The Current CCW Environment

[andrewb70]

Does that sign apply to the holder of a concealed permit?

Yes, I do believe that it does...

Andrew

 

[Chuck1217]

Ths thing about respecting land-owners' rights- it is true, and I always caution folks that want to take away gun rights- that if the govt is allowed to do that, then they will be allowed to take away other rights- and even if you don't WANT a gun, you'd better stand up for OUR rights- someday they may take away one that YOU would hate to lose.
Don't mean to start another argument but- I regret allowing them the 'right' to take away a Christmas tree, or a manger scene, from our schools, city halls etc. The right to practice our religion- to free speech- to own guns- shall not be infringed. Guess what- we been infringed.....

 

[CrossRifles2008]

After the Colorado movie theater shooting, the local chain decided to make their theaters a "gun free zone."

I live in Memphis and all of the Malco theaters have posted sign. Needless to say, I am not going to the movies anytime soon.

Andrew

Good thinking Malco theaters. I'm sure that sign will stop the next nut job. "Time to go on a killing rampage!! Oh gosh darn it. This is a gun free zone. Better move on to the next public place and RAMPAGE!!!"

 

[redlevel]

Where is our resident Constitutional expert, Col Jagdog, when we need him?

Not Col. Jagdog, but I do have a Masters in Political Science.
Originally, the Constitution was written to limit the Federal Government and to delineate what powers were exclusive to the National Govt., what powers were Reserved for the States, and what powers were held concurrently by the States and the National Government. The Bill of Rights was added as a limitation of what the National Government could do, and more specifically, what it could not do to citizens.

Through a process known as Incorporation, these limitations were extended to the states. Using the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, most of these protections have been extended. For example, the 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law . . . . " Clearly, the original intent was to limit the National Government. However, using the aforementioned clauses, it could just as well read "No State shall make a law abridging . . . . " Many of these extensions took place under the Earl Warren era of SCOTUS. These were almost all against states, not individuals or corporations.

Another facet of Constitutional Law is the use of the Commerce Clause in Civil Rights decisions. A good example is US vs. Heart of Atlanta Motel. Basically, the SCOTUS said that since the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requiring the motel to provide equal access to blacks, was Constitutional. The Justice Department sent agents to take pictures of cars in the motel parking lot with out-of-state tags to prove the motel was engaged in "Interstate Commerce."

Not to get political, but to make my earlier point about property rights, the most frightening decision rendered by SCOTUS in the last 50 years, in my opinion, is Kelo vs. New London. SCOTUS assaulted property rights in this country by saying that government could take property from one private entity and transfer it to another private entity for the common good without violating the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.

I believe we can agree that a lot of stuff people "know for a fact" about the Constitution just ain't so.

 

[Chuck1217]

Ref: taking property for the common good- as usual, some states, coutnies etc have abused even THAT, by taking the property for development by a private company. As in, taking property to build a mall, because in their opinion, making a place to shop, providing jobs to construction co's, was 'for the common good.' Again I say, we have done been infringed....

 

[StatesRightist]

Not Col. Jagdog, but I do have a Masters in Political Science.
Originally, the Constitution was written to limit the Federal Government and to delineate what powers were exclusive to the National Govt., what powers were Reserved for the States, and what powers were held concurrently by the States and the National Government. The Bill of Rights was added as a limitation of what the National Government could do, and more specifically, what it could not do to citizens.

Through a process known as Incorporation, these limitations were extended to the states. Using the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, most of these protections have been extended. For example, the 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law . . . . " Clearly, the original intent was to limit the National Government. However, using the aforementioned clauses, it could just as well read "No State shall make a law abridging . . . . " Many of these extensions took place under the Earl Warren era of SCOTUS. These were almost all against states, not individuals or corporations.

Another facet of Constitutional Law is the use of the Commerce Clause in Civil Rights decisions. A good example is US vs. Heart of Atlanta Motel. Basically, the SCOTUS said that since the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requiring the motel to provide equal access to blacks, was Constitutional. The Justice Department sent agents to take pictures of cars in the motel parking lot with out-of-state tags to prove the motel was engaged in "Interstate Commerce."

Not to get political, but to make my earlier point about property rights, the most frightening decision rendered by SCOTUS in the last 50 years, in my opinion, is Kelo vs. New London. SCOTUS assaulted property rights in this country by saying that government could take property from one private entity and transfer it to another private entity for the common good without violating the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.

I believe we can agree that a lot of stuff people "know for a fact" about the Constitution just ain't so.

Nice post.

I agree with you on the eminent domain ruling, I can see no way SCOTUS adhered to the Constitution and came up with that ruling. It's right up there with the invention of a right to privacy and then taking that "right" and extending it to Roe vs Wade etc; along with Robert's politically poisoned and influenced ruling on the Healthcare law.

I don't know who scares me worse, the "living" document people or those posing as strict Constitutionalists who are political pawns.