Gun Permits

[chikusho]

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.

As with many laws, it's interpretation has changed over the years, but I find it interesting that every other place the Constitution refers to 'The People', it means...well...The People. Why it should be any different here, I have no idea.

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.

That has been the official stance in all legal instances until 2008.
That is, that states are free to prohibit the sale and use of firearms for private citizens.

Also, who are "the people" exactly?

Finally, sure, interpretation change over the years which is all well and good. Yet, the same people who inspired the change are the ones currently using the infallibility of the constitution as a rallying cry against regulation.

 

[Shadowstar38]

You mean shoot them in the leg or pretty much anywhere?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter.

Never aim for the limbs. Always go for the biggest, most stable target (center of mass).

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

I'm pretty sure murder is a worse crime than theft. Morally.

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I've lived around most of the Eastern United States. My brother does own a gun that is powerful enough it can no longer be considered a toy (can kill small animals), but it's hardly a real weapon at all.

With that said, I've never owned an actual firearm. Granted, where I am now, it wouldn't do me much good, as I'm not even allowed to have them where I live right now. I've thought about getting a concealed carry permit for self-defense (this is after I leave where I currently am), and that is very likely if I live in a higher crime-risk area. Personally, though, I don't see the point in owning a firearm for purely recreational (outside hunting) or collection purposes. I'll target practice with a gun I'm using for self-defense just to make sure I'm able to use it if I ever need to. However, getting weapons just because you enjoy shooting them or appreciating them seems a little scary to me and somewhat calloused towards those who have been killed or know someone who's been killed by them.

 

[Burnsidhe]

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.

That has been the official stance in all legal instances until 2008.
That is, that states are free to prohibit the sale and use of firearms for private citizens.

Also, who are "the people" exactly?

Finally, sure, interpretation change over the years which is all well and good. Yet, the same people who inspired the change are the ones currently using the infallibility of the constitution as a rallying cry against regulation.

It has not been the official stance. In addition, when you diagram the sentence, you quickly figure out that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause. It is not a sentence and does not stand on its own.

On the other hand, "The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is very clearly an independent clause, a whole sentence on its own.

As for "The People", this is the people who lawfully reside in the United States of America. It's the same "The People" who have the right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship, the right to express themselves freely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial, etc.

The definition does not change from amendment to amendment. Where "The People" appears in the Constitution and the Amendments thereunto, it always refers to the individuals lawfully residing in the United States of America.

 

[Raikas]

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

I think this is a good example of that cultural difference that makes the whole gun thing seem so alien to a lot of non-Americans.

It's a way of looking at it that I have a hard time getting my head around, and yet it seems to be such a common way of looking at it - I have cousins in the US who say the same thing, but it's just baffling to me (and I hunt, so I'm not even at the extreme that a lot of other people are with the issue).

 

[senordesol]

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.

That has been the official stance in all legal instances until 2008.
That is, that states are free to prohibit the sale and use of firearms for private citizens.

Also, who are "the people" exactly?

Finally, sure, interpretation change over the years which is all well and good. Yet, the same people who inspired the change are the ones currently using the infallibility of the constitution as a rallying cry against regulation.

It has not been the official stance. In addition, when you diagram the sentence, you quickly figure out that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause. It is not a sentence and does not stand on its own.

On the other hand, "The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is very clearly an independent clause, a whole sentence on its own.

As for "The People", this is the people who lawfully reside in the United States of America. It's the same "The People" who have the right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship, the right to express themselves freely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial, etc.

The definition does not change from amendment to amendment. Where "The People" appears in the Constitution and the Amendments thereunto, it always refers to the individuals lawfully residing in the United States of America.

Yeah, this^

Also, I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the Constitution is infallible (not seriously), but a great damn many would argue that the Constitution was designed (particularly the Bill of Rights) to protect We The People from lawless government (foreign and domestic). And that chipping away at the rights designed to do so, may compromise the entire structure.

The idea behind the 2nd Amendment was to ensure when America was attacked, it would not just be the guns of the military the enemy would have to answer to, but the guns of The People (thus the inclusion of the phrase) as well.

