Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?

[TAB]

But you forget  CCW can damage others... I know its hard for you to see that, but many liablity and/or comp policy strickly forbid it, several I have seen over the years state that if one of your employees brings a gun into the work place and there is an accident you are not coverd, but you are still liable for it.  That seems like alot of damage to me.  Also what about places that are metal senative?  You bring a large metal object in there and you could do ungodly sums of damage.


No where in the us cons does it say CCW is a right nor does it say its not... that does not mean its by defualt a right.  That means for something to be determend rather or not its a right. 


 Since you don't like my argument about GC... you replace it with something you deam simlar... see if it still passes the sniff test.

I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter.  What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean.   Now if we don't agree with what they think it means, we are well with in our rights to amend the USCONS to change it.  Thats the great part about the USCONS, is the people can change it.

BTW in the 4 states I have CL in... it does not matter if your doing something for free or not, they are all based on a dallor ammount of combined materail and labor.  So if the materail cost is over that limit, you would be illegal.    You are allowed to help them, but you can't just do it for them.( in fact in 2, even offering is a crime.)  I know dumb law and its rarly enforced, but still does not make it any less of a law.

[Middle Man]

Tab, you have a lack of understanding of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.
It DOES NOT list what is legal for citizens to do.  It DOES list the limited powers given to the Government by the people.  It does not list any rights given to the people by the government.  Remember NO RIGHTS are granted to the people by the Constit;ution or the Bill of Rights.  Instead certain rights are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights.  Bacause a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist (see the 9th Ammendment)

So, Tab, I don't need to show you where it says CCW is a right.  As long as it does not do actual damage to another, it is a right.

Please remember that the government cannot grant privileges as it has none to grant unless that power was given to it by the people in the constitution.

Exaclty, the consent of those governed. 

We live in a Republic (a democratic republic more specifically) and thankfully not a social democracy (which is vastly more statist).  Statism has always lead down dark roads.  Statism bred Mussolini's fascism and Nazi eugenics and Stalin's mass starvations and Wilson's League of Nations and FDR's New Deal and Mao's cultural revolution and Castro's dungeons and even (gulp) TR's progressivist distaste for large corporations.  Big government is dangerous in all it's forms, period.

But you forget  CCW can damage others...

So because the potential for liability exists, CCW is damaging?

There's an implied liability in getting out of bed in the morning...
 

[ericire12]

I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter.  What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean.   

First off, we are NOT a judicial monarchy! And we should NOT view a supreme court ruling as the end all be all of our rights as citizens. 

2nd, Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court by an elected official - So yes, it does matter what I and all other Americans think the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd amendment is a major litmus test for many Americans (both pro gun and anti gun people) in who they will vote for in a presidential election. Who a president will appoint as a justice is a huge deciding factor for many voters.

[BigSaucy]

I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter.  What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean.   Now if we don't agree with what they think it means, we are well with in our rights to amend the USCONS to change it.  Thats the great part about the USCONS, is the people can change it.

In the legal sense, I believe, you are correct, it's what the SCOTUS says that matters but what we or any US Citizen thinks means a great deal. The Federal and State Governments have been somewhat unchecked in their ability to control what, I would argue, was clearly established in the US Constitution. Just because there is case law that supports something or it has been done for years doesn't make it right. In the end, the people are the arbiters or what's right. Or at least that's how it worked in the late 1700's.

Exaclty, the consent of those governed. 

We live in a Republic (a democratic republic more specifically) and thankfully not a social democracy (which is vastly more statist).  Statism has always lead down dark roads.  Statism bred Mussolini's fascism and Nazi eugenics and Stalin's mass starvations and Wilson's League of Nations and FDR's New Deal and Mao's cultural revolution and Castro's dungeons and even (gulp) TR's progressivist distaste for large corporations.  Big government is dangerous in all it's forms, period.
So because the potential for liability exists, CCW is damaging?

There's an implied liability in getting out of bed in the morning...
 

+1 MiddleMan

[Middle Man]

First off, we are NOT a judicial monarchy! And we should NOT view a supreme court ruling as the end all be all of our rights as citizens. 

2nd, Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court by an elected official - So yes, it does matter what I and all other Americans think the 2nd Amendment means. The 2nd amendment is a major litmus test for many Americans (both pro gun and anti gun people) in who they will vote for in a presidential election. Who a president will appoint as a justice is a huge deciding factor for many voters.

