Lessons In Governance...

…To Be Continued

from libertyalliance.com: 'More States Considering No Permit Required Conceal Carry Laws' - Feb. 17 (orig. posted at GodfatherPolitics)

..

WVF • 10 hours ago (Feb. 17)

The Second Amendment is quite clear on this matter. As citizens we are allowed to carry a weapon. Most of the states have decided to limit this ability, but that is the right of states. I submit that one of the major reasons many states require a Concealed Carry Permit is strictly for the purpose of revenue generation for state coffers.

5

•

Reply

• 
  krcaudle WVF • 10 hours ago
• 
  And an easily obtained, hard-copy list of those that own and carry firearms.
  
• 
  
• 6
• •
• Reply
• 
  WVF krcaudle • 10 hours ago 
• 
  Good point.
  
• 
  
• 1
• •
• Reply

freedixie WVF • 9 hours ago 

It is not the right of the state to limit the ability to bear arms. Each state agreed to abide by the Constitution when they joined the union. They accepted the Constitution as written, which included the Bill of Rights. When they infringe on the 2nd Amendment, they are violating the Constitution. Of course, the federal government doesn't care, because it hates the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment. You are 100% correct in that the Conceal Carry Permit system is all about generating revenue for the states.

4

•

Reply

WVF freedixie • 9 hours ago 

I agree with you, but states have decided to act in an unconstitutional way. The Second Amendment gives us all the right to bear arms, and any state which disallows that right, that state is behaving in an unconstitutional manner.

4

•

Reply

          kibitzer3 WVF • 3 hours ago (Feb. 17)

• I don't get your reasoning, WVF. The Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. People's rights are secured by their state constitutions. If a particular state's constitution regulates its citizenry in a certain way regarding weapons for self-defense, that's the law in that state. No?
• 
  

• WVF kibitzer3 • an hour ago
• 
  kibitzer3, my reasoning is rather simple on this. Federal law trumps state law. The Constitution enumerates what the federal law is, and the Second Amendment guarantees that a state cannot hold itself above federal law regarding a citizen's right to bear arms. Please, don't forget the federal government is We the People.
• •
• Reply
•  
           kibitzer3 WVF • a minute ago (Feb. 17)
• 
  I appreciate your elucidating the rationale, WVF, and I 'get' the expression 'Federal law trumps state law'. But what's the statutory basis here? I am asking: Where is the amendment that says "The powers formerly reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside in the federal government"?? And I am serious in my request for info on this subject. It goes to the heart of the federal system of government. Which is the kind that we have here in this country; the last time i looked, at least.

• Mrs. Patriot WVF • 9 hours ago 
• 
  "Allowed?" Don't think this way. The Constitution does not ALLOW us to exercise our rights; it prohibits the government from interfering with our rights. Also, the states do not have the POWER to limit our rights either. The Constitution says that any provision NOT PROHIBITED by the Constitution is left to the states or the people. At least my copy does. Does yours?
  
• 
  
• 6
• •
• Reply
• 
  
  agbjr Mrs. Patriot • 9 hours ago 
• 
  The Founding Fathers prove your point:
• 
  "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if
  established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution"
• 
  James Madison
  The Federalist No. 39, 1788
  
• 
  
• 4
• •
• Reply
• 
  
• 
  WVF Mrs. Patriot • 5 hours ago 
• 
  Good point!
  
• •
• Reply
• 
  
• 
  kibitzer3 Mrs. Patriot • 3 hours ago (Feb. 17)
• 
  I don't understand your point, Mrs. Patriot. The Constitution does not give any power to the federal government to be involved in such questions, which are left in the purview of the states. Thus, state constitutions need to secure various rights to and for their citizenry. Thus, such questions are left to the states. If a particular state's constitution regulates its citizenry in a certain way regarding the having and carrying of weapons for self-defense, that is the law in that state. No?
  
  
  -
• (The James Madison quote above, from 'The Federalist Papers,' is a good one.  As I say: To be continued…
• 
  
• But the bottom line: is that ours is not a national/centralized government.  At least not yet.
• 
  
• And that is our saving grace.
• 
  
• So far.)