote as a monolithic block.

And, even if they did, CA politicians have set up the voting districts so gun owners are seldom the majority in any district, AND,

Even when the people do pass laws in favor of gun (and other) rights, the politicians only LISTEN to those they want to.

CA has major cities, with millions of people in them, where FEDERAL LAW is OPENLY FLOUTED, and, they BRAG about it. (Sanctuary cities).

If they don't listen to the Federal government (about immigration and other matters) why should they listen to someone who's only power is the vote, and they (we) don't have enough votes to matter???

They'll let you marry a goat (and an underage goat at that), but you can't have a certain spring loaded metal or plastic BOX, that's against the law!!
 
steve4102 said:
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee an Individuals Right to Conceal and Carry?

If so, please post case law and or SC Ruling to back this up.
Click to expand...

Show me in the BOR where we're restricted in keeping & bearing arms under the cover of garments. Post case laws and SC rulings aren't the end all-be all portion of an individual's right.
 
steve4102 said:
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee an Individuals Right to Conceal and Carry?

If so, please post case law and or SC Ruling to back this up.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment certainly guarantees the right to carry, as I think you are well aware. And I'm sure you are also aware that the Supreme Court has thus far avoided ruling to that effect. The fact that the SCOTUS hasn't affirmed that aspect of the right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.

2A said:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
Aside from the actual language of the amendment (what else can "bear" mean, if not to carry?), note that the title of the amendment mentions only "bearing" arms, not keeping or storing or transporting.

However, the Constitution (the 2A) does not stipulate "concealed" carry (bearing). The fact is, Washington and/or the individual states could agree tomorrow that henceforth everyone can open carry but concealed carry is a felony punishable by ten years in prison -- and that might be legal under the 2A. My counter-argument would be that regulating the mode of carry is still an infringement, but there are state court rulings that don't buy that argument. What rulings there have been (at the state level) seem to agree that the RKBA can be regulated but it can't be prohibited.

Ohio, as one example, finally got a concealed carry law a few years ago because the Ohio supreme court ruled that, since Ohio state law at that time prohibited concealed carry but the state constitution guaranteed a right to carry, therefore open carry was legal. 2A supporters around Ohio started holding "carry-ins," and enough soccer moms were unglued over the sight of GUNZ! that the legislature finally enacted concealed carry.
 
There are two extreme viewpoints at work, concerning the Second Amendment (since the collective right only argument was shot down by SCOTUS).

One end is that any restriction or regulation about firearms, of any kind, by anyone, anywhere is infringement, and therefore, unconstitutional.
(I kind of favor that approach, personally)

At the other end of the spectrum are those who feel that as long as you can buy some kind of gun, somehow, after passing all the govt requirements about your character and personal history, and the time it takes for them to decide to approve you, then your rights are not being infringed upon.

If the Second Amendment said "the right to keep and bear any man portable arm, open or concealed with no legal restriction of any kind, by any one, any where, and we really, really mean it..." we wouldn't have the issue to argue about.

It doesn't say that. It says something more vague, and while WE believe we have a clear understanding, so does the other side, and its the opposite of ours.

The SCOTUS ruling in Heller did affirm our right to ownership, and complete prohibition of entire classes of arms was unconstitutional, but left us with the legal ruling that "reasonable restrictions" ARE allowed as constitutional (until/unless another Supreme court reexamines the issue).

And, typically, the Court did not specifically define what "reasonable restrictions" are. SO, in that matter, we are still back at square one, what we see as unreasonable restriction (infringement) the other side sees as entirely reasonable, and a "good first step"....

Personally, I have no problem with returning to the gun control laws of umm, say, the 1820s (which is NONE). If you shot someone because you felt like it, for fun or profit, after a fair trial, you were decently hung.

But then, I'm not a millionaire or billionaire with paid professionals for personal security...
:rolleyes:
 
I sure would like to see the suppressor eliminated from NFA, as well as SBR's. Such would accomplish two things, allowing more freedom, and removing money from the hands of the ATF. It always kind of ticked me off that the military and police forces could have SBR's, but we the people had to pay and get put on a list to exercise our rights in that respect. They are in many respects ideal for home defense, especially if coupled with a suppressor. Such ideas do indeed sound reasonable to me, but aye, there's the rub. I can already hear the screams and curses of the anti-gun crowd using the same old false narratives; more people are going to die. Murder and mayhem will certainly multiply exponentially. Such mantras may indeed apply in such places as Chicago, LA, and NYC, you know, those bastions of the hive mentality, but not in the rest of our land.
 
44 AMP said:
If the Second Amendment said "the right to keep and bear any man portable arm, open or concealed with no legal restriction of any kind, by any one, any where, and we really, really mean it..." we wouldn't have the issue to argue about.

It doesn't say that. It says something more vague, and while WE believe we have a clear understanding, so does the other side, and its the opposite of ours.
Click to expand...
But there is really nothing vague about "shall not be infringed." The anti-gun side likes to say that "all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation," but there isn't a single other right in the entire Bill of Rights that outright says "shall not be infringed." And a regulation is an infringement; a regulation is a limitation, and limitations are infringements. That's what the word means.

The example I use is the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..." Once they limited the prohibition to "unreasonable" searches and seizures, they automatically left the door open to reasonable searches and seizures. How do we know what's reasonable and what's unreasonable? That's the job of the courts to sort out.

But the Second Amendment doesn't offer any of that wiggle room. It flat out prohibits infringement. Since regulation is infringement, a strict reading of the 2A (good luck getting that now that Justice Scalia is gone) clearly does NOT allow for "reasonable regulation."

44 AMP said:
The SCOTUS ruling in Heller did affirm our right to ownership, and complete prohibition of entire classes of arms was unconstitutional, but left us with the legal ruling that "reasonable restrictions" ARE allowed as constitutional (until/unless another Supreme court reexamines the issue).
Click to expand...
This is where Mr. Scalia's Heller decision didn't do us any favors. He didn't actually say that existing "reasonable restrictions" are allowed. He referred to them as "presumptively" lawful. All that says, really, is "That's not the question that was asked, so we won't try to answer it today. We'll 'presume' (for now) that they are lawful, and deal with them down the road." So, as you say, we're left with them unless/until the SCOTUS revisits the 2A, but the SCOTUS didn't rule that "reasonable" restrictions ARE lawful -- they just didn't say they are not. That's a subtle difference, but it's a difference.

44 AMP said:
And, typically, the Court did not specifically define what "reasonable restrictions" are. SO, in that matter, we are still back at square one, what we see as unreasonable restriction (infringement) the other side sees as entirely reasonable, and a "good first step"....
Click to expand...
Too true. We can wish 'til the cows come home that Mr. Scalia hadn't written what he wrote, but I suspect he had to say something like that to get the swing vote on his side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top