Oklahoma CCW Law, really legal? Thoughts?

[MeMoe]

O.k. Finally a place to ask my fellow Americans and Gun Owners what they think about this opinion.
The Oklahoma Conceal Carry Law as it is written, and I have read it, to me is another illegal Law. I don't want to over simplify this, but the Constitution of the United States says we the people have the RIGHT to Keep and Bare arms. Any "Law" that restricts that Right is Un-Constitutional and therefore
illegal. The Fore Fathers that wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights knew what they were doing. The Right is there so we the People can protect ourselfs from all enemies foreign and domestic. That includes a robber that enters our home, the thug on the street that wants to rob or harm us or a corrupt government. This being the United States of America, what is the glue that holds the States together in matters of law? The US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Why are States aloud to pass Laws that are in conflict with these documents? The Oklahoma CCW forces all who wish to exersize their Right, to Go to Classes that they may or may not need, it forces the individual to basicly Register him or her self with their local government with fingerprints and photograph for what cause? Tracking of whom will be having a firearm. The Criminals who carry Guns to cause harm sure arn't going to do all this, so what purpose does this have? It's been pointed out before that another Government did the same thing by starting to require all citizens to register their guns. And we all know how Germany and Hitler worked out!
The cost aspect of doing the things above are prohibitive for some, yet there is no aid or help for those who wish to carry a gun for protection. Does everyone need to go to classes for firearm safety? What about those persons whos parrents taught you how to safely handle a firearm.
To me it seems that almost every Law that is passed is more of a Knee-Jerk reaction to something or the other. The Okla. CCW is no exception to this. Some well meaning person wants you and I to be able to do what the Constitution and Bill of Rights already says we can so they write another Law that does that, but also restricts others from the right to carry at the same time. I'm not talking about convicted Fellons walking the streets with Guns, sorry to say thousands are, just Husbands wanting to protect their Wives and Children, Women protecting themselfs and their familys, Buisness Persons protecting what they have worked so hard for. Singles walking the streets, not feeling totally vulnerable. How about Americans protecting ourselfs from some other country? What are we to do? Police are just not the answer for the types of protection the individual needs when some one pops out of a side street and demands your money or they will kill you or harm your family.
There MUST be a better way! Free classes, for those who need or want to take them. Remove all requirements of personally registering yourself with the local government, that means NO reporting to the Government in any way, not with codes, no card to carry ect... The Laws are already there if someone shoots and harms improperly, why don't we just use them? There needs to be a National overhaul of the way we Citizens of this fine Country are aloud to have the Freedoms we are all given. No one State may say, you can't have all your Rights here. There needs to be a level playing field in all the States. And we can't afford to sit by and watch our Rights be erroded one by one in a slow numbing way, until one day we have none. Sure there will be un-needed shootings. There are today. We don't live in a perfect world. But wouldn't you think that robber would think twice if Every Person walking the streets was potentionaly packing? Would 911 have happened had people on those Airplanes had the possibility of protecting themselfs and stopping the Hijackings? Wouldn't the 97LB Granny be the equal of a 210LB robber. Of course not Everyone should carry. But those who wish to that now are prevented by the LAW should be aloud to exersize there Right to carry without fear of undue prosecution.

Now that I have bloviated for so long, what do you think?
Is there a better way?
Are our Rights being infringed, taken away?
Is the Oklahoma CCW in conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Is this form of tracking, a first step in looseing Guns alltogether?
I'd like to hear all comments both pro and con. Please be constructive.
Thank you.

[J.P.]

Yes,our rights are being infringed.
Most gun laws conflict with the BOR.

Tracking in order to confiscate?
No.....that's a stretch,IMO.


Guys/gals,
Please be very careful with this discussion.

[liliysdad]

Counterpoint.

I am of th eopinion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written to outline and numerate the boundaries of the FEDERAL Government. The Founding Fathers wanted to instill as much power to the individual states as possible, while still maintaining a like purpose.

Some would argue that as long as the states do not render legislation that is less restrictive than that of the federal government, the original purpose has been met.

Furthermore, show me where in the Second Ammendment where it shows you that you can carry a gun on or about your person? In your car(riage)? Show me where it gives you the right to hunt, or shoot paper? From what I can see, the original intent of the Second was for but one reason...to guard against political and social tyranny.



















:kiss: Please note that I do not endorse not disagree with anything I just posted. I feel it it simportant that the devils advocate be layed for a constructive argument. Otherwise, it would be nothing but tin foil and chest thumping.

[MeMoe]

Thanks Liliysdad for your thoughts.
I've heard those things a thousand times before.
I respond by saying, show me where in the B.O.R. it says you Can't carry a gun to protect yourself. It does not. Is sitting in your house the only place where crime happens? If we are free, and able to own firearms, then why are there laws that prevent us from doing just that? The Right to keep and Bear arms is just that, we have the right to have, possess firearms and Bear them which if you look the word Bear up it also means Carry. The B.O.R. and Constitution was written in a time where people didn't try to slur or change the meaning of words to suit their means, and it's not subject to "interpretation", it says what it says.

The states Are issueing laws that are more restrictive than the Federal laws, that's the issue with this and other laws on the books.

And yes you are correct that the B.O.R. is written to to guard against political and social tyranny. But how can a citizen do this if it's not "legal" for them to walk off their property with their firearm? When the Government comes knocking, it's far too late.

I see your side of the issue, I just can't agree with it. Some may think I'm paranoid or over blowing the issue, but I just see one law at a time we the people are loosing the rights and freedoms that founded this great Country and made it the Nation it is.
Thanks

[J.P.]

show me where in the Second Ammendment where it shows you that you can carry a gun on or about your person?.

BEAR arms.

[SMS]

pardon me for splitting hairs, but isn't it odd to proclaim a law is illegal ?

Perhaps you mean it is unconstitutional ?

[dogbear]

I have heard that registration equals confiscation.I don't think that was the original intent when we filled out our CCW forms.It was mainly to make sure we weren't felons.But if they do decide to confiscate,it won't be too hard to find us.Kind of a double edged sword.

[skyydiver]

BEAR arms.

+1, I was wondering if the question was really that easy. I guess if one was dyslexic we might find a heavily armed grizzly in someone's yard though. Say a funny t-shirt like that once.

[okgr8outdrs]

I have never heard anyone explain the "well regulated" part of the second ammendment....

I agree that the cost can be prohibitive to some. I had compiled a spreadsheet of state requirements and fees for every state that has CCW with the intent of presenting it to the state rep from my district and asking for lower fees. Turns out OK is about average in cost rather than at the upper end as I had supposed.

I don't mind being subject to investigation...I have nothing to hide. I don't mind having my fingerprints on file...I never intend to commit a crime, so they should never be needed for comparison.

I do believe in keeping the guns out of the hands of felons. I am not sure, but I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that denies felons their second ammendment right...but federal law does. If there is, I don't mind admitting I was wrong. I personally would have no problem if ALL firearm transfers had to be performed by FFL's doing NICS checks. This would go a looooooooooooong way in keeping guns out of the hands of those who have no business owning them.

[liliysdad]

If you will actually read my post, all of it, you will see that i do not necessarily agree with what was posted, but was playing devil's advocate.

Perosnally, I am a proponent of licenseless carry. Criminals dont need licenses, why should those who choose to obey the law do so?


By the way, in the vernacular of late 18th century America, "well regulated" meant well equipped and trained, but that meaning has since lost its way.

[MeMoe]

Great discussion folks. Just the things I was looking for. As to the Fingerprinting and Photo requirements, why cant they do a NICs check, to see if your a felon, isn't that enough? See there are ways to do the things that the CCW Law wants, we just are doing them the wrong way. Gun transfers between individuals could be done by licensed transfer agents that are made much the way a Notery Public is made, and used for Auto transfers. The keeping of perment records of "legal" gun posessing citizens isn't required by the Constitution or B.O.R.s I don't object to having to do some kind of proficency check to see if you can handle a firearm safely and hit the broad side of a barn either, but I do object to having to pay for a Manditory class. If you are a danger or in need of training you can Then be refered to a Training class at your expense.
This is great...

[J.P.]

but I do object to having to pay for a Manditory class. If you are a danger or in need of training you can Then be refered to a Training class at your expense.
..
Me too.....I also object to a poll tax.

Having said that,there are a lot of people that shouldn't vote. ;)

[YukonGlocker]

... I personally would have no problem if ALL firearm transfers had to be performed by FFL's doing NICS checks. This would go a looooooooooooong way in keeping guns out of the hands of those who have no business owning them.


Yes, the criminals would abide by this law, just like they abide by the laws we already have. Even if we law abiding citizens went through a FFL for every gun transfer, it would do nothing to stop felons from getting guns. They would either steal or purchase the guns illegally.

[okgr8outdrs]

Yes, the criminals would abide by this law, just like they abide by the laws we already have. Even if we law abiding citizens went through a FFL for every gun transfer, it would do nothing to stop felons from getting guns. They would either steal or purchase the guns illegally.

While I agree that it would do nothing to stop them, it would make it harder. Law abiding citizens like you and me would know that it is illegal to make a FTF sale without going through an FFL and would not be potentially selling to a felon, or a nonresident, or someone with psychological problems, drug dependencies or even too many DUI's. They would only be able to buy through other lawbreakers.

I don't think there will ever be a good solution.

Thanks for the explanation of well regulated.

[J.P.]

By the way, in the vernacular of late 18th century America, "well regulated" meant well equipped and trained, but that meaning has since lost its way.

Word.

Now it means "Well scrutinized and WELL taxed"
:madbox:

[Michael Brown]

I think the licensing requirements as they stand right now are just fine with a few things I would modify if I were king.

I do not interpret "bear" to mean carry concealed at your own discretion. We require that people have a driver's license, so a license to carry isn't unreasonable. I think the context of "bear" is specific to the ability to resist unlawful government tyranny WHEN ALL OTHER MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.