Citizens may also bring suit(s) against the government that can turn laws, codes, precedence, and case law on it's ear.  Heller is but one example, as well as, an example that the path may be slow.   

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

But you forget  CCW can damage others... I know its hard for you to see that, but many liablity and/or comp policy strickly forbid it, several I have seen over the years state that if one of your employees brings a gun into the work place and there is an accident you are not coverd, but you are still liable for it.  That seems like alot of damage to me.  Also what about places that are metal senative?  You bring a large metal object in there and you could do ungodly sums of damage.

I have agreed with you on your right to limit whomever you wish from your property..for whatever reason....having fish for lunch, as an example you might remember.   What I said is that them violating your wish did not constitute a crime until you asked them to leave and they did not.  Also remember I differentiated commercial property from your private property.   Folks can't have a Klan rally on your front but, again, you have to ask them to leave before and they refuse before a crime is commited.

I also said that an employee should have the right to fire an employee if they have forbidden firearms in the workplace..for what ever reason.  But I still don't think not complying with that wish is a crime.  Coke can fire employees for bringing Pepsi to work if they wish...but that should not be a crime.

I do not think an employer should be able to forbid employees from keeping a firearm in their locked vehicle.  That would be denying them there right to bear at least to and from work.  At least the firearm would not be a danger to metal sensitive areas with cars all around.

How do folks prevent workers from bringing a 12lb keyring into a metal sensitive area?
 


No where in the us cons does it say CCW is a right nor does it say its not... that does not mean its by defualt a right.  That means for something to be determend rather or not its a right. 

Saying CCW is not a right because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution is like saying carrying in a shoulder holster, belt holster or openly any place but in your hands is also not a right. 


 Since you don't like my argument about GC... you replace it with something you deam simlar... see if it still passes the sniff test.

Actually I don't think this law should be necessary because I don't think there should be a restriction on how you bear arms, but since there is, this law becomes necessary.

To find an example I like will require finding a similar situation..or making one up...let me postpone this until I can find something other than the Driver License issue we have already discussed.

I don't know how many times I must say this.. what you or I beleave what the 2a means does not matter.  What matters is what the SCOTUS thinks it mean.   Now if we don't agree with what they think it means, we are well with in our rights to amend the USCONS to change it.  Thats the great part about the USCONS, is the people can change it.

I see Big Saucy has answered this portion as I was thinking ...and I'll go with his answer

BTW in the 4 states I have CL in... it does not matter if your doing something for free or not, they are all based on a dallor ammount of combined materail and labor.  So if the materail cost is over that limit, you would be illegal.    You are allowed to help them, but you can't just do it for them.( in fact in 2, even offering is a crime.)  I know dumb law and its rarly enforced, but still does not make it any less of a law.

I am assuming that the laws you mentioned apply to you as a CL holder and would not apply to me as a non construction industry worker?

[Solus]

I just recalled that what we think the 2a means, or what any law means for that matter, is more important and powerful than we usually know.

Look into discussions on the Fully Informed Jury movement and Jury Nulification.

Info can be found here http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/juries.htm

and here http://www.fija.org/

Basically, if Jurors feel a law is wrong or that it has been applied wrong in a particular case, they can vote to acquit based on that alone. 

You might spend time in jail (contempt of court) for telling other jurists about this. 

[Roy Hill]

Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right. 

This was posted only two days before the Heller decision.

Neville Chamberlain? Paging Neville Chamberlain.....Mr. Chamberlain, are you there?

[Ruger-55]

Well here i go again . here in minnesota the state says you can carry openly, but it is the local pd that do not allow this . Idon't understand I thought the state had jurisdiction the local law but I was wrong acording to a local chief witch used to be a friend. I  called the state police here to verify and they said the same. so my question is WHATS UP WITH THAT ?

[tombogan03884]

Well here i go again . here in minnesota the state says you can carry openly, but it is the local pd that do not allow this . Idon't understand I thought the state had jurisdiction the local law but I was wrong acording to a local chief witch used to be a friend. I  called the state police here to verify and they said the same. so my question is WHATS UP WITH THAT ?

Thats what these "Preemption laws" are about Without them the the State will enforce thier law, but towns and Counties are free to enact and enforce stricter laws. With preemption the State says We make the laws on this subject, as in the cases of San Francisco and Philidelphia gun laws that violate the States preemption laws.