United States & Gun Control discussion.

ThunderHorse said:
In Arizona when they passed the Constitutional carry law they kept the licensing procedures in place. They did this so if citizens chose to carry outside of Arizona and the state had a reciprocal agreement they would still be able to apply for CCW Licenses in AZ.
Click to expand...

Got it, now it makes sense. Alaska has a similar arrangement that allows Alaskans to carry without a permit in the state, but also allows them to obtain a license for out-of-state reciprocity if they wish.
 
Freefalling said:
I think you guys misunderstand. As written, they can carry in AZ without a license but left the license requirement in place so residents can use it in other states. That's nonsense and hypocritical. Residents who want to travel and carry concealed should obtain an AZ license and the reciprocity it contains. For anyone who doesn't want to carry outside of the state they shouldn't be required given "Constitutional carry."
Click to expand...

That's actually an interesting point. Which other Constitutionally protected right is legislated by the States?

I wonder why Congress hasn't intervened via the Commerce clause. If they can regulate health care via that same clause, EVERYTHING is up for grabs.
 
Marine0311 said:
West Virginia Overrides Governor’s Veto To Pass Radical NRA-Backed Gun Law

Gun owners in West Virginia will no longer need to get a permit to have a concealed weapon, putting it among the most far-reaching states for gun rights. The House voted on the measure Friday and officially overrode a gubernatorial veto on Saturday.

The law, which does away with the permit and training program for people 21 and older who want to carry a concealed weapon, was supported by the National Rifle Association, but opposed by law enforcement across the state.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of people carrying who haven't had even rudimentary training--and I think background checks are a good thing. This may backfire to the detriment of gun owners.
 
Question for those who understand this a lot better than me. I am wore out with the Republican candidates trying to convince me that the wrong Supreme Court Justice could change the court in a way that would effectively wipe out the Second Amendment.

I would not think they would have the power to make an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional, so it would seem it would have to be how the amendment is interpreted.

Realistically, how much damage could really be done if an anti-gun judge was appointed to the court?
 
Ooh-Rah said:
Question for those who understand this a lot better than me. I am wore out with the Republican candidates trying to convince me that the wrong Supreme Court Justice could change the court in a way that would effectively wipe out the Second Amendment.

I would not think they would have the power to make an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional, so it would seem it would have to be how the amendment is interpreted.

Realistically, how much damage could really be done if an anti-gun judge was appointed to the court?
Click to expand...

Heller.

That ruling solidified the right to defend yourself inside your home. Soon, the court will determine if that right extends outside the home and that will be the determining factor for "may issue" states.
 
lindy said:
Heller.

That ruling solidified the right to defend yourself inside your home. Soon, the court will determine if that right extends outside the home and that will be the determining factor for "may issue" states.
Click to expand...

Isn't that right solid now?
 
Marine0311 said:
Isn't that right solid now?
Click to expand...

It is (by one vote) but with a left leaning court, it could be the end and gun laws that protect individual rights and move towards protecting specific classes.

The crux of the issue is the definition of a "well regulated militia". Republicans believe that means citizens like Minutemen but Democrats believe it means National Guard and Reserves.
 
lindy said:
The crux of the issue is the definition of a "well regulated militia". Republicans believe that means citizens like Minutemen but Democrats believe it means National Guard and Reserves.
Click to expand...

And this is the part that has me concerned.
 
lindy said:
The crux of the issue is the definition of a "well regulated militia". Republicans believe that means citizens like Minutemen but Democrats believe it means National Guard and Reserves.
Click to expand...

The National Guard is a Federal military asset and ultimately under POTUS's control, unless I was delusional the last time I read Title 32 of the US Code.

The 2nd Amendment does not give states and people the right to claim the Guard as their own personal militia.

Besides, a Guard under complete state control and funding isn't one I'd want to be a part of, especially with the famously terrible shysters periodically holding top offices in this state.
 
DocIllinois said:
The National Guard is a Federal military asset and ultimately under POTUS's control, unless I was delusional the last time I read Title 32 of the US Code.

The 2nd Amendment does not give states and people the right to claim the Guard as their own personal militia.

Besides, a Guard under complete state control and funding isn't one I'd want to be a part of, especially with the famously terrible shysters periodically holding top offices in this state.
Click to expand...

You completely lost me. I know how the Guard works and how it's funded but I am missing your point.
 
The snag to viewing the Guard/ Reserves as a militia is that it isn't.

Unless these entities stop getting funded by the Federal government. And POTUS relinquishes ultimate control of them. And they stop training mainly to support the Federal mission. Then the militia tag may apply.
 
DocIllinois said:
The snag to viewing the Guard/ Reserves as a militia is that it isn't.

Unless these entities stop getting funded by the Federal government. And POTUS relinquishes ultimate control of them. And they stop training mainly to support the Federal mission. Then the militia tag may apply.
Click to expand...
Not so fast. 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes outlines the legal definition of a militia within the country:
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided insection 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...
Notice the overall definition and the following sub-classifications.

Furthermore, in 32 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions the first section mentions the militia and the Guard. Which refers back to the first link concerning the legal definition of a militia within this country.
 

Similar threads

Devildoc
House discussing citizen-only voting bill...
Replies
19
Views
431
The Quartermaster
The Quartermaster
Marauder06
1911 Questions--Barrel and Slide Swap
Replies
14
Views
830
Diamondback 2/2
Diamondback 2/2
T
Group 35 Series Training Opportunities
Replies
1
Views
157
Marauder06
Marauder06
Devildoc
Western NC/Hurricane Helene
2 3
Replies
54
Views
1K
DA SWO
DA SWO
R.Caerbannog
Distortion of History
2
Replies
32
Views
684
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Back
Top