The roots of gun control, unfortunately, come from the southern states when blacks were shorn of their right to self-defense, so its a case of reeping what we sow. We are hypocritical if we wax philosophical about the constitution when it was our ancestors who caused the problem. Equally important is my opinion that if it weren't middle class whites that were concerned about these rights, most people wouldn't complain about this issue. If we're really going to be honest about this issue, we should confront this fact.

The only part I disagree with is the limitations on where you can carry and the fees. The license should be free and the limitations should be loosened.

Michael Brown

[skyydiver]

I agree with most of the above, but the records, like records of gun sales, should be destroyed upon approval. Of course there should be a NICS check. And that's about it. Free proficiency testing sounds reasnable, again with no records. I know, tinfoil hat, etc... Sidenote: Who here knew that Hillary Rodham was a "Goldwater Girl". It was news to me.

[swavy00]

Sorry Michael, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where our rights to transportation shall not be infringed. I don't think driving is a right, it is a privilege that to enjoy you have to pay for.

I also believe that the government has completely overstepped its bounds.

[J.P.]

I also believe that the government has completely overstepped its bounds.
In many areas...
DC,SF,IL....on and on...

[Michael Brown]

Sorry Michael, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where our rights to transportation shall not be infringed. I don't think driving is a right, it is a privilege that to enjoy you have to pay for.

I also believe that the government has completely overstepped its bounds.

Transportation is a necessity in the exercise of several rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Are you really going to suggest that if the government mandated house arrest for the population without some type of emergency you would believe it constitutional?

Yes, the government has overstepped it bounds on numerous occasions. That's why we have an election every four years.

Michael Brown

[swavy00]

No, I am saying that I will give up my car before I give up my guns. I can make it without a vehicle. I do not think my chances of survival are as good without a means to defend myself or my family.

No, I do not think house arrest even in an emergency is an option for me. There are some things I feel are worth fighting for, our constitutional rights are one of them. I do not feel the same about transportation. If they said tomorrow everyone was limited to 30 miles a week in their vehicles, that to me is not worth fighting for. If they told me to come hand in my guns then I would have to politely disagree. As I would if they said no more Church on Sunday's. Or they closed down the "free press".

I want to stress "POLITELY DISAGREE". I do not want anyone to think that this is in anyway an incitement to violence. I, for one would probably go on a hunger strike in front of the Capitol. :) That should get my point across!

[Buzzdraw]

You have to admit that the background check "hoop" does pretty much ensure that SDA licensees are squeeky clean legally and unlikely to cause a problem when out among their fellow citizens. I'm afraid if there were not "hoops", then the folks with significant negative history would be carrying, causing mayhem; sullying the name of all the honest citizens. Before we'd know it, the cry to abolish SDA would arrise. I believe that the right amount of government is the least possible, but reasonable regulation of gun toters is in the best intrest of all citizens. Excessive regulation or outright denying of the right is unconstitutional, IMO.

[liliysdad]

The right to free and unencumbered passage IS a right. However, it is widely debated whether or not driving a car is partof that right. I, for one, do not believe it is. There is no reason to presume that every person has a right to drive, however, every person does have the base right to walk from point A to pont B without intervention.

If the right to free passage is thought to include driving a car, would it not include flights on an airplane, or riding a train, if that is truly the most effective way to travel?

I think that the downfall of our civil liberties is due to this very thing, the demanded inclusion of each and every thing into what we call a right.

We arent satisified with the right to free passage, we want the right to drive. We arent satisfied with the right to free speech, we want the right to treason. We are not satisified with the right to a fair and speedy trial, we want unending appeals and motions, etc, etc.

The more "things" we try to encompass with a VERY plainly written and interpreted document, the Bill of Rights, the easier it is to tear those things down, leaving us with nothing.

[Michael Brown]

The right to free and unencumbered passage IS a right. However, it is widely debated whether or not driving a car is partof that right. I, for one, do not believe it is. There is no reason to presume that every person has a right to drive, however, every person does have the base right to walk from point A to pont B without intervention.

If the right to free passage is thought to include driving a car, would it not include flights on an airplane, or riding a train, if that is truly the most effective way to travel?

I think that the downfall of our civil liberties is due to this very thing, the demanded inclusion of each and every thing into what we call a right.

We arent satisified with the right to free passage, we want the right to drive. We arent satisfied with the right to free speech, we want the right to treason. We are not satisified with the right to a fair and speedy trial, we want unending appeals and motions, etc, etc.

The more "things" we try to encompass with a VERY plainly written and interpreted document, the Bill of Rights, the easier it is to tear those things down, leaving us with nothing.

Right on.

Michael Brown

[MeMoe]

More Great discussions.

Remember them good-ole days? The Wild West in America. Most Folks carried a Gun on their hip out west. Contrary to T.V. and Movies there wern't a bunch of shootings every day. Hollywood Hype that less knowledgeable folks fall for. People were more polite to one another, one reason, they were all equal. The old Peace Maker, on the hip, was just that. It helped keep the Peace.

As far as Carrying today goes. We don't walk where we are going for the most part today, we Drive. But Driveing to someplace also includes getting out of the car and walking into businesses, or to others property. The CCW of Oklahoma spells out where you may and may not take your Firearm into. I won't type it all here, but there is even now the still pending legal battle because some companies didn't want their employees having guns on their property, not even in their locked cars on the companies parking lot. To do this will and has had good "law abiding CCW licensed" folks Fired.

Soooo... What is the reasonable and proper way of handling this situation? Your "Legal" under the law to carry because you took your class, plunked your money down for that and got your picture taken for the Sherrif and gave the government your fingerprints like a good citizen trying to navigate through all the laws that do what the Bill Of Rights already does. Right?

Just like not every driver on the roads should be there, not everyone should be aloud to walk the streets with a gun. But with the CCW law or not, there will be folks out there packing a gun that should not. I dare say however, that there are still more people killed in cars in a day than shot in a month.

Well???

[J.P.]

You have to admit that the background check "hoop" does pretty much ensure that SDA licensees are squeeky clean....

Honestly....no.
It might show that they have no paper trail but thats all.

[J.P.]

Yes, the government has overstepped it bounds on numerous occasions. That's why we have an election every four years.


the problem is we keep electing the same person,election after election.

[J.P.]

If they told me to come hand in my guns then I would have to politely disagree. As I would if they said no more Church on Sunday's. Or they closed down the "free press".

I want to stress "POLITELY DISAGREE". I do not want anyone to think that this is in anyway an incitement to violence. I, for one would probably go on a hunger strike in front of the Capitol. :) That should get my point across!

I'm not sure a hunger strike is exactly what the framers had in mind,perhaps.
Doesn't matter though,the Framers are dead and you will be too.....of hunger :D

[Michael Brown]

the problem is we keep electing the same person,election after election.

Then its our own fault and we can't bitch.

I am heavy on the idea of self-determination. It is my primary rationale for the armed citizen.

Thus if we lose that right without fighting the fight at the polls and in the education process, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

I agree but I also think the deck is stacked against us.

[liliysdad]

You have to admit that the background check "hoop" does pretty much ensure that SDA licensees are squeeky clean....

No, it doesnt. It means that at the time of aplication you were not a felon. It meay mean your a good guy, or it might mean you havent got caught yet. It might even mean that you intend to carry a gun to commit your first crime. Remeber, every felon had a clean rap sheet at one time.

[chvylvr350]

Well it is quite simple really. "Bear" means "to carry." Bear has no restrictions placed on it, just that it shall not be infringed. Therefore any carry would be allowed by the word of the law.

The Second Amendment applies to the people. States are bound by the Consitution, if not from the beginning, at least ever since the 14th Amentment was added.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So yes any restrictions on carry or method thereof are unconstitutional. Quite frankly all politicians should learn to read and comprehend (especially the "law of the land") before being able to write and pass laws.

[J.P.]

But what about the children?

[chvylvr350]

But what about the children?

If their parents or guardians are well and freely armed, they should be okay.

[Flyboy]

You have to admit that the background check "hoop" does pretty much ensure that SDA licensees are squeeky clean legally and unlikely to cause a problem when out among their fellow citizens. I'm afraid if there were not "hoops", then the folks with significant negative history would be carrying, causing mayhem; sullying the name of all the honest citizens. Before we'd know it, the cry to abolish SDA would arrise.
Amen! I can't tell you the number of cases of people with "significant negative history" carrying and causing mayhem in Alaska and Vermont; I, for one, am tired of having my name sullied by those dirtbags.

Oh, er, what?

[skyydiver]

No, it doesnt. It means that at the time of aplication you were not a felon. It meay mean your a good guy, or it might mean you havent got caught yet. It might even mean that you intend to carry a gun to commit your first crime. Remeber, every felon had a clean rap sheet at one time.

I know as a LEO you deal with the dregs, but the glass CAN be half full. Even more sometimes. I know I didn't plunk $200 plus to legally carry a gun into a liquor store and get 10 years trying to score my $200 back. Come on.

[swavy00]

:twocents: I had never thought about the right to unencumbered travel, that is true, I still don't know if the right to driving a car exists.

I can go on hunger strike for a long time and not starve to death! I am going to go at least an hour tonight without eating just to practice!

I agree with Michael - again. We have noone to blame but ourselves. We can gripe and complain and wish and type all we want on here about how we think politicians are screwing us but we haven't done much about it. If we each got 2 people involved in shooting sports and self defense, then they got 2, etc. In a few years we would be writing our own legislation. Instead we turn a deaf ear and blind eye and let the minority gunphobes write the rules. I am not talking about sending your money to the NRA every year. I am talking about being physically active. Read Fred's article in Shotgun News every now and then, you will know what I am talking about. I am as guilty as the next guy, but I think we better start thinking about it before President Clinton the 2nd is elected. Things can get harder for us in the blink of an eye.

[MeMoe]

First AMEN ! to chvylvr350... 100% Right on! Well that's what I think.

My point exactly.