 

[senordesol]

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

I think this is a good example of that cultural difference that makes the whole gun thing seem so alien to a lot of non-Americans.

It's a way of looking at it that I have a hard time getting my head around, and yet it seems to be such a common way of looking at it - I have cousins in the US who say the same thing, but it's just baffling to me (and I hunt, so I'm not even at the extreme that a lot of other people are with the issue).

Why does it flummox you so?

 

[Raikas]

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

I think this is a good example of that cultural difference that makes the whole gun thing seem so alien to a lot of non-Americans.

It's a way of looking at it that I have a hard time getting my head around, and yet it seems to be such a common way of looking at it - I have cousins in the US who say the same thing, but it's just baffling to me (and I hunt, so I'm not even at the extreme that a lot of other people are with the issue).

Why does it flummox you so?

Because the idea of killing someone (and moreover someone who may not have intended to do me harm), and having a clear conscience afterwards is so outside of my experience that it might as well be expressed in another language. I've heard plenty of people try to explain it, but it simply never makes sense to me.

 

[Mad World]

In Canada, you can own a gun, but you can't walk around with it in a holster (like in some states).

Unfortunately, where I live (Canada), self-defence is frowned upon by the police:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/

If you ask me, that's ridiculous and unacceptable.

 

[senordesol]

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

I think this is a good example of that cultural difference that makes the whole gun thing seem so alien to a lot of non-Americans.

It's a way of looking at it that I have a hard time getting my head around, and yet it seems to be such a common way of looking at it - I have cousins in the US who say the same thing, but it's just baffling to me (and I hunt, so I'm not even at the extreme that a lot of other people are with the issue).

Why does it flummox you so?

Because the idea of killing someone (and moreover someone who may not have intended to do me harm), and having a clear conscience afterwards is so outside of my experience that it might as well be expressed in another language. I've heard plenty of people try to explain it, but it simply never makes sense to me.

Well, I'll take a crack at explaining it, if you don't mind.

When you assail another person, in the American mindset, you *do* intend them harm -even if not physical harm. What you are harming is their personal freedom and security. We believe that a person has not just the expectation, but the RIGHT to be about his law abiding day unmolested. So when someone assails him, it's not about the cash in his pocket but his ability to be free from criminal tyranny.

As an assailant, you are effectively saying "I don't care about you, I don't care how hard you worked, I don't care what you need the money for; I'm going to strip you of your rights as a person and take from you whatever pleases me."

Now the assailed has two choices here: Either capitulate, become a passive victim, and offer his assailant further opportunity to do the same to someone else. Or fight back, secure his rights, and keep his assailant from running loose on his fellow decent, law abiding, kin.

Now, what are your questions?

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I know more and more that the reason I want a concealed permit is that under the slim possibility that one of gun massacres that happens almost everyday in America I'm there and I could maybe stop it. For every phyco that has a gun I'd like to think there could be 10 that aren't and are thinking the same thing I am.

 

[lord.jeff]

I'm currently in the process of getting my conceal and carry permit (only one in my state that allows me to have a handgun). The reason I want a gun is for recreational purpose and self defense. The fact of the matter is, is if I wanted a gun for non legal purposes I could have one in a few hours. It's not hard to find illegal guns, just go to a city and find a crummy part and ask around.
I keep saying this time and time again, it's very rare that the legal gun owner of most gun violence is the one committing the crimes. Almost all school shootings are done by people who legally should have had no way of obtaining the guns (be it family that did not have a secure way of storing the guns or other means).
At the end of the day all I'm saying is when push comes to shove I don't want to be on the wrong end of the barrel.

Sense you don't have a gun yet, do you carry any other form of self defense now?

 

[Raikas]

Well, I'll take a crack at explaining it, if you don't mind.

When you assail another person, in the American mindset, you *do* intend them harm -even if not physical harm. What you are harming is their personal freedom and security. We believe that a person has not just the expectation, but the RIGHT to be about his law abiding day unmolested. So when someone assails him, it's not about the cash in his pocket but his ability to be free from criminal tyranny.

As an assailant, you are effectively saying "I don't care about you, I don't care how hard you worked, I don't care what you need the money for; I'm going to strip you of your rights as a person and take from you whatever pleases me."

