Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[hi-pointfan1]

"Is it constitutional to require you to get a permit in order to exercise a fundamental right...under penalty of prison for non compliance? Is that still a fundamental right then? I know this question is yet to be answered when it comes to Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA). Permits for parades, assembly speech etc are required when your right intrudes on someone's right to travel or be violated in some way; i.e. volume restrictions on amplified music etc. If a federal, state or local government required you to get a permit in order to posses violent movies or music would you obey? I know we are going to have a difference of opinion on this so please poll your opinions!"


"Its just one of my pet peeves when people reflexively accept politicans requiring them to get permits to exercise their fundamental rights. That's how they get away with it for so long."

 

[subtlesixer03]

Though i must say that backround checks should be done but purely for a vilent crimial history. I also believe the only violent felons are the only ones that should be banned for life from owning firearms. Some felonys should not carry those restrictions. If you can be rehabed to society then you should also have the chance to prove your capable of being responsable enough to own a firearm. Though I would admit this would be few and far in between and a case by case thing but i figure its a far better way to spend tax money then on other things.

 

[Stschil]

I agree that, in theory as in practice, the requirement is against the Founders' intent when the 2 Amendment was added. However, our society has changed drasticly since those days as well. In some ways it has degraded as much as it has advanced.
I have no issues with having a license requirement, but I do think that it should be a Federally issued license and ALL states should be required to abide by the same set of carry standards set forth. Also, should this ever come about, it should be one permit for all carry forms.

I just don't think this is a States' Rights issue and individual States should NOT be allowed to regulate it.

As always,,,the above is strictly my humble opinion.

 

[Joe Williams]

I agree that, in theory as in practice, the requirement is against the Founders' intent when the 2 Amendment was added. However, our society has changed drasticly since those days as well. In some ways it has degraded as much as it has advanced.
snip

So, you think the Constitution is no longer suited to be the law of our land?

 

[TJSieling]

I think having to pay for it isn't right, but I do agree with having the background check done. It shouldn't be cut off to felons completely, people can get mad and do stupid things, or not realize they are doing something wrong.

it isn't right for states to restrict where I can and can't carry it, or be dictated how I carry it. Just because one person screwed up and did something stupid doesn't mean that I'm going to.

 

[Bendrx]

Here is how I think it should go:

Cop: "Are you currently in jail/prison or on probation?"

Random Person: "No"

Cop: "Okay, carry on then, nothing to see here."

(Note there was no LTCH, just in my make believe imagination a guy carring a gun and a cop asking about it - perhaps he was jaywalking to give the cop reason to question him at all.)

To the comment of society has changed, yes it has. We keep murders and child molesters alive and even let them live in the same areas as our kids. We then reward those to do nothing, and sometimes those who harm others. Yes, our country has sadly changed. No reason to not try and fix it.

Sorry a little off track, but not completely. Obama was right about something, and that is the "Hard choices" need to be made. Now, he was just BSing, but the "hard choices" are the ones of "False security" vs Freedom.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, I believe that the requirement of paying for a permission slip is an infringement. It's benefited us in that it's shown permit-holders to be a very law-abiding and peaceable group of people, but that does not excuse the unConstitutionality of the process.
Subtlesixer03 and TJSieling, why background checks? Why should I have to prove my innocence of criminal activity, rather than it being incumbent upon government or its agents to prove my unsuitability to exercise my rights? Further, as I've asked other places on here, why should past criminal history remove one's lawful ability to protect your family and/or yourself? If there must be a restriction on former felons, I say let it be that if they're caught committing a crime with their firearm, their sentences should be enhanced, but once they've served their sentences (or as some call it, "paid their debt to society",) their rights should be restored completely, IMHO.
Stschil,
A federal license? Are you really OK with giving that kind of power to the fedgov, in complete opposition to the 2A and its original intent that all citizens (all freemen, in their vernacular) be armed? I think I understand what you're getting at, trying to eliminate the patchwork that I can carry here but not there, but if this was to be an issue addressed at any level of government (which I'm not convinced it is), it was to be a state issue, but clearly not federal.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment II 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.

Looks to me like this was a power prohibited to the states. If it was not originally, then it certainly is now, with the 2A incorporated. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it, as is my right, but I also respect your right to hold that opinion.