I am involved as much as I can be. My family has been taught what their rights are and aren't. I involve myself ( although to passively ) in promoting the peoples rights and educating those I come in contact with that their Rights are in my opinion already being violated, and what we should do to correct this.

Making sure we Elect officials that DO understand that our rights ARE being violated, and teaching Everyone we can that liberty in America is not always a easy thing to get or hold on to is something we who think this way must do.

Educating some people is almost impossible though. They don't want to hear, or learn, they just think of themselfs.

but I think we better start thinking about it before President Clinton the 2nd is elected. Things can get harder for us in the blink of an eye.

I pray for all our sakes that this never happens!

[J.P.]

I pray for all our sakes that this never happens!

Prepare for it now,I say....


What probably needs to happen is a march on Washington in the form of a peaceful demonstration Million Mom March style.
I'm not saying things would change but it would let our voices be heard.

[YukonGlocker]

What probably needs to happen is a march on Washington in the form of a peaceful demonstration Million Mom March style.
I'm not saying things would change but it would let our voices be heard.


That would be great!!! Just imagine millions of gun owners showing up at Washington. That would make a statement.

[Chuck S]

Assuming that the SDA law is legal and all (which I disagree with) why are we trusted to carry in some places and not in others? Does the government think that I may get so angry in city hall about taxes, fees, insert your own idea here, that I may just go nuts and start shooting people? Come on! Cant be trusted to carry in a bank either? Think that the temptation may be too great? Does the government really think that I'm that ignorant? Maybe they would like to hold my hand as I cross the street too. Cant drive 30 minutes to Texas and buy a handgun, but can buy all the rifles and shotguns that you want. Where's the sense in that? Sometimes it seems that our Government thinks that we couldnt find our own behinds with both hands without its guidance.

[liliysdad]

The fact is, if the SDA staute did not spell out where you can and cannot carry, the banks and such would prohibit it anyway. It is far easier to make a blanket ruling, than to piecemal it together.

Furthemore, by making certain places, such as banks, government building, schools, etc, off limits, a lot more support was gleaned for the bill. In my opinion, had these places NOT been specifically named as a no-go, the bill never would have left commitee. The two biggest lobbies in the stare, the Teachers and the Bankers, would have shot it down in an instant.

It is far better to get a little of what you want by concession, than none of it by bull headedness. While I feel that it is a sad stateof affairs that makes such give and take necessary, it is the way of the world. If we had not at least gotten the minimal SDA bill enacted, we would never proceed forward as we have. The age has been lowered, concealed wepons in vehicles on company property, carrying in a vehicle without a license is simply a ticketable offense instead of a arrestable crime, etc. Baby steps.....

[MeMoe]

What probably needs to happen is a march on Washington in the form of a peaceful demonstration Million Mom March style.
I'm not saying things would change but it would let our voices be heard.

Oh, no. We don't want to do that. The liberal anti-gunners and media would twist things around to make the world think the peaceful demonstration was a band of armed, disaffected, red necked gun nuts heck bent on a government coo-da-ta, and call out the Imperal Guard to "passify" the mob.

[Ken Martin]

The Second Amendment applies to the people. States are bound by the Consitution, if not from the beginning, at least ever since the 14th Amentment was added.



Absolutely! The tenth Amendment takes care of that.

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 10th Amendment means: If the Constitution doesn't specifically give a certain power to the federal government, then the federal government does not have that power. The states and the people have all powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government, except for those powers the Constitution takes away from the states.

[dogbear]

Hillary is very anti-gun.There is a good chance she will win in 2008.I don't mind a woman being president,(just not that woman).I have always voted rebublican,because at least they are for the most part pro gun.Most of the democratic controlled states are less than gun friendly.If a vote like the one they had in San Francisco would happen in Oklahoma there is no way it would pass.Not sure what we need to do but someone better think of something before Hillary gets in office.

[Flyboy]

I'm still waiting for somebody to cite the portion of the law that makes banks off-limits. That wasn't covered in my class, and I haven't seen it since then. Somebody want to fill me in?

[Buzzdraw]

Banks are not specfically off limits. No OK state nor Federal statute states that lawful carry is banned inside banks. Individual banks may choose to ban, under the business owner rights section of OK law. In that case, the charge is simple trespass, if one is stupid enough to get caught. One of my cohorts is a director for a large credit union. The situation is the same for them, they may ban only under the business owner rights section, thus trespass.

[Chuck S]

Speaking of banks, I was going into Liberty National in Elgin to get some weekend money(legally from my account of course!) and noticed that they are posted "no concealed weapons". I'm going to have to discuss this with them and may end up moving my buisness to another bank. I'd just like to know why, and what do they think it accomplishes? Of course the robbers will see the sign and turn around and hit a bank that isnt posted. :nolike:

[Michael Brown]

I agree but I also think the deck is stacked against us.

We're right and they're wrong.

The deck is stacked against them.

The deck was stacked against a great many patriots in the past and we're still here.

Michael Brown

[GMThunder]

<---- Resident "genetic dissenter" as I am labeled by management.... dissents the government not observing our 2nd amendment rights. :)

Hillary is very anti-gun.There is a good chance she will win in 2008.

Everytime I look at this logically I don't see it. The Democrats are desperate and I don't think they'll be taking too many chances in 2008. Hillary is a chance.

[J.P.]

We're right and they're wrong.

The deck is stacked against them.

The deck was stacked against a great many patriots in the past and we're still here.

Michael Brown

Deck stacked against them?
We are obvioulsy not on the same page here.

Yes we are right but I still feel the deck is stacked against us with the current system.
Look at the last four elections.


Patriots used to have a way of dealing with an overbearing government.....they demonstrated....for as long as it took to get the job done.Sadly,those days are gone and even if todays patriots actually had the guts to demonstrate,the government would just quash them as they see fit.



Our great system of government in this country is disease ridden and needs a strong anti-biotic.

I think that's about all I can say on this issue without overstepping the forum rules.

[J.P.]

<---- Resident "genetic dissenter" as I am labeled by management.... dissents the government not observing our 2nd amendment rights. :)
----Everytime I look at this logically I don't see it. The Democrats are desperate and I don't think they'll be taking too many chances in 2008. Hillary is a chance.


That's not dissent,that's logic. :)

I'm not sure either party has a strong enough candidate to beat Hillary. :grumble:
I could be wrong. :anyone:

[AresV]

Banks are not specfically off limits. No OK state nor Federal statute states that lawful carry is banned inside banks. Individual banks may choose to ban, under the business owner rights section of OK law. In that case, the charge is simple trespass, if one is stupid enough to get caught. One of my cohorts is a director for a large credit union. The situation is the same for them, they may ban only under the business owner rights section, thus trespass.

My take on the trespass issue in private businesses with signs stating "No Firearms" is this:

1. If your weapon is concealed, how will anyone know you have it on your person? They won't because it is concealed.

2. The only way your weapon should ever become unconcealed in public is if the need to use it arises - which means either you or someone nearby was the immediate target of a threat of deadly force and you draw your weapon with the intent to match their deadly force threat.

3. If you use your concealed weapon to defend your life or someone close to you in the face of a deadly force threat, isn't a trespass ticket a better option than a toe tag and a death cert for you or someone close to you?

[Michael Brown]

That's not dissent,that's logic. :)

I'm not sure either party has a strong enough candidate to beat Hillary. :grumble:
I could be wrong. :anyone:

I think Hillary looks like a viable candidate on paper but when people actually cast their votes, there will be a red-blue polarization again and the electoral college will favor the red again.

Michael Brown

[chvylvr350]

Deck stacked against them?
We are obvioulsy not on the same page here.

Yes we are right but I still feel the deck is stacked against us with the current system.
Look at the last four elections.


Patriots used to have a way of dealing with an overbearing government.....they demonstrated....for as long as it took to get the job done.Sadly,those days are gone and even if todays patriots actually had the guts to demonstrate,the government would just quash them as they see fit.



Our great system of government in this country is disease ridden and needs a strong anti-biotic.

I think that's about all I can say on this issue without overstepping the forum rules.

The two-party, red-blue, political system is destroying this country. Alot of people cast their vote for their party reguardless of how good the canidate is or not. Both the major parties have, and will, infringe our rights. It is only a matter of what rights, and alot of the times its the same rights.

Oklahoma has one of the toughest ballot access requirements in the country. We were in fact, the only state in the union that had only 2 options for our last presidential vote and we have no option for a write in.

The legislature need term limits or something. Those [insert bad name] sit up there years on end, passing law after law, and sooner or later have to run into the rights of the people. The intent in the Constitution was they meet "at least once a year" (Article I, Section 4), not most of the year.

[GMThunder]

That's not dissent,that's logic. :)


That's what I've said more than a few times. :wink2:

I think Hillary looks like a viable candidate on paper but when people actually cast their votes, there will be a red-blue polarization again and the electoral college will favor the red again.

+1

The two-party, red-blue, political system is destroying this country. Alot of people cast their vote for their party reguardless of how good the canidate is or not. Both the major parties have, and will, infringe our rights. It is only a matter of what rights, and alot of the times its the same rights.

Very well said.

[J.P.]

The two-party, red-blue, political system is destroying this country. Alot of people cast their vote for their party reguardless of how good the canidate is or not.

[sam kinnison]Ohhhh.Ohhhhhhh.
There's a Reason! [/sam kinnison]
Because otherwise they are throwing their vote away and effectively voting for the greater of the two evils.

Like I said,it's an infection that needs a cure.
If God gave the United States an enema,Washington D.C. is where he'd likely stick the nozzle.

Both the major parties have, and will, infringe our rights.

+ eleventy billion.

[Michael Brown]

I say run for office somewhere if you think its really that bad.

I personally disagree that its as bad as everyone here is making it out to be in the political system. I don't disagree that there are cancers to be weeded out but let's face the facts that if we don't have government, the weak will simply be dominated by the strong.

