Re: Gun Control means Crime Control

On 12/8/22 6:17 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
> On 12/8/2022 1:33 PM, !Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2022 18:53:55 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
>> Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Should CCW permits exist at all, in your opinion?
>>
>> Good question!
>>
>> One of the properties of a "human right" (by my definition) is that it
>> is intrinsic to the human experience.  A "right" isn't given by a
>> government or earned by any act.  A human being has the right from
>> birth, it isn't licensed or conferred by a decree or permit.
> 
> The intrinsic right is the right to arms.  However, that right does not 
> mean a right to keep and bear just whatever arms one wishes, nor to bear 
> them in just whatever manner one wishes.  It is that latter that has 
> allowed restrictions on concealed carry.  Scalia expressly mentioned 
> this in Heller.
> 
>     Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is 
> not a
>     right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner 
> whatsoever and
>     for whatever purpose: For example, *concealed weapons prohibitions* 
> have been
>     upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion 
> should not
>     be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the 
> possession of
>     firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the 
> carrying of
>     firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government 
> buildings, or
>     laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale 
> of arms.
>     Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in 
> common use
>     at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of 
> prohibiting the
>     carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
> 
>     https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
> 
> The notion of the right to arms has *always* incorporated various 
> restrictions on the types of arms, and the manner of bearing them, 
> including concealed carry.  These are part of the inherent limits of the 
> right.


It seems that the ban on sending guns through the U.S. Post Office which 
is taxpayer funded would be unconstitutional. It infringes on your RIGHT 
to keep and bear by limiting access.

As would any Commerce clause laws that limit travel with or the sale of 
"arms" at your destination, and if the U.S. goverment issues those arms 
to their own employees for "self defense" then the precedence to 
transport and carry the same kind of self defense arms in the same way 
is clearly being defined by the U.S. Government which means that the 
individual States would then be unable to ban or regulate any such arms 
that the U.S. government clearly (by their own actions) considers as 
necessary for personal security during any average day in the the United 
States.



>> The mere fact that there exists such a thing as a "CCW permit" is a de
>> facto denial that gun carry is a human right.

No the fact there is a law shows that it's NOT working and is an 
unwarranted failure and it's also infringing on our RIGHT to keep and 
bear arms despite the fact that the Constitution denied that power to 
the individual States and never delegated that power to the United 
States.

The test that violated the U.S. Constitution, has been shown to NOT just 
fail to make anyone safe but it also violated the U.S. Constitution to 
see if it was going to work.  Which means that it's NOT only a failed 
policy but it's one that was never Constitutional and would have 
required a NEW amendment to restrict out NATURAL RIGHTS and handed them 
over to the Government who already proved they are incompetent and that 
their plans for regulating our NATURAL RIGHTS by having government limit 
our arms is going to be a failure.  The DEMOCRATS test was a failure and 
it's time to go back to the U.S. Constitution where it protect our 
RIGHTS and the Government doesn't try to steal our RIGHTS by ignoring 
the U.S. Constitution.



-- 
-Reality Matters-