CCW PERMITS AND FEES UNCONSTITUTIONAL???

[JIMSPD9]

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. There is no fine print in the 2nd admendment.

When we go to legally purchase a handgun or rifle, the FFL runs a background check, and we are cleared for purchase, provided we are non-felons, domestic violence convicts Etc. This doesn't cost the buyer one thin dime. That should be enough to allow concealed carry nationwide.

The states that allow CCW, however charge an application/permit fee in order for a citizen to carry protection against bodily harm,or loss of his property. These fees are simply a TAX imposed on the constitutional right granted by our founding fathers.

Here in Mississippi the application fee is $132.00 and once a citizen reaches 65 yrs of age it drops to $85.00. The senior citizen who is far less likely to physically defend him or herself, are more likely to be on a fixed income must shell out monies to carry protection.

In 1948 the SCOTUS ruled (Murdoch v. Penn.) that it is unconstitutional to charge or impose a tax /fee on a person who is exercising his or her right granted by the Constitution.
Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness soliciting membership in his church and the Community demanded He buy a solicitors licence.

Even though this was a freedom of religion case, the ruling is quite clear in it's context. During the Civil Rights movement the Poll Taxes, which charges a fee to vote, were struck down for the same reason.

JIM S

 

[nogods]

That's a bit of a leap - read Texas Monthly v. Bullock 489 U.S. 1 (1989).

But it would be neat if we could transform every SCOTUS decision on one right into an absolute applicable to all other rights.

Then the 6th amendment decisions requiring government to provide an attorney to those who can't afford one (to effectuate the right to a fair trial) could be transposed to the 2nd Amendment thereby requiring government to provide firearms to those who can't afford them.

 

[cshoff]

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. There is no fine print in the 2nd admendment.

When we go to legally purchase a handgun or rifle, the FFL runs a background check, and we are cleared for purchase, provided we are non-felons, domestic violence convicts Etc. This doesn't cost the buyer one thin dime. That should be enough to allow concealed carry nationwide.

The states that allow CCW, however charge an application/permit fee in order for a citizen to carry protection against bodily harm,or loss of his property. These fees are simply a TAX imposed on the constitutional right granted by our founding fathers.

Here in Mississippi the application fee is $132.00 and once a citizen reaches 65 yrs of age it drops to $85.00. The senior citizen who is far less likely to physically defend him or herself, are more likely to be on a fixed income must shell out monies to carry protection.

In 1948 the SCOTUS ruled (Murdoch v. Penn.) that it is unconstitutional to charge or impose a tax /fee on a person who is exercising his or her right granted by the Constitution.
Murdoch was a Jehovah's Witness soliciting membership in his church and the Community demanded He buy a solicitors licence.

Even though this was a freedom of religion case, the ruling is quite clear in it's context. During the Civil Rights movement the Poll Taxes, which charges a fee to vote, were struck down for the same reason.

JIM S

Missouri has legal open carry, and it requires no training, no background check, and no permit. Doesn't cost a person one red dime if he/she wants to open carry here. However, our State Constitution spells out a specific exception for concealed firearms.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

In other words, Missouri views the carrying of concealed firearms as a privilege, NOT a right, and they regulate that privilege with training requirements, background checks, and a permit process.

 

[russp1]

This also opens the old anti gun argument that the second amendment starts with the line "in order to maintain a well armed militia" and all those who wish to own guns should be forced to be ready to serve in the state military when needed. I doubt if the founding fathers meant for an 80 year old granny to be in the military but that's the ideas that can come up when a word for word interpretation of a document as old as the constitution is applied to today's world. I've often felt it may be out dated and in need of replacement rather than more amendment "fixes" but I wouldn't want to trust today's politicians to do the job.

 

[PDL]

Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont are on your side of the arguement.

So am I, but we'll never get an agreement from most authorities.

Best to move to one of the states which recognize that part of the constitution as having the same weight as the rest of it.

As far as state constitutions overriding the federal one, we've had an example here recently of how the courts view that. NJ constitution says we can recall our federal reps. Court said we couldn't recall Menedez cause the federal constitution only allows the senate to decide who the have as members.

Law is never what a reasonable person thinks, or what common sense says it should mean. It's what the lawyers can convice a judge it means.

 

[J.P.60]

In other words, Missouri views the carrying of concealed firearms as a privilege, NOT a right, and they regulate that privilege with training requirements, background checks, and a permit process.

And this is the line of thought through numerous SCOTUS decisions.