Such a system would certainly benefit some people :) but I think its morally wrong so I cannot possibly advocate it.

Plus there are some people here who believe they are really experts in many legal matters that they don't really understand and thus we would have problems if such people were allowed to run wild without checks.

I think a far bigger issue in our country is individual accountability and that DOES NOT start with politicians. It starts by looking in the mirror.

Michael Brown

[GMThunder]

I don't think that disagreeing with a polarization and blind voting within a political system means that someone wants to throw the entire government out the window. Or rather, I didn't gather that from other's posts and I'm surely not an advocate. And since I'm an advocate of always striving for improvement then a theory of "having something is better than nothing" isn't good enough for me.

I'm just asking for people research and learn as much about an issue and or candidate as they possibly can and not ride a party's bandwagon to any given election. Unfortunately, people tend to tie their ego to their choice of political party and that can inhibit logical and sound decision.

[swavy00]

I also am not in favor of throwing out the government. Your right again, the strong dominating the weak is not morally right. But neither is the government dominating the people. I could go into all kinds of abuses here, but won't get into imminent domain, welfare enabling, etc.

Personal responsibility is a VERY LARGE problem! Probably the main problem. Lawsuits, welfare, everyone claiming they are victims, etc. There are proper uses for all of these issues, but we have let them run rampant. Common sense is no longer common.

I would like to say again, I love this board! The discussions on here are great and engaging. Great job guys, and thanks for letting me be a part of this.

[J.P.]

I don't think that disagreeing with a polarization and blind voting within a political system means that someone wants to throw the entire government out the window. Or rather, I didn't gather that from other's posts and I'm surely not an advocate. And since I'm an advocate of always striving for improvement then a theory of "having something is better than nothing" isn't good enough for me.

I'm just asking for people research and learn as much about an issue and or candidate as they possibly can and not ride a party's bandwagon to any given election. Unfortunately, people tend to tie their ego to their choice of political party and that can inhibit logical and sound decision.

:thumb:

[J.P.]

Personal responsibility is a VERY LARGE problem! Probably the main problem. Lawsuits, welfare, everyone claiming they are victims, etc. There are proper uses for all of these issues, but we have let them run rampant. Common sense is no longer common.

And the politicians who enable them.
Look,you wag that tit far enough out there, and everyone that can reach it will come have a suck.
Enough is enough,I say!
We need stronger leadership,that's all.

:soapbox:



Anyway,back to the original discussion........

[MeMoe]

I'll help this get back on target.

O.k. Say I will be carring a lot of cash to go buy a Car or something from a unfamiliar place and person. Not that I walk the streets in fear, I just want to take along my gun for added protection. In Oklahoma If I get stopped and the Officer sees I have a gun on me, Oh Noooooo! It's grab the hood time. They have made my Constitutional right to bear arms a crime. Without going through the CCW classes and all the filing, I'll loose my gun, go for a ride downtown and be fined and or imprisoned.

Is this exactly fair or legal?

[Michael Brown]

I'll help this get back on target.

O.k. Say I will be carring a lot of cash to go buy a Car or something from a unfamiliar place and person. Not that I walk the streets in fear, I just want to take along my gun for added protection. In Oklahoma If I get stopped and the Officer sees I have a gun on me, Oh Noooooo! It's grab the hood time. They have made my Constitutional right to bear arms a crime. Without going through the CCW classes and all the filing, I'll loose my gun, go for a ride downtown and be fined and or imprisoned.

Is this exactly fair or legal?

Fair and legal.

Get a permit like any other law-abiding citizen.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "bear" over a dozen different ways. We cannot simply take the definition we like and they say the government is overstepping its bounds by requiring permits to carry concealed.

I believe the government overstepped its bounds for years by not having shall-issue permits and some states continue to do so.

The Bill of Rights has constraints in several amendments, not just the 2nd. They are not absolutes in a vacuum. Let's not forget that if we really want to interpret such a document as it was intended, it was only for white males.

The issues are fluid and the genius of the document is its fluidity to preserve rights and order in balance.

Michael Brown

[chvylvr350]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "bear" over a dozen different ways. We cannot simply take the definition we like and they say the government is overstepping its bounds by requiring permits to carry concealed.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
1: to physically carry (as an object or message)
Example: the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- U.S. Constitution amend. II

A law dictionary knocks the amount of definitions down and this is the only one that makes sense. Please list the definition for "bear" that makes sense to you and your interpretation of its use in the Second Amendment.

The Bill of Rights has constraints in several amendments, not just the 2nd.
Please show me a constraint in the Second Amendment.

They are not absolutes in a vacuum. Let's not forget that if we really want to interpret such a document as it was intended, it was only for white males.
The document is nearly perfect, its the human mind that interprets it that is flawed. If people want gun control so bad, then they can go through the motions to have the Constitution amended to reflect such a thing, but until then gun control is unconstitutional.

[Chuck S]

The permit thing is added by our government as another means of registration/taxation/control. Nowhere in the constitution does it say bear arms as long as you have a ccw permit. The government may (technically) decide to require a "permit" for basically anything. Like driving, tagging a car, etc. UNTIL enough of the people make thier voices heard and make them stop. I for one do not need so much regulation/control/"help". It would seem to suggest that most of us need to be protected from ourselves and others. Why else would we need the permit? I mean, arent we all just stumbling around half brain dead and one step away from bank robbery? Whatever happened to self reliance in America? I am old enough to remember when for example, if you lost your job, you hustled for a new job. Might not be what you were looking for but it was a job. Nowadays it seems like the first thing that people do is to immediately start crying to the government about how unfair it all is and what will you be doing for me about it?

[liliysdad]

Like driving, tagging a car, etc. UNTIL enough of the people make thier voices heard and make them stop

You are being allowed the privelege to drive a car on a state funded roadway. This is NOT the same as gun ownership in any way, shape, or form. One is a right, one is a privilege.


I am of the opinion that the Bill of Rights does NOT include the right to carry concealed for self defense. It is my belief that the founding fathers included this ammendment in hopes of being able to do without a standing military, which worked for a while. The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, with target shooting, or with self defense. It has to do with the defense of the NATION, against aggressors, whether they be foreign or domestic.

Having said this, I do not believe that the founding brotherhood were aginst self defense, nor hunting, nor were they for gun registration and licensing. I think they simply felt that the States, which at that time held the bulk of governmental power, could govern themsleves, and establish their own laws in this regard.

Now, I will close with this. I am in support of concealed carry. I support the idea of open carry, but I think thats an ignorant way to carry. I see no problem with licensing, with a small fee to cover administrative costs, but no more. It is proven that such states have lower crime, and the government cannot, and will not, protect each and every perosn.

[J.P.]

Vermont has open and concealed carry without permit.
I'd wager that they have a low crime rate.

[Ken Martin]

"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's amazing how such a simple statement can be so distorted.

Taken from the American Heritage Dictionary.
People: A body of persons living in the same country under one national government.

Keep: To retain possession of.

Bear: To carry on one's person.

Infringe: To transgress.

The Constitution doesn't give the people their rights, it PROTECTS the rights they already have. The right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

License: Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing.

It should not be necessary to get permission (CCW) to exercise our rights as protected by the Second Amendment.

[Chuck S]

You are being allowed the privelege to drive a car on a state funded roadway. This is NOT the same as gun ownership in any way, shape, or form. One is a right, one is a privilege

Technically if I'm having to pay (lisc&tag fees)for the privelege of driving on state funded road isnt that awful close to extortion? I think that its just a revenue source for the govt and has little, if anything to do with safety/maint. Same with a CCW. How is $25 reasonable for the 5 minutes that it took the receptionist at the sheriffs office to print me? Why cant they just check the database and see if you have prints on file first? Some things just make me go Hmmmmmm???? Not picking on anyone its just that I've got this bad habit of trying to figure out a better way of doing things.

[dogbear]

I think Arizona still has open carry and I wish Oklahoma did.

[Michael Brown]

Vermont has open and concealed carry without permit.
I'd wager that they have a low crime rate.

They also have socialized medicine and elected Howard Dean.
:puke:

Not a real good example as Vermont is very sparcely populated and doesn't have a number of problems that bigger states have.

Trying to tie crime rate to concealed carry is a losing game.

Michael Brown

[Michael Brown]

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
1: to physically carry (as an object or message)
Example: the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- U.S. Constitution amend. II

A law dictionary knocks the amount of definitions down and this is the only one that makes sense. Please list the definition for "bear" that makes sense to you and your interpretation of its use in the Second Amendment.



Please show me a constraint in the Second Amendment.



The document is nearly perfect, its the human mind that interprets it that is flawed. If people want gun control so bad, then they can go through the motions to have the Constitution amended to reflect such a thing, but until then gun control is unconstitutional.

1) Bear=Possess or Transport.

2) Felons losing the right to own firearms. A constraint to the 1st, is not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater or incite a riot or verbally obstruct a law enforcement officer.

3) Are you a lawyer? If so, explain how you completely misinterpreted federal and state statutes regarding resisting unlawful arrest.

If you are going to speak in absolutes with no qualifications, it helps to know what you are talking about. There are "controls" on several issues outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I imagine if you were black or a woman during the drafting of the Constitution, you probably wouldn't find it "perfect". I noticed that you ignored that issue.

I wonder why?:mad:

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

They also have socialized medicine and elected Howard Dean.
:puke:

Not a real good example as Vermont is very sparcely populated and doesn't have a number of problems that bigger states have.

Trying to tie crime rate to concealed carry is a losing game.

Michael Brown

We elected Brad Henry....what's your point?
:doh: ;)

I *do* agree that tying crime rate to concealed carry is a losing game,that wasn't really my point,but just for the record,what are the problems bigger states have that Vermont doesn't?

[Michael Brown]

We elected Brad Henry....what's your point?
:doh: ;)

I *do* agree that tying crime rate to concealed carry is a losing game,that wasn't really my point,but just for the record,what are the problems bigger states have that Vermont doesn't?