Now the assailed has two choices here: Either capitulate, become a passive victim, and offer his assailant further opportunity to do the same to someone else. Or fight back, secure his rights, and keep his assailant from running loose on his fellow decent, law abiding, kin.

Now, what are your questions?

No questions. Like I said, I've heard that reasoning before, but the equivalency of money with life is just totally alien to me. I'm happy to chalk it up to a cultural difference, because there's nothing else that makes sense to me about it.

And fair enough - It just is what it is. *shrug*

 

[spartan231490]

So, as a white, middle class, young male, who lives in an area of England that likes to think it's more posh than the queen at a formal banquet, I can safely say I know almost nothing nothing about firearms, what little knowledge I do have comes from an assortment of Games, Comic books, Films, And my Dad, who was a Royal Marine (Yeah he's the biggest BAMF I know ^^). Recently I was reading about concealed weapon permits, and special permits for big weapons, and stuff like that, I also know someone who designed a website for some gun shop in America a few years ago, and as well as payment, they gave him a gun permit along with the payment as a thank you.

My point is, why buy a gun, I'm interested, not judging, I get that some people use firearms to hunt (they do that here in fact) but why for instance, get yourself a concealed weapon permit?

In short, do you own a weapon for reasons other than hunting, if so, what is it and why?

(Also is a Concealed weapon permit, the same as a normal permit? like if I buy a hand gun but not a concealed weapon permit, do I have to constantly wave that gun around like "Hey guys, just to let you know here is my weapon!")

There are many reasons, the most commonly sited reason for buying a gun is self-defense, but there are also a lot of people who buy them just to shoot them for fun or in competitions. As to your last question, yes a concealed carry permit can different than a regular pistol permit, it depends on the place. Here in NY state, you need a permit to even buy a handgun. The permit used is a concealed carry permit, however NY state doesn't like concealed carry so almost all licences issued have an addendum that you can only concealed carry during the pursuit of sporting activities. On the other hand, in Vermont, for example, there is no permit necessary to buy or to carry concealed. In most states, the law is typically that you can buy a pistol without a permit, but you need another to carry it either concealed or open, though some allow one or the other or both without a permit.

This can be misleading though, because so far as I know, it is legal to open carry any weapon you can legally own during sporting activities without a permit no matter what state you live in(though I could be wrong on that). Even in NY state, where open carry is totally illegal, it is legal to open carry when hunting or hiking or trapping or that sort of thing. Typically, you only need a carry licence(either concealed or open, depending on the state) in order to carry your weapon when out and about in public, going out for coffee or when at work or something of that nature. In that situation, if concealed carry is allowed only with a permit and you don't have the permit, or if isn't allowed at all, then yes in order to carry you have to carry the weapon in plane site, however this usually doesn't mean waving the gun around, but rather carrying it strapped in a holster. Waving it around is generally frowned upon or illegal, depending on the context.

I hope that answered your questions, if not feel free to pm me, I know quite a bit about firearm law and what I don't know I know how to find.

 

[senordesol]

Well, I'll take a crack at explaining it, if you don't mind.

When you assail another person, in the American mindset, you *do* intend them harm -even if not physical harm. What you are harming is their personal freedom and security. We believe that a person has not just the expectation, but the RIGHT to be about his law abiding day unmolested. So when someone assails him, it's not about the cash in his pocket but his ability to be free from criminal tyranny.

As an assailant, you are effectively saying "I don't care about you, I don't care how hard you worked, I don't care what you need the money for; I'm going to strip you of your rights as a person and take from you whatever pleases me."

Now the assailed has two choices here: Either capitulate, become a passive victim, and offer his assailant further opportunity to do the same to someone else. Or fight back, secure his rights, and keep his assailant from running loose on his fellow decent, law abiding, kin.

Now, what are your questions?

No questions. Like I said, I've heard that reasoning before, but the equivalency of money with life is just totally alien to me. I'm happy to chalk it up to a cultural difference, because there's nothing else that makes sense to me about it.

And fair enough - It just is what it is. *shrug*

Before you resign the point, let me reiterate: It's not about the money. The money doesn't matter.