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms does not mean CCW. It means musket over shoulder and pistol on the belt. In other words - open carry.

My position, and that of a great many, is that the prohibition on open carry, such as in Texas, is what is unconstitutional.

 

[cp1969]

And this is the line of thought through numerous SCOTUS decisions.

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms does not mean CCW. It means musket over shoulder and pistol on the belt. In other words - open carry.

My position, and that of a great many, is that the prohibition on open carry, such as in Texas, is what is unconstitutional.

How and from what was this derived? There is no wording in the 2nd which addresses whether or not firearms must be visible to others while being carried.

 

[PDL]

And while were on the concealed theme, a number of the founding fathers 'in polite society' carried sword canes. They would probably have carried pocket pistols, but they weren't available. And as far as the bans on places like courthouses, schools, and congress - they weren't in place then either.
While open carry is covered by the 2nd, so is concealed. And it doesn't just apply to firearms - it says arms.

 

[J.P.60]

How and from what was this derived? There is no wording in the 2nd which addresses whether or not firearms must be visible to others while being carried.

While open carry is covered by the 2nd, so is concealed. And it doesn't just apply to firearms - it says arms.

From a literal standpoint you are correct. The words are plain enough. That, however, is not the test of Constitutionality. "Framers' Intent" is the general standard. Given that the right is tied to the necessity of a well regulated militia, one must look to see what a well regulated militia was and stood for.

As such, open carry is a logical, directly tied to right. Sword canes were not ever standard carry to any militia and neither were pocket pistols, duckfeet or turn-barrels.

 

[cp1969]

From a literal standpoint you are correct. The words are plain enough. That, however, is not the test of Constitutionality. "Framers' Intent" is the general standard. Given that the right is tied to the necessity of a well regulated militia, one must look to see what a well regulated militia was and stood for.

As such, open carry is a logical, directly tied to right. Sword canes were not ever standard carry to any militia and neither were pocket pistols, duckfeet or turn-barrels.

OK, enlighten us. What is a 'well-regulated militia' and how is concealed carry tied to that?

Aside: When and where did the notion of 'Framers Intent' come from? The Framers were eloquent men...my impression is they were very adept at conveying their meaning with the written word. The 2nd wasn't written with as few words as it has because they ran out of vocabulary. They saw no need to add further to it.

"The Right....Shall Not Be Infringed" is about as simple, direct and straight to the point as it gets. The notion that We The People are incapable of understanding the meaning of a 27 word paragraph, and that only the brightest and best legal minds of this country can begin to crack its indecipherable code, despite the fact that they've had 220 years to do it, is absurd.

 

[tbone1964]

Right from kansas open carry law "Firearms may be openly carried in cars without any license except where localities have made open carry illegal; however, concealed handgun permits accepted by KS make the holder exempt from all local open carry bans. There is NO state preemption of firearms laws." so if you make it illegal in a city for me to open carry you ARE denying my right. Municipalities have the right in kansas by city ordanance to ban open carry locally not just in cars. so only option I have if I want to carry everywhere is to procure a ccw permit, thats why peeps are saying CCW is unconstitutional, how ever if states permited preemption, this whole debate would be moot.

 

[cp1969]

Right from kansas open carry law "Firearms may be openly carried in cars without any license except where localities have made open carry illegal; however, concealed handgun permits accepted by KS make the holder exempt from all local open carry bans. There is NO state preemption of firearms laws." so if you make it illegal in a city for me to open carry you ARE denying my right. Municipalities have the right in kansas by city ordanance to ban open carry locally not just in cars. so only option I have if I want to carry everywhere is to procure a ccw permit, thats why peeps are saying CCW is unconstitutional, how ever if states permited exemtion IE open carry legal everywhere in the state no exceptions then ccw would be optional.

But then the state would not be able to wring money out of you.

Also, in Kansas even if you have a CCW, you cannot OPEN carry in cities with ordinances prohibiting it. It must be concealed.

 

[tbone1964]

Yup you are right there cp1969 thus you are denying my state and US right to keep and bear arms so ccw is unconstitutional.

 

[REM 3200]

But then the state would not be able to wring money out of you.

There in is the answer.

 

[J.P.60]

Aside: When and where did the notion of 'Framers Intent' come from? The Framers were eloquent men...my impression is they were very adept at conveying their meaning with the written word. The 2nd wasn't written with as few words as it has because they ran out of vocabulary. They saw no need to add further to it.