Vermont doesn't have the gang problems Tulsa does.

Vermont doesn't have a dense population center which by virtue of people being closer together, is a natural cause of greater crime rates.

Michael Brown

[chvylvr350]

1) Bear=Possess or Transport.
Okay, so are there any restrictions on the type of possession or transportation in the Second Amendment?

2) Felons losing the right to own firearms.
That is not a constraint in the Second Amendment. If that power of the government is anywhere in the Constitution, it is in the Fifth Amendment, but even then its not specifically stated.

A constraint to the 1st, is not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater or incite a riot or verbally obstruct a law enforcement officer. You have a right to yell "fire" in a theater if there was a fire. Even if there was no fire, you are getting in trouble for endangering people not yelling the word "fire". I never said that the misuse of rights didn't have consequenses. Inciting a riot would be to assemble unpeacefully, so yeah that would be excluded. The last example I am not going to comment on here.

3) Are you a lawyer? If so, explain how you completely misinterpreted federal and state statutes regarding resisting unlawful arrest.No I am not, nor have I claimed to be. And I am not sure what that second half refers to, but if it refers to what I think it might, you might what to reference the General usage rules of this forum. It certainly has nothing to do with this topic.

If you are going to speak in absolutes with no qualifications, it helps to know what you are talking about. There are "controls" on several issues outlined in the Bill of Rights. Qualifications? What qualifications do I need exactly to speak of the Constitution and the government. I am a Citizen of the US and of the State of Oklahoma, I am qualified.

I imagine if you were black or a woman during the drafting of the Constitution, you probably wouldn't find it "perfect". I noticed that you ignored that issue.

I wonder why?:mad:

I did address that issue, just because you didn't see I did is not my fault. I hold that the document is nearly perfect, it had to be amended for the human mind. It did not specifically disallow women or blacks from having equal rights. PEOPLE disallowed the equal rights of those groups, not the Constitution. I could be wrong, but the way you stated that, are you trying to imply that I am a sexist and/or racist?

[AresV]

We elected Brad Henry....what's your point?
:doh: ;)

What's this "we" stuff? I sure didn't vote for him...

Nonetheless, he's nowhere near as bad as Howie Dean...

[Michael Brown]

Okay, so are there any restrictions on the type of possession or transportation in the Second Amendment?


That is not a constraint in the Second Amendment. If that power of the government is anywhere in the Constitution, it is in the Fifth Amendment, but even then its not specifically stated.

You have a right to yell "fire" in a theater if there was a fire. Even if there was no fire, you are getting in trouble for endangering people not yelling the word "fire". I never said that the misuse of rights didn't have consequenses. Inciting a riot would be to assemble unpeacefully, so yeah that would be excluded. The last example I am not going to comment on here.

No I am not, nor have I claimed to be. And I am not sure what that second half refers to, but if it refers to what I think it might, you might what to reference the General usage rules of this forum. It certainly has nothing to do with this topic.

Qualifications? What qualifications do I need exactly to speak of the Constitution and the government. I am a Citizen of the US and of the State of Oklahoma, I am qualified.


I did address that issue, just because you didn't see I did is not my fault. I hold that the document is nearly perfect, it had to be amended for the human mind. It did not specifically disallow women or blacks from having equal rights. PEOPLE disallowed the equal rights of those groups, not the Constitution. I could be wrong, but the way you stated that, are you trying to imply that I am a sexist and/or racist?

The "qualifications" I speak of are unqualified statements like "gun control is unconstitutional". An unqualified statement doesn't mean you are unqualified to to speak of the constitution. It simply means you don't speak intelligently about it, given that the whole document requires context and does not exist in a vacuum as your statement implies.

My question to you bears directly to your understanding of the law and its context which has its basis in the constitution. If you misunderstand one, chances are you don't understand the other.

If you feel I am implying that you are racist or sexist, I don't know, but your clear avoidance of the historical context of the constitution certainly gives me a clue as to whose rights you think are really important and whose are not.

Michael Brown

[chvylvr350]

The "qualifications" I speak of are unqualified statements like "gun control is unconstitutional". An unqualified statement doesn't mean you are unqualified to to speak of the constitution. It simply means you don't speak intelligently about it, given that the whole document requires context and does not exist in a vacuum as your statement implies. I am sorry but its just that simple. Until the Second Amendment is repealed or amended gun control is unconstitutional. It is quite clear, in the context of history, where the path of gun control will lead us(UK, Canada, Austrailia). One only needs to look to California, NY, Washington DC, etc to see the begining of such an outcome. I am sure their form of gun control started as minor infringements as well.

Please feel free to present a qualified statement as to how gun control doesn't conflict with the Second Amendment.

My question to you bears directly to your understanding of the law and its context which has its basis in the constitution. If you misunderstand one, chances are you don't understand the other. It is my opinion that you don't understand the Second Amendment, so would that mean you don't understand other rights people have per your own assertion? I am sure no one understands every law out there without researching it, but that doesn't mean that some are not known and understood.

If you feel I am implying that you are racist or sexist, I don't know, but your clear avoidance of the historical context of the constitution certainly gives me a clue as to whose rights you think are really important and whose are not.I asked if that was what you were implying, not how I feel. I did not avoid the historical context, and I think everyones rights are important.

[Michael Brown]

It is my opinion that you don't understand the Second Amendment, so would that mean you don't understand other rights people have per your own assertion? I am sure no one understands every law out there without researching it, but that doesn't mean that some are not known and understood.

.

If your opinion was legally accurate, some Supreme Court Justice somewhere in the court's history would have agreed with you. Since almost all of them agree that gun control in some form is constitutional, I'd say its pretty much a foregone conclusion.

If some internet expert disagrees then I simply call B.S. as they are much more versed in the constitution than anyone here.

Whether you agree with them or not, they are the country's foremost experts on the context of the constitution.

If you can't accept that premise, then it is simply clear to me that you just want what you want and are unable to see what the document really is.

Michael Brown

[J.P.]

Well folks.......I think we are at that point in the thread where in the interest of the board and the thread itself, we just going to have to agree to disagree.

[MeMoe]

Well folks.......I think we are at that point in the thread where in the interest of the board and the thread itself, we just going to have to agree to disagree.
__________________
Thank you J.P. That's whats great about America, we can disagree.

If your opinion was legally accurate, some Supreme Court Justice somewhere in the court's history would have agreed with you. Since almost all of them agree that gun control in some form is constitutional, I'd say its pretty much a foregone conclusion.
The issue of Legal gun control by States limiting how and where guns may be possessed, to my limited knoledge, hasn't been brought before the Supreme court, in a all out debate.
This is "probably because" someone has to file the suit and I don't believe there are any Lawers out there well enough versed, and able to effectivly argue the cause as the "anti-gunners" ALWAYS start down the path of redefining what the simple, clear, concise language of the Constitution says. I can take a dictionary and a thesaurus and through 6 or 7 levels make one thing sound like I'm saying another, that doesn't make it correct.

Down in Louisiana, after the huricanes The Police began "confiscating" everyones guns, because a few ( and I say a few ) were shooting at them from frustration. I do not condone the peoples actions in any way. I also say the Police had NO RIGHT to do what they were doing. I know they don't want to get shot for trying to help someone, but the people who were doing the shooting at the police should have been the ones punnished ONLY ! Not the general public who were just trying to protect their properties in such a terrible disaster. This is another prime example of a knee-jerk reaction, that some fool will file a law suit to try to get another law passed that says in times of national disaster all guns will be confiscated for the safety of the people.

[Ken Martin]

Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled on the Second Amendment?

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment, although it generally avoids doing so. The last direct decision involving the 2nd Amendment was in 1939, in a case called U.S. vs. Miller. This case dealt with a man who was detained for unlawfully transporting a sawed off shotgun. He sued, saying he had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thus transport the shotgun. Initially, his defense succeeded, and the charges were dropped with no trial. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. Mr. Miller was too poor to retain an attorney, so only the government's side was argued in court. Without the defendant to present evidence or defend himself, the Supreme Court ruled that in "absence of evidence to the contrary" they couldn't say that the shotgun served a purpose in a well maintained militia. Instead, they sent the case back to a lower court, and ordered a trial, which would determine whether or not the shotgun was legal according to his second amendment protections. Thus they recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, so long as those arms serve a purpose in the militia. Many scholars have felt that if Mr. Miller had shown up to his trial, he could have easily proven that a sawed off shotgun has many useful purposes in a militia, such as in World War I, when it was used as a trench clearing tool. However, because the verdict went against Mr. Miller, gun control groups have claimed it as a victory, and falsely claim that the Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a collective right. In reality, no collective right was ever mentioned, and the case was simply sent back to a lower court for a full trial.

[AC37]

I haven't the time to read through all the previous posts yet, but yes, any and all laws regulating arms here in the U.S. are blatantly and unconscionably unconstitutional according to the US Federal Constitution which is pretty darned clear on the matter, and therefore are illegal law that hold no ethical or moral obligations. In response to one questions I did see on the first page of the thread, unconstitutional law is illegal law. Laws themselves are not legal unless they remain within the authority granted to them by the Constitution. One of the primary misunderstandings about the Constitution is exactly what it does and how it works. I shall attempt to provide a very brief primer on the relevant portions of it.

