They joined the union under the explicit instruction that the Constitution would be the ultimate law of the land and that no other laws can conflict.
So if the Second Amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" I take that to mean "You can't tell people that they can't walk around with firearms. License or not." I get the 10th amendment, but it's like, when we differentiate "Concealed/Open" "License/permit" it seems like semantics.
Either you can bear arms or not. And "SHALL" is a pretty strong word that, to me, means, you cannot interfere with any citizen owning or bearing a firearm under any circumstance (including barring them because of a stupid fucking permit/license).
The Constitution says nothing about about open/concealed carry.
If we want to get technical, it should ALL be open carry as that's how the militia/population were expected to carry when it was written.
I don't think the Founding Fathers felt the need to discern and I'm pretty sure they all had pistols they would wear under their pettycoats, or frocks, or whatever the fuck they wore.
This was always going to go to SCOTUS. If they're "Constitutionalists" like they claim they are, then this should be struck down.
I'm also not sure why this only applies to like 6 states. Why don't those states just say "Constitutional Carry is fine" like all the other states that have it have done?
The Federal Government isn't telling them they can't institute that. Otherwise all the states would be in jeopardy of losing constitutional carry.
Because they’re just not legit. And it goes against relatively recent SCOTUS rulings. GOP does need to start taking action against rogue judges however, instead they’ll just fundraise off of it.
People should actually read the court case and quit listening to the fucking retarded NRA....
All the ninth circuit court said was that states do, in fact, have a say so in their own carry laws.... That's it..... Literally....
But do they? And SHOULD THEY?
They joined the union under the explicit instruction that the Constitution would be the ultimate law of the land and that no other laws can conflict.
So if the Second Amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" I take that to mean "You can't tell people that they can't walk around with firearms. License or not." I get the 10th amendment, but it's like, when we differentiate "Concealed/Open" "License/permit" it seems like semantics.
Either you can bear arms or not. And "SHALL" is a pretty strong word that, to me, means, you cannot interfere with any citizen owning or bearing a firearm under any circumstance (including barring them because of a stupid fucking permit/license).
Thanks, I nearly had an aneurysm
Dry ramen guy, do your thing.
9th circuit. Usually full of liberal activists.
The Constitution says nothing about about open/concealed carry.
If we want to get technical, it should ALL be open carry as that's how the militia/population were expected to carry when it was written.
I don't think the Founding Fathers felt the need to discern and I'm pretty sure they all had pistols they would wear under their pettycoats, or frocks, or whatever the fuck they wore.
This was always going to go to SCOTUS. If they're "Constitutionalists" like they claim they are, then this should be struck down.
I'm also not sure why this only applies to like 6 states. Why don't those states just say "Constitutional Carry is fine" like all the other states that have it have done?
The Federal Government isn't telling them they can't institute that. Otherwise all the states would be in jeopardy of losing constitutional carry.
Still amazed and confounded that a free people still acknowledge a corrupt government. Let it go. No one has authority over you. Do not consent ffs.
Because they’re just not legit. And it goes against relatively recent SCOTUS rulings. GOP does need to start taking action against rogue judges however, instead they’ll just fundraise off of it.