 

[Raikas]

Before you resign the point, let me reiterate: It's not about the money. The money doesn't matter.

Well, in that case I have even less understanding of why this: "I don't care about you, I don't care how hard you worked, I don't care what you need the money for; I'm going to strip you of your rights as a person and take from you whatever pleases me." means a person needs to die.

 

[senordesol]

Before you resign the point, let me reiterate: It's not about the money. The money doesn't matter.

Well, in that case I have even less understanding of why this: "I don't care about you, I don't care how hard you worked, I don't care what you need the money for; I'm going to strip you of your rights as a person and take from you whatever pleases me." means a person needs to die.

Again, it's the simple fact that they are criminally accosting you. It doesn't matter over what; it could be your money, your car, sex, or your life.

You, as an individual, have a right to protect yourself and all that you own from criminal behavior -be it a Porsche or a penny. Your assailant has NO RIGHT whatsoever to take from you a single thing regardless of its value.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Before you resign the point, let me reiterate: It's not about the money. The money doesn't matter.

Well, in that case I have even less understanding of why this: "I don't care about you, I don't care how hard you worked, I don't care what you need the money for; I'm going to strip you of your rights as a person and take from you whatever pleases me." means a person needs to die.

They don't need to die. If possible, I'll point the gun at them ask they wait politely for the cops to come. If the situation gets any more risky( he has his own gun or he's making sudden movements), I'm shooting to stop him, not to kill.

 

[Raikas]

Again, it's the simple fact that they are criminally accosting you. It doesn't matter over what; it could be your money, your car, sex, or your life.

You, as an individual, have a right to protect yourself and all that you own from criminal behavior -be it a Porsche or a penny. Your assailant has NO RIGHT whatsoever to take from you a single thing regardless of its value.

Yeah, see there's no way I'm ever going to understand a POV that's has zero allowances for degree. Lethal force over a penny (or a Porsche) is madness in my world. If your life is threatened? Yeah, I'm there. But when it comes to things, I'm just not there - stuff is not worth a life to me. Your worldview is different, and fair enough - but worldview=culture, and I'm just not coming from the same place.

 

[spartan231490]

I don't think there's any point in arguing with you as it's hard to tell if you're trolling or not. Militias often are not formed until they are needed, therefore we have the right to bear arms so that we may form an effective militia quickly when the time comes. We are constitutionally able to own firearms, get over it. Thriving on fear? Tell that to the many families who have protected themselves from home invasions and the like. There is fear, but guess what, I'd rather be alive at the end of the day so I'll carry a gun at all times whenever possible.

It's hard to know if we're talking about the same thing or not. The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia. The first clause trumps the second clause, according the Supreme Court, ergo:

this is patently false. DC vs Heller the supreme court clearly ruled that 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms. The first clause is not a restrictive clause, merely an introductory statement. If it were restrictive, it would state that the right of the militia to have and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every single other place that "the people" is used in the constitution or the amendments it refers to the citizens of the US.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

And that has been the legal stance until 2008

You're taking things out of context. The above line is from U.S. v. Cruikshank(1876) and they said the same about the 1st amendment. They continued on to explain that statement by saying that these rights existed long before the constitution, they are not granted by the amendments, merely protected. The supreme court has regularly confirmed that the 2nd amendment preserves an individual right. Also, the supreme court confirmed in Presser v. People of Illinois (1886) that all citizens capable of bearing arms are members of the (reserve)militia.

when NRA lobbying finally changed public perception enough for a court to uphold the second clause above the first, and literally changed the constitution.

DC vs Heller did not change the interpretation of the second amendment but it's scope in application. The only thing DC vs Heller did was extend the protection of the second amendment to restrict state laws in addition to federal.

To me, it sounds like you have your own personal interpretation of second amendment, so I don't know if there's any point in arguing.

Protected themselves? Tell that to the many families who killed themselves or each other, lost a family member, friend or child in gun related accidents "and the like".

There is fear, but guess what, the last thing two fearful people need are lethal weapons. Because that can quickly turn to two dead people.

What about the millions of people each year who defend themselves with guns, you people never mention them: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html