First and foremost, the Bill of Rights grants no rights, it merely enumerates some of them. It was not intended to be a limit on existing rights or enumeration of all of them, but merely an enumeration of those they felt most basic and central to the principals of freedom the government was being founded on, hence Amendments Nine and Ten. The Founding Fathers considered these rights in the Bill of Rights they listed within to be pre-existing and self-evident, rights no earthly authority had the right to abrogate until and unless an individual was determined to be guilty of a crime worthy of jail time or death, in a court of law with a jury of your peers. What this means is that even if Amendment 28 is something to the effect of "The entire Bill of Rights is hereby revoked or certain portions of it are revoked or restricted," it means nothing whatsoever, other than that the government that it has passed under has clearly descended into tyranny and it must be overthrown with a Second Revolution, lest a greater evil than violence be allowed to continue and perpetuate. Recall the following from the Declaration of Independence if you disagree:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Seems pretty clear to me that freedom from tyranny, whatever form it takes, is the highest law of the land. Right there, according to the Declaration of Independence, the primary purpose of government is to protect citizen's rights, not destroy or abrogate them. This concept isn't buried somewhere, but is as clear as day in both of the fundamental, core documents upon which our government is founded. The only reason there are any arguments on this subject are due to one or more of three primary reasons: simple ignorance through lack of understanding and the changing of meanings of words and language that occurs over 200+ years, willful ignorance through opportunity and subsequent refusal to study and learn what it says and means, and intellectual dishonesty through blatant misinterpretation of what the Constitution says and means, through the belief that the person in question is more qualified to make laws for the country than those who built it. If you look up any and all of the writings of the Founding Fathers, their meanings are quite clear and are only misinterpreted when people want them to mean something else, and believe themselves to be more intelligent, reasoned, and experienced than the likes of ol' Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin. Frankly, I know I don't have even one tenth of any of their individual experiences and wisdom, so it only makes sense to defer their superior judgements on the matter. Between George Washington's ideas running the country and Bill Clinton's, I take George's. Frankly, I'd even go so far as to say I think Clinton is a treasonous little tard who, amongst his many wrongdoings, spent his entire term of office helping destroy the basic principles of this country, along with every line of the oath of office he took. Since there are so many cretins like him in our government, the day when he truly gets what he deserves like the rest of them will probably never come, but the fact remains, he is a traitor and most certainly deserves the punishment befitting one. Note here: I am not advocating or recommending going after him personally, I am merely making an objective assessment as to how he conducted his term of office in light of his oath to the Constitution and his total and wanton destruction of it.

Back to the Constitution, it is primarily a document of restriction on the power of government at its core, not a document of restriction on its citizens. That is perhaps one of the greatest misunderstandings about it. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant our government the power to do something, it doesn't have it. Simple as that. Even if the Bill of Rights wasn't there at all, our government still wouldn't have the legal authority to do things like confiscate guns and suppress free speech. Why? Because it doesn't have the authority enumerated in the Constitution to do so. There is a process for adding government authority, abilities or other further modifications to the Constitution: it's called the Amendment system. Short of using this system to add this new power, any time the government does something it isn't specifically granted the authority to do otherwise it the Constitution, it is illegally usurping power from the citizens. Not only that, this illegal usurpation of power is basically treason and most certainly a clear, willful violation of the oaths all our government representatives take to the Constitution to uphold it against enemies both foreign and domestic, the worst crime one is capable of, as defined by the Constitution (ignoring of course the even worse war crimes/crimes against humanity, like those committed by Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin for example). And illegal usurpation of power on the part of our government is one of the most clear and present dangers to freedom we face as a nation today. It is a much greater danger than all the serial rapists, murderers, and thieves combined. The only difference is how insidious it is, which is a substansial portion of why it's so dangerous.

Last, I think it's supremely important to understand the hierarchy of law: in the case of conflicts of one law and another, state law trumps city law, state constitution trumps state law, Federal law trumps state law and state constitution, and the US Federal Constitution trumps everything. What this means is the Bill of Rights is at the top....the law of freedom via the Bill of Rights trumps all contradictory law. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work, when our government officials are doing their job correctly and aren't doing corrupt and illegal things.

[AC37]

Someone's sure to point out soon, if it hasn't already been posted, that the Federal Supreme Court is the group that's supposed to decide what's Constitutional and what's not. That's true, but they're also supposed to be interpreting it according to the doctrine of original intent, according to John Jay, the first Chief Justice of our nation (along with many others of the Founding Fathers who wrote about the matter), which basically says the law means what those who originally wrote it wanted it and explained it to mean, not whatever meaning you can possibly twist out of it through willful ignorance and misinterpretation due to wanting it to mean what you want it to mean. The Federal Supreme Court largely ignores this basic tenet of correct interpretation of the Constitution, and as such their decisions are largely meaningless. The Supreme Court as a whole is more interested in legislating from the bench to push their own agendas than doing its job and preserving what the law's original intent is unfortunately. Even strict constructionists like Antonin Scalia ignore this all too frequently, unfortunately. That's why I often say the only appreciable difference between most conservatives and liberals now is what freedoms they want to take away from you. You have to remember that our Federal Supreme Court of numbnuts that has at one point or another upheld slavery as an institution (Dred Scott case), upheld the suspension of the First Amendment via the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I (Schenck v. United States, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act for further details on this), helped destroy the Second Amendment through upholding the NFA in which only one side was able to present their arguments, the government's side of course(US v. Miller in 1939), and more recently has helped abolish the sovereignty of private property in favor of private comercial development via the blatant misuse of eminent domain (Kelo v. New London), and decided that the interstate commerce clause somehow applied to substances grown and used in the same state (Gonzales v. Raich), as well as saying that deprivation of Second Amendment rights without due process is reasonable (United States v. Emerson). With just these few examples, it's clear the Supreme Court has a checkered history of correct interpretation of Constitution law at best, and the only thing they are truly consistent at is pushing their own agendas over what the Constitution actually says. It's important to remember that our entire system of government is based on checks and balances, and we the people are a check ourselves on the government when they go awry. When the Supreme Court makes incorrect judgements not based in original intent, it's our job to make sure they're held accountable for it and that they stick to original intent. Think about it this way: without original intent and with unlimited "interpretation" of the law, you can make simple, unconfusing law like the First Amendment of "Congress shall make NO law..." into something as unconstitutional as "Congress and the rest of government can make and enforce as many laws that abrograte, restrict, and destroy it as they please."

Someone brought up the phrase "well regulated" in the Second Amendment. Two things: First, the word "regulated" meant "to put in good working order" back then. The creators of the Constitution wanted a well-practiced and disciplined militia. The weren't trying to "regulate" (the new meaning of it - pass laws about) nearly out of existence, as has been done today. Secondly, the whole "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," part of the Second Amendment is an independent clause. What does this mean? It means the first part of the sentence, the first part of the Amendment is just an explanation of their reasoning behind the creation of the Second Amendment, it does not impact the "Shall not be infringed" part negatively in any way. The Amendment could read, "Pizza, being tasty and delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" or "Shoes are sometimes green, but we like all shoes regardless of color, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and it would mean the same thing as it does with the actual wording used in the Constitution. If they had wanted there to be quantifications and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, why on earth would they have used as broad and unrestricted wording as "shall NOT be INFRINGED" (emphasis added), when they use quantification and exception clauses in some of the other amendments ("where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars," "but in a manner to be prescribed by law.")? Again, the inescapable conclusion is that yes, their choice of wording was 100% intentional, and they did want the First, Second, and some of the other amendments to be without restriction, quantification, or exception. If you still have any doubt as to the exact meaning of the Second Amendment and whether or not it was truly intended to be without restriction as it is currently worded, I strongly encourage you to research the Founding Fathers' contemporary writings for yourself, such as the Federalist Papers. Every single document any and all of them wrote regarding the Second Amendment supports the broad and unrestricted nature of it in clear language. If you're looking for a concentrated source of these quotes, you may consider starting with this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0925279773/102-7594015-8029749?v=glance&n=283155 Having personally read it, I highly recommend it, and since it has a detailed bibliography at the end, all the quotes listed in it are independently verifiable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get back to the original question in a more direct manner, as illegal as all CCW laws may be, since they convert freedoms into taxed, limited, revokable privileges, they are a heck of a lot better than nothing. I really regard CCW permits (note the use of the word permit, core word permission) as primarily more of a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, to allow you to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed and enumerated rights largely without continual harassment, charges, fines, or jail time. A CCW permit/license grants no rights and the whole system is blatantly and dangerously illegal, but at least it keeps you out of jail while you exercise your rights. Bottom line is the current system of CCW is much better than where we were twenty or thirty years ago, where exercise of your Second Amendment rights was pretty much universally, illegally restricted across the board, in almost every state. And it is certainly better than the rest of the world without exception, where the right to effective self-defense is virtually nonexistent, except in places like Switzerland or Israel where it is treated as a heavily controlled privilege.

I really regard the current CCW system as step A or B of step D or E to getting us back to true Second Amendment freedom, where Alaska and Vermont pretty much are now. The right to self-defense is a basic human right just like human freedom of speech and the issue isn't going away. It makes no sense whatsoever to have a system where police have no duty to defend you against murderers, rapists, and thieves (a concept which the SC upheld BTW), but that same system which refuses to take responsibility for your protection also is directly responsible for taking away the effective tools you need to protect yourself against those threats. That is manifestly unfair to people - take away the tools necessary for effective self-defense, then refuse to protect them. You can't have it both ways...taking away people's ability to effectively protect themselves transfers implied responsibility for protection from the individual to the government, which the government then refuses to do.

While it may take us a while and the cause will probably suffer more (temporary) setbacks, I'm sure with enough time and perserverance we'll get our enumerated Second Amendment rights along with the rest of freedom heading in the right direction again. History has shown us tyranny, regardless of degree, large or small, never prevails in the end, though sometimes it does for a time, until people finally have had enough and start to do something tangible about the problem. But in the end, freedom always wins. Regardless of our problems, we're still the freest nation in the world, and I'm glad to be a part of it. :)

Edit: Sorry for my post(s) being as long as it is...I didn't intend for it to go this long, but I thought some important questions that were asked needed to be answered in a comprehensive manner. I think you will certainly understand the Second Amendment much better if you do read through it all though...I've done an extensive amount of studying on it, a seriously unreal amount of time, which is probably the reason I'm so long-winded about it. Hope you can benefit from it either way. :thumb:

[MeMoe]

AC37

Reading through your posts, I feel you understand the intent of this thread more than anyone so far. I bow to your knowledge on the Constitution and Bill of rights and the Declaration of independance and their true meanings.
Forgive my frustration in waiting for the " temporary setbacks" that we in this country have had to endure while fighting to retain, or get back our rights to Keep and Bear Arms. The origional thread points out just that, the things we arn't supposed to be limited on are limited by the Government in their own sneaky slow way. If I saw step "D" or "E" as a end point I probably wouldn't mind the CCW Law, but I don"t. I see this and other "helpful" laws like this as a means to a end of the Citizens being regulated, tracked then unarmed.
I hope our country does not continue down this road, but turns around sometime in the very near future.
Thank you for your educational post AC37 !