"Framer's Intent has always been the yardstick in interpreting Constitutionality by SCOTUS. It is necessary because there were certain thoughts that the Framers would never have had, simply because of technology changes and social changes which they were just incapable of comprehending. Hence, it's important to view what they wrote by what they actually intended the end result to be. If it were not for Framer's intent, women would still be treated as chattel, children would have no rights at all and slavery would still be the law of the land.

By the way, you need to study up on the makeup of the Framers of the Constitution. There were a great many who could barely read, a number who had never been out of the county on which they lived, and still a greater number who had not and never would serve in the military. There's a reason why certain men were tagged to do the composing and writing.

Quite literally, unless SCOTUS finds that concealed weapons were a specific part of the framers' intent, then, in fact one cannot connect concealed carry to the militias. For that very reason, SCOTUS leaves the issue of concealed carry to the various states, as a States' Rights issue.

By the way, a great many believe that the 2nd Amendment leaves the definition of "arms" to the States, as well. It, in their opinion is not an unlimited definition and there is no guarantee as to what arms you have the right to bear. You cannot bear M79 grenade launchers and a great many other arms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has been upheld by the court and there is no way it will ever be reversed.

I wish that there was more logic and more understanding on the part of the States, but, frankly it just isn't happening in the fashion most of us would like to see. As to Federal control, there is, in the end, very little.

 

[cp1969]

By the way, a great many believe that the 2nd Amendment leaves the definition of "arms" to the States, as well. It, in their opinion is not an unlimited definition and there is no guarantee as to what arms you have the right to bear. You cannot bear M79 grenade launchers and a great many other arms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has been upheld by the court and there is no way it will ever be reversed.

This is, quite literally, the crux of the matter.

Who are this "great many" who decided that the Second Amendment wasn't an unlimited right? While it may seem OK to violate the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment with restrictions on things like M79 grenade launchers, until the 2nd Amendment is amended to say that, it means just what it says--"..Shall Not Be Infringed." If enough people want to infringe that right, that's OK. But do it by amending the Constitution.

Also, the GCA68, enacted through legislation, can be swept away with subsequent legislation. The courts are not the only way to rectify bad laws.

 

[9c1 lover]

it doesnt say anywhere that felons should be barred either, just because you have been convicted of a felony doesnt mean you are not a free man. little by little they whittle it away. just saying. basically, life aint fair sir.

 

[cshoff]

it doesnt say anywhere that felons should be barred either, just because you have been convicted of a felony doesnt mean you are not a free man. little by little they whittle it away. just saying. basically, life aint fair sir.

I would actually tend to agree. If you commit a crime and then serve your time (pay your debt to society), you should have your rights restored at that point. After all, you are supposed to be rehabilitated.

If a person who is released from prison cannot be trusted, then why in the world are we releasing them from prison?

 

[PDL]

From a literal standpoint you are correct. The words are plain enough. That, however, is not the test of Constitutionality. "Framers' Intent" is the general standard. Given that the right is tied to the necessity of a well regulated militia, one must look to see what a well regulated militia was and stood for.

As such, open carry is a logical, directly tied to right. Sword canes were not ever standard carry to any militia and neither were pocket pistols, duckfeet or turn-barrels.

Your point about the militia has been debunked by the latest supreme court ruling that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right, not related to 'militia' at all. And at the time militia was considered the adult males in a community. It was considered natural that most men were ready to defend their community and themselves.

The court is well aware that in reality, all of those gun laws do infringe on the right to bear arms. They are still trying to 'not' overturn some of what most folks feel are the more reasonable prohibitions - like mental defectives or violent felons. This process will take quite a few more court cases to flesh out. So far they've only vocalized a right of posession for self defence. They have not addressed the 'bear' portion of the 2nd.

As far as qualifying tests and fees are concerned, imagine if you had to pass a test and pay a fee to vote. Although, I might support an inteligence test before you could vote.

 

[Lost Lake]

As far as qualifying tests and fees are concerned, imagine if you had to pass a test and pay a fee to vote. Although, I might support an inteligence test before you could vote.

HERE HERE!!!! I will agree to that!!!

Look around you at the people who are allowed to vote! How many morons have no idea what the issues are, or how a candidate stands on the issues, yet they can legally go to the poll and pull a lever casting a vote for someone because he has great looking hair?

The only way a democracy can work is to have a buffer between the buffoons and the laws. Hence the job of the representatives. If we ever get to the point where we take national votes on all issues we are doomed.

Although I would like to see a popular vote on whether the government should be allowed to give themselves another pay raise year after year.....