Grammar lesson:
The 2A consists of 27 words. The dependent clause is made up of a noun, two adjectives, an article, and three prepositional phrases. The independent clause consists of (in order) an article, a noun, a prepositional phrase, a compound prepositional phrase, and a negative imperative verb. Removing all of the text explaining which right, whose right, and a reason for the right, the simple subject-predicate sentence is "The right shall not be infringed." That doesn't say it's OK to infringe it for some; remember that infringing on the rights of some opens the door to infringing those and other rights for others (maybe even you.)
To all in general and those listed here specifically, I didn't type the above to patronize or to insinuate that you needed a lesson or that I was the one to give it. I wrote it because it's the foundation of what I believe about the 2A. Words have meanings and if the Founders and the Framers are to be believed, we are to interpret the words in the documents they penned in the light of the meaning they had when they were written.


I therefore believe that any action of government that in any way restricts the right to keep arms or the right to bear them of those who have done no violence to any other innocent person is unConstitutional.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[TJSieling]

Bill,
I'm going to split my background check reasoning. I think anyone should be able to keep a firearm at home, for protecting themselves, family, pets property, etc. If someone were to have an extremely violent felony on their record within the last x amount of years, would you want them to have a firearm in walmart next to you and YOUR family? Probably not. After so many years without any convictions, I think a felon should be allowed to carry again, but if they just got put of prison yesterday, would you want them to have one? There the background check comes in. If you are squeaky clean, here is your permit. if you fouled up in this time frame, sorry, you need to wait a bit and not get in trouble to gain public trust back. Felon? Over 10 years ago? No trouble? Here you go.

 

[96firephoenix]

unconstitutional - yes.
unreasonable - yes

should there be background checks - yes

 

[indykid]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. No license requirements, no barrel length, no round count per trigger pull, no parts content, no overall length, no weight limit....

In fact there is only one limit written in the second amendment, and that is NO limits!

 

[Hornett]

I voted yes, unconstitutional.

But it beats betting arrested.
I really don't want to be the test case.

 

[OneBadV8]

I understand why some people *think* there should be background checks and required training.

However, I think its spelled out pretty clearly. I believe there was even a quote by the founding fathers that the citizens should be just as well armed as the military. They viewed the 2nd amendment as another balance of power against Gov't not necessarily from a criminal down the street.

It's a right, not a priveledge. Need to Repeal NFA '34, GCA '68 and GCA '86

 

[stanicus]

I'm not sure of the best way to phrase this without getting my sh*t jumped, but i'll take a whirl at it. The 2nd amendment was enacted 219 years ago. Things were a bit different back then. I'm no history major, but I assume more people grew up with guns in the home as well as other devices used for hunting. Most kids would grow up learning how to use these items properly for hunting and if needed, self defense. I'm sure many of the people who post here grew up with a parent who taught them about guns and the proper use and care of them. I grew up in a republican home, but without guns. We were not hunters. When i did make the decision to get my LTCH and purchase a weapon, I sought out help and training from someone I knew. Not everyone does this. Most everyone here has been swept by an inexperienced shooter at the range myself included. This is why I have no problems with a LTCH or if training is required. I don't see it as a government trying to control me as I do a hurdle to help slow down the wrong people from having guns.

 

[cosermann]

Is it unconstitutional to require someone to register to vote?

 

[OneBadV8]

Is it unconstitutional to require someone to register to vote?

Can you get denied the right to Vote?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Is it unconstitutional to require someone to register to vote?

What does the Constitution say about voting?

Art 1 Sec 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

15th Amendment
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Seems the states can make the rules about voting. Except regarding race/sex/color or previous condition of servitude.

 

[Stschil]

So, you think the Constitution is no longer suited to be the law of our land?

I DO believe the Constitution is the Law of Laws in America. It Should be adhered to,,,not bent, twisted, and mutilated. There is a process set forth in it to change things. ie the 21st Amendment, repealing prohibition. If America's citizens feel that the 2nd Amendment is in need of revision, that Constitutionally mandated process needs to be followed. Unless that happends, there shouldn't be any question as to whether individual States have the authority to restrict our rights. I don't believe they do.

My comment about America today not being the same as America during the days of it's infancy (sic) was more in support of my believing that if we are to be saddled with a License/Permit process (Constitutional or not), it should apply equally to all States and no additions/subtractions/revisions should be allowed based on political/geographic/demographic location or make up.

 

[DragonGunner]

I'm not totally against background checks for firearms, but you should never have to pay for the right to own or carry, or to be taxed for it.

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm not sure of the best way to phrase this without getting my sh*t jumped, but i'll take a whirl at it. The 2nd amendment was enacted 219 years ago. Things were a bit different back then. snip

So, I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier, and haven't seen an answer to.... Do you feel the Constitution is on longer a fit document to be the law of the land?

Edit: I see that the earlier poster did, in fact answer my question. I am still curious, though, what you think?

 

[GARANDGUY]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. No license requirements, no barrel length, no round count per trigger pull, no parts content, no overall length.

^^^^^^^this is the way it was and still should beIMHO!