[Ken Martin]

Excellent posts AC37. Thank you for taking the time to compose them.

[Michael Brown]

AC37,

I respect that your opinion is based upon research. I find this type of argument far more persuasive than blanket statements that gun control is unconstitutional with no background research to support the statement.

However, the profession of a federal judge involves research almost exclusively. Federal judges spend most of their non-court time researching and talking to people who are doing research for them.

Thus if a federal judge has a founded opinion that gun control is unconstitutional, then I'd be real persuaded. Unfortunately I don't know of a single federal judge who believes that gun control in any form is unconstitutional. Some have stated that they believe some current laws to be unconstitutional but no one I have heard has yet to say that the government cannot regulate firearms in any way.

Anti-gun control advocates frequently point to the 1999 decision in Texas that overturned the no-grandfather clause of protective/restraining order legislation. However that was not a constitutional issue based on the second amendment. It was based purely on the question of whether rights can be denied retroactively.

Either way you believe, us internet law-researchers (myself included) don't have anywhere near the experience of someone who does legal research for a living.

Telling someone that educated in this area sounds as silly as us telling Mark McGwire that he doesn't swing a bat correctly.

In addition to running courts and researching, judges write papers, lecture, and offer opinions to other professionals. If we were correct in this area, some federal judge, somewhere, would have issued an opinion supporting this interpretation of the 2nd amendment. William Rehnquist, arguably the greatest legal mind of the twentieth century, was a devout conservative and even he didn't believe gun control in any form was unconstitutional.

I'm afraid I have to go with the professionals' opinions on this.

Michael Brown

[chvylvr350]

Excellent Posts AC37. With some research I found a case that, while pertaining to the rights of the First Amendment, could be applied to the Second Amendment as well in the case of licensing of a right. I will include some quotes from it.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)

"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down."

"It is not a nominal fee imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. It is in no way apportioned. It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax. As stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois in a case involving this same sect and an ordinance similar to the present one, a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."

"The fact that the ordinance is 'nondiscriminatory' is immaterial. The protection afforded by the First Amendment is not so restricted. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers and treats them all alike. Such equality in treatment does not save the ordinance. Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position."

"This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."

"Plainly a community may not suppress, or the state tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying or distasteful. If that device were ever sanctioned, there would have been forged a ready instrument for the suppression of the faith which any minority cherishes but which does not happen to be in favor. That would be a complete repudiation of the philosophy of the Bill of Rights."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My only problem is that in the opinion, the justice, kept using "privilege" instead of "right" and saying "granted" by instead of "protected by."

The courts haven't ruled on a case that incorported the Second Amendment with the states like it has with the First Amendment and others, but I fail to see how some and not all would apply to the states.

[NikatKimber]

just a thought, anybody look at the 1828 Websters Dictionary? I imagine that it would be the closest to catching the original meaning of the document.
http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=bear
Brent

[J.P.]

BEAR, v.t. pret.bore; pp. born,borne. [L. fero, pario, porto. The primary sense is to throw out, to bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along. ]


1. To support; to sustain; as, to bear a weight or burden.

2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."

3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.

4. To keep afloat; as, the water bears a ship.

5. To support or sustain without sinking or yielding; to endure; as, a man can bear severe pain or calamity; or to sustain with proportionate strength, and without injury; as, a man may bear stronger food or drink.

6. To entertain; to carry in the mind; as, to bear a great love for a friend; to bear inveterate hatred to gaming.

7. To suffer; to undergo; as, to bear punishment.

8. To suffer without resentment, or interference to prevent; to have patience; as, to bear neglect or indignities.

9. To admit or be capable of; that is, to suffer or sustain without violence,injury,or change; as, to give words the most favorable interpretation they will bear.
10. To bring forth or produce, as the fruit of plants, or the young of animals; as, to bear apples; to bear children.

11. To give birth to, or be the native place of.

Here dwelt the man divine whom Samos bore.

12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.

13. To gain or win.

Some think to bear it by speaking a great word. [Not now used. The phrase now used is, to bear away.]

14. To carry on, or maintain; to have; as, to bear a part in conversation.

15. To show or exhibit; to relate; as, to bear testimony or witness. This seems to imply utterance, like the Latin fero, to relate or utter.

16. To sustain the effect, or be answerable for; as, to bear the blame.

17. To sustain, as expense; to supply the means of paying; as, to bear the charges, that is, to pay the expenses.

18. To be the object of.


Let me but bear your love, and I'll bear your cares.
19. To behave; to act in any character; as,"hath he borne himself penitent?"

20. To remove, or to endure the effects of; and hence to give satisfaction for.

[skyydiver]

It was almost dead. You're a Mod, man. :)

[MeMoe]

Well Folks, My post has shown, in my opinion, that for the most part the people of our country, or at least that read this sight, are saying that the Oklahoma CCW law and laws like it DO Infringe on our rights to Keep and Bear arms. J.P.s List of definitions, while informative, we all know that the #2 is the one that pertains to Bearing a Arm, the rest is just fluff.
The Poll Questions and responses to date show a over two thirds 2/3 majority of respondents think their Constitutional rights are being infringed by the Oklahoma CCW Law.
Unfortunatly, as of this writing Gun Owners and those who wish to Bear Arms to protect themselves have been delt a blow by the courts again. Wharehousers Fireing of it's Employees because they did a search of their vehicals and found Guns in their Parking Lot has been upheld.
I personally will not buy products from Companies that take such actions against their employees, and further do not shop at places that specificly ban the rights of people to protect themselfs by posting No Gun signs.
I sincerely hope this country does not continue down the slippery slope that I believe we are already accelerating down.

[hankrearden2000]

To answer the initial quesion, yes the Oklahoma SDA is legal. The federal constitution was written to create, provide structure for, and limit the federal government; not the states' governments. The usurping of state authority came after the Civil War.

However, it does infringe on our natural right to protect our lives. But, in the reality of Today, it's a very mild infringement. Just remember, only ten years and two months ago a citizen had virtually no legal ability to carry a firearm for self-defense. I'm very grateful for Senator Shurden's leadership, and the rest of the '95 legislature's good sense and responsiveness to the needs of the honest citizens of Oklahoma.

[J.P.]

Just remember, only ten years and two months ago a citizen had virtually no legal ability to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Not according to the Second Amendment.....

"keep"
"bear"

"shall NOT be infringed"

[skyydiver]

I'm very grateful for Senator Shurden's leadership, and the rest of the '95 legislature's good sense and responsiveness to the needs of the honest citizens of Oklahoma.

I can definitely agree with that.

[Hoov]

Here's my two centavos; If we allow others to infringe upon our rights, then it may as well be a law. Kind of like squatting on someone's civil liberties. Even though you didn't give it to me, I'll go ahead and take it.

[NikatKimber]

hankrearden,
about the Constitution limiting only the Federal government:
not true:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Article VI second paragraph, The Constitution of the United States

As such, the state's laws cannot contradict it in areas where it speaks. The states can have laws in areas that are not spoken on in the Constitution, or are not specifically stated how such will be carried out. But in cases where the constitution guarantees rights and freedoms, the Constitution is top dog. Period. Where the Constitution speaks it is the last word. (or at least is "legally" supposed to be) And to boot, any laws of the US even must be in pursuance to the Constitution.

[goodoleboy]

I find that its BS that one has to pay $100 every five years to protect themselves. I dont agree with having to go through the whole process either but i comply.

[YukonGlocker]

You don't have to pay $100. You just won't be "legal".
Paying to not get into trouble is nothing new. Just ask all of our congressmen and senators, who is benefiting from all the "fees".

[NikatKimber]

"legal" by what "law"??? the Constitution, which guarantees uninfringed rights to both a well regulated militia and the keeping and bearing of arms? or of some other federal law, or state law, which may or may not necessarily be in pursuance with the Constitution.
My issue is not with the fee, or even necessarily the "permit" (permit to enjoy one's right?????? lol, ya gotta be kidding, right?), but the fact that the government decides who can, and more importantly, who can't, be "permitted" the "right... to keep and bear arms."
My other issue is this: the government is trying to legislate morality, and prevent crimes. You absolutely cannot force someone to be moral other than their own personal convictions. It doesn't matter how strict the law is, those that will break the law will do just that: break the law!! Why don't legislators understand this? "Preventing" crime is to me a liberty-robbing communistic way of gaining a so-called "peace." The government of a free people should not punish the law abiding citizen with boundless laws and regulations to supposedly "keep" people from abusing their liberties, but rather have consequences for the abuse, and swift and fair punishment for those that do abuse liberty.
ie, rather than "permitting" those that the government deems "good" to have the use of their "rights," punishing the man that uses his right to the harm or injury of others. Catch the difference? Let us be free, then have consequences for the unwise use of freedom; rather than restricting our freedoms to keep everyones so-called "liberty" "secure"
Like when the govm't took away freedom after 9-11 in order to "secure" our "liberty"
Just my thoughts...

[MeMoe]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

A very good point that I've been trying to point out to everyone! :thumb: If the Constitution says to do or not to do something, it's covered. If the Constitution does not say something then the States have the right to make laws covering the subject.

