T Nation

Are CCW Laws Constitutional


The second amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. Therefore it is a right not a privilege, like say driving. So can government, according to the 2nd amendment, make laws that require citizens to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and on top of that charge a high price for that license (some states charge as much as $100, which to some is a lot of money)?

In my opinion, only convicted felons should have to have government license to carry concealed and those granted on a case by case basis. What is your opinions?


QUESTION MARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Many of those opposed to non-government-employee American citizens having or carrying guns argue that the Second Amendment prohibits only the Federal government from "infringing" -- which they reinterpret as meaning only "totally banning" -- any right to keep and bear arms.

They insist that it has no relevance with regard to states, counties, or cities enacting gun control.

Furthermore many of them say that this is not an individual right but one belonging only to the National Guard or other organized civilian military groups anyway.

In other words, they divest the Second Amendment of virtually all meaning.


I don't know man.....I'm all for concealed carry and am pro-gun for sure (owning several myself), but I work in a place where I see many people every day that I sure as hell wouldn't want carrying a firearm. Hell, half of them shouldn't be able to drive either.


Having a law that states you need a permit to carry concealed has no bearing on carrying a firearm because you could carry a firearm openly without a permit. Requiring you to have a permit before carrying a firearm (openly or concealed) would be a violation of that right.


In some states you'll wind up in the pokey for open carry in places other than your home, business, or gun range. Always know not only your state laws, but any state where you plan to travel. It's bullshit, but the government hasn't been paying much attention to the constitution for quite a while.


The First Amendment is more explicit and clear in its free speech provisions than the 2nd is in its right to bear arms, but the government can still impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. The laws don't bar any arm bearing, they just impose reasonable restrictions.


Do you consider the situation where no one -- excluding police officers and so forth -- can obtain a permit to be a "reasonable restriction" ?

This is the situation in some places.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I dunno about yall, but to me, the law seems pretty clear.

Meaning that the federal government acknowledges that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Then it goes on to say that since they acknowledge this, they acknowledge that it is a right of the people to own weapons, and this SHAL NOT be fucked with.

What's so hard to understand? Oh, and federal govt overrides state and local decisions.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Thats crazy because the military would have weapons anyway, otherwise, they wouldnt be the military.


And for those who say the constitution doesnt apply to states it does apply to U.S. citizens, therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that states cant make laws which infringes on the constitutional rights of the citizen. Furthermore, just because one carries a gun doesnt give one the right to shoot another at will as anti-gun activist will have you believe.

There used to be a time, I hear, where you could go to the hardware store and buy a gun like you could buy a saw. Anti-gun activist would have you believe that the streets were running red with blood, which was not the case.


I have a feeling that eventually HAND guns will be outlawed as they are so easy to conceal but LONG guns (rifles, shotguns) will be allowed. I would say that assault rifles will be outlawed before hand guns though. I personally own a glock (mostly target pracitce, not a cop or anything) but don't see the need for our general public to carry hand guns on a daily basis. Maybe it will come down to hand guns will not be outlawed but require extensive background checks as some states already do.

But I think it would be a cold day in hell before any president/congress/supreme court allowed long guns to be outlawed as so many from both sides would argue the 2nd amendment right. Just a theory and I have no proof but seems like a logical agreement to appease both the anti-gun and pro-gun followers.


Yea, that's true. You used to be able to go down and buy a pistol at the hardware store along with other tools you might need. I sure don't want people walking around with shotguns on my school campus, but where do you draw the line?


I don't care if you think I need to carry or not.


And I'm sure he doesn't care whether you care or not... good point though...


But they have no problem with the idea of Constitutional Amendments being nothing but self-apparent truths that were correct at the time, and supposedly meaning nothing beyond that.

For example this also is how they dispose of the 10th Amendment.


Assault rifles (weapons that fire more than 1 round with each trigger pull) made after 1986 are already restricted from civilians except those who posses a Class 3 federal firearms license. The pre-86 models require a $200 tax stamp approved from the ATF, and on the low end sell for $15,000, when you can find one. Modifying a new production semi auto rifle to fire full auto will earn you 10 years in prison and prohibit you from any future gun ownership.

U.S. Congress passed more broad reaching "assault weapons" ban in 1994 (which ceased to be a law in 2004), and many of the representatives lost their seats in the election that fall. The current reps know this, and out of self preservation it's doubtful they'll try again.

Lastly, the majority of pro-gun individuals would not be appeased by your comprimise. I know I wouldn't be.


Then he can come to my house unarmed to enforce it.