I don't know how much planer it can be. STOP THE INSANITY !!! Knock off the Liberal ( oh! we must protect the children and old people, by making the "free" people register themselfs CRAP ! ) Because that is just Exactly what the CCW laws are. They fought for years to have all the "Gun Nuts" register their guns and couldn't win that way, so they "help" us protect ourselfs now by making the Owner who wants to protect him or herself go give more money to the Government to prove themself and REGISTER who will be carrying a Gun. :puke:

Why in the World don't you people see this???? :faint:

Oh, but if it will let me carry my Gun, I guess that's o.k. You ALREADY have that Right ! It's spelled out...Your Right to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !:contract:

To walk a mile you must first take a few steps. If someone blocks your way, you try to convince them to move. To have greater success at this you ask nicely, and show them how it will benifit them. If that doesn't work you bribe or lie about the intent of your passage. If that doesn't work, you walk around them.

See how we in Government like you. We want you to be able to carry your Gun. All we want to do is be sure your safe doing it. Oh, and please bring us some money, and your Identification so we can mark down all you GOOD people that we can control.
( flash foward into the near future ) Knock ! Knock! Knock!
Hello, Mr. Gun Carring Good Person, were from the Government and were here to help you again. Let us have all your Guns so WE the Government can protect you even better.

It's just us Law Abiding Citizens that have let this happen, because we're convinced by somebody else it's what we need.

This reminds me of a Bill going through Congress to, say pay for widgets.
Bill is written to pay for widgets, goes to committee someone says o.k. the widgets are fine, but lets ad this part to say pay for widgets and this and that project too. By the time all is said and done, the Widget bill has less to do with widgets than everything else that's been stuck in.

Let's keep focused here People ! You already have the Right to Keep And Bear Arms ! Why do you need all the other stuff if you already have the Right?
:bigeye:

[JamesBell]

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to keep the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the states. It was a part of a compromise that was necessary to get some delegates to vote to ratify the Constitution. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment does protect us our right to bear arms, it in no way applied to the states at the time it was written. The first amendment is a great example. Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion was inserted specifically to protect the state religions that were common at that time.

I really think we’re missing the boat when we complain about a shall issue law. I am thankful that we have the law, there are many that do not have such an ability. And, like it or not, the clear judicial history and the doctrine of stare decisis ensures that the Supreme Court is not going to decide that citizens can arm themselves in any way they so choose.

But, to take this argument to its logical conclusion, let’s argue that a limit on what type of weapon we select is unconstitutional. With laws of the period and writings of the founders, it can be concluded that they intended every male of military age to own, or be able to own, a military style weapon. Of course, that would mean a select-fire black rifle in this day and age. So, since I cannot go down to the local store and buy a mil-spec M-16A2, my Constitutional right is being taken away from me. But wait, the second amendment does not strictly state that I can have a military weapon; it asserts that I can bear arms. Well, depending on your definition, that could mean many things. Remember the nuclear arms race? Well, by not being able to own a nuclear weapon, by Constitutional right is being limited and impeded. See, it just doesn’t work. There will always be an argument, but there has to be regulation at some point. Fortunately, Oklahoma’s limitation allows a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon, as long as the go through certain steps to be licensed.

[Michael Brown]

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to keep the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the states. It was a part of a compromise that was necessary to get some delegates to vote to ratify the Constitution. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment does protect us our right to bear arms, it in no way applied to the states at the time it was written. The first amendment is a great example. Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion was inserted specifically to protect the state religions that were common at that time.

I really think we’re missing the boat when we complain about a shall issue law. I am thankful that we have the law, there are many that do not have such an ability. And, like it or not, the clear judicial history and the doctrine of stare decisis ensures that the Supreme Court is not going to decide that citizens can arm themselves in any way they so choose.

But, to take this argument to its logical conclusion, let’s argue that a limit on what type of weapon we select is unconstitutional. With laws of the period and writings of the founders, it can be concluded that they intended every male of military age to own, or be able to own, a military style weapon. Of course, that would mean a select-fire black rifle in this day and age. So, since I cannot go down to the local store and buy a mil-spec M-16A2, my Constitutional right is being taken away from me. But wait, the second amendment does not strictly state that I can have a military weapon; it asserts that I can bear arms. Well, depending on your definition, that could mean many things. Remember the nuclear arms race? Well, by not being able to own a nuclear weapon, by Constitutional right is being limited and impeded. See, it just doesn’t work. There will always be an argument, but there has to be regulation at some point. Fortunately, Oklahoma’s limitation allows a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon, as long as the go through certain steps to be licensed.

A very sensible opinion regarding a very fluid document.

Michael Brown

[mons meg]

FWIW, at the time civilians were allowed to own cannons...

[woodcdi]

Though I didn't read every post, this is a great discussion!

Here are a few of points to consider if they haven't been brought up yet:

1) The definition of "bear" includes "to produce or bring forth". Whether or not you can carry your weapon in your arms, you can still bring it forth with a duce-and-a-half or in a wheelbarrow and that would be bearing your arm.

2) Regardless of what ever happens to "bear", you still have "keep"!

3) Oklahoma's SDA has a neat little passage in it at TITLE 21, Pp 1290.25, and I quote: "... The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title shall impair or diminish those rights." Clever, eh? Helps keep the act from being declared unconstitutional. Essentially, this gives you a defense against prosecution if you carry but don't have a permit. 'Course, you gotta fight the whole 2A issue, but if you are found to be within your rights to carry a gun...

The bottom line on the constitutionality of the concealed carry laws is the laws making it illegal to carry a gun in the first place. Carry permit laws simply make exceptions to those original unconstitutional laws. Get rid of the original unconstitutional laws, then there is no opportunity to require permits. Remember, laws are written to prohibit things, not give permission. Carry laws are merely exceptions to the original law as I stated.

Woody

[Hugh]

Huh? I don't get it. You mean we can carry a weapon without a permit, but if the state attempts to prosecute we can fight it and perhaps win??

[chvylvr350]

Well being this was brought back up again I will address some things.

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to keep the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the states. It was a part of a compromise that was necessary to get some delegates to vote to ratify the Constitution. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment does protect us our right to bear arms, it in no way applied to the states at the time it was written. The first amendment is a great example. Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion was inserted specifically to protect the state religions that were common at that time.Every other amendment that was part of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated under the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. The Constitution can't be the supreme law of the land and mean nothing in the states. Anyway, Amendments 1-10 spelled out rights that are inherent in all people and can not be taken away be it a city, state or federal government.

I really think we’re missing the boat when we complain about a shall issue law. I am thankful that we have the law, there are many that do not have such an ability.I don't like to think we should be happy that we are more free than others, especially when there are others that are more free than us.

And, like it or not, the clear judicial history and the doctrine of stare decisis ensures that the Supreme Court is not going to decide that citizens can arm themselves in any way they so choose.
I am not sure stare decisis would apply because there haven't been many rulings on the 2nd in a way that would effect all cases in the SCOTUS.

But, to take this argument to its logical conclusion, let’s argue that a limit on what type of weapon we select is unconstitutional. With laws of the period and writings of the founders, it can be concluded that they intended every male of military age to own, or be able to own, a military style weapon. Of course, that would mean a select-fire black rifle in this day and age. So, since I cannot go down to the local store and buy a mil-spec M-16A2, my Constitutional right is being taken away from me. But wait, the second amendment does not strictly state that I can have a military weapon; it asserts that I can bear arms. Well, depending on your definition, that could mean many things. Remember the nuclear arms race? Well, by not being able to own a nuclear weapon, by Constitutional right is being limited and impeded. See, it just doesn’t work. There will always be an argument, but there has to be regulation at some point. Fortunately, Oklahoma’s limitation allows a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon, as long as the go through certain steps to be licensed.
The "shall not be infringed" covers the point you made about the types of arms you could have. If you limit the type its infringment. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons could be regulated in other ways being the payloads are harmful to anyone around it and being you can't control the area affected due to wind, etc. People today own artillery and live shells even though it is heavily restricted.

[woodcdi]

Huh? I don't get it. You mean we can carry a weapon without a permit, but if the state attempts to prosecute we can fight it and perhaps win??

Yup. That's how I read it. Title 21, Pp 1272 "UNLAWFUL CARRY" Is the underlying law making carrying a weapon illegal, with some exceptions. It is pertinent to note that the statement in Title 21, Pp 1290.25, "... The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title shall impair or diminish those rights." comes after 1272, but 1290(Oklahoma Self-Defense Act) is referenced in 1272, making it an integral part of 1272 and, therefore, that statement in 1290.25 would also cover 1272.

Oklahoma is more concerned with safety, your security, and criminal use of arms than on infringing upon your rights. One thing to consider, however, is that it is cheaper to get the permit than it would cost for just one hour of a lawyer's time.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

[JamesBell]

Chevy lover, I could rehash the whole thing again, but I won't. Let's just agree to disagree... and note that I said the second amendment did not apply to states at the time it was written. It would be many years before number 14 came around. And, your argument about stare decisis doesn't work. There doesn't have to be many rulings-- only one.

But, if you honestly believe your last comment, I am confused. Maybe I am just reading it wrong. But it appears that you say that it is an infringed if there is any regulation- and then you turn around and say that NBC weapons could be regulated in other ways. Problem is, if any regulation is an infringment on the right to keep and bear arms they cannot be regulated in other ways- because the Constitution is the supreme law it wins in the end.

That was much longer than I wanted it to be, sorry.

[skyydiver]

I think that maybe economical barriers and technical barriers are the examples of non-govermental "regulations" that would keep artillery, ICBMs, etc...out of our back yards. Along with regulations on hazardous emissions, etc...then the arms aren't regulated, you just have to have the means to contain the ingredients.

[woodcdi]

I think that maybe economical barriers and technical barriers are the examples of non-govermental "regulations" that would keep artillery, ICBMs, etc...out of our back yards. Along with regulations on hazardous emissions, etc...then the arms aren't regulated, you just have to have the means to contain the ingredients.

I concur.

Woody

[Michael Brown]

When we get to talk of owning ICBM's, then the talk has gotten insane.

Michael Brown