We can require a permit for people to exercise their right to assemble & protest...

[Hugabear]

But not for gun ownership? How can anyone rationalize that?

Why do 2nd Amendment fanatics always forget about the "well-regulated" part?

[katandmoon]

1. Because guns are their dick extensions so it's a very emotional issue.

[rl6214]

3. One post to get the dick out

Is that a new record?

[MercutioATC]

7. These "phallic symbol" people have issues...

Of course, the carrots they shove in their mouths because "killing things is baaaad" aren't phallic at all...

[rl6214]

9. You sure

It's a carrot?

[bossy22]

13. nah

sometimes they can get it in the OP

[Iktomiwicasa]

21. Mention the word *gun*

and some of the antis just have to unzip and flop it out. WTF is up with that?

[yay]

25. No

I've seen it in the first sentence of the OP before.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Why are the gun grabbers so infatuated with penises? Maybe missing something at home.

[Tejas]

56. Anti brings a penis to a gunfight, and then

wonder why they lose.

:rofl:

[dashrif]

22. Wow

Don't be a Size Queen

[Tim01]

31. Still thinking about penises huh? Why don't you get yourself one?

It might get you straightened out.

[jmg257]

33. So what's yours? Hmm...90 Million gun owners....you must really get around!

Someone who seems to know SO MUCH about so many's penis size must really get around, and have plenty of things to compare them to.

Dildos? 'Dad'?


Yuck! :puke:

[rl6214]

2. Why do the

NO-NUTS anti gun fanatics always forget our 2nd amendment constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Well regulated as defined by the Heller vs DC decision:

"that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity; "

[Hugabear]

4. Answer the question, please!

The 1st Amendment grants citizens the right of assembly. Yet if you want to hold a protest or rally in a public venue, you're required to get a permit.

So why is it constitutional to require a permit in order to exercise one's right to assembly, but not constitutional to require a permit for one to exercise one's RKBA?

[rl6214]

5. Why don't you ask the founding fathers

Or better yet, organize a constitutional convetion and amend the constitution.

Besides, I think a crowd of hundreds to thousands is much more dangerous than little old me with my guns.

[Hugabear]

6. So you can't answer the question. Fine. Next?

Somehow, I didn't really expect a non-snarky answer from you.

[rl6214]

8. First amendment

Right to assemble but for large gatherings you must get a permit

Second amendment: right ot keep and bear arms but for machine guns, you must have a permit.

Sounds pretty even to me.

[Hugabear]

12. So

You're still requiring a permit to exercise a constitutional right. It's either constitutional or it isn't.

Personally, I'd love to see a future SCOTUS rule that the 2nd Amendment applies to a regulated state militia (ie National Guard). But failing that, I have absolutely no problem with requiring gun owners to be licensed, and registration for all firearms. I don't really care how you feel about this, because I know that you're going to be diametrically opposed to just about any gun control measures.

[rl6214]

18. So you have no problem with registration for constitutional rights?

"But failing that, I have absolutely no problem with requiring gun owners to be licensed, and registration for all firearms."

So are we then going to require a registration for ALL speech and assemblies then if we require them for large protests or assemblies?

I've got no problem with that as long as we are requiring it to exercise a constitutional right. It's either constitutional or it isn't, RIGHT?

Personally I would have no problem with a future SCOTUS ruling once and for all that our right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Some gun control is fine.

I doubt you'll find anyone here that wants to see NICS repealed, for instance. In fact, most of us want to see it expanded, so we can use it as private individuals, when we sell a personal firearm to another individual. Most accept the 1934 National Firearms Act that made machine guns of all types virtually inaccessible. Some gun control is perfectly reasonable. We all just disagree on which things you want are reasonable.

But that aside, a minor point, the State National Guards, aren't a militia. They didn't exist when the founding fathers were around, being formed in the 1930's. Members draw their pay from the pentagon. Regulations, UCMJ, equipment and training come from the pentagon. When federalized (see Rodney King riots) they take their orders from the Pentagon (federal chain of command) and leave the State Governor/Law Enforcement out to dry.

I'm a CERT, have CPR, First Aid, and all that good stuff. I also consider myself at Christine Gregoire's disposal, and under her authority, if she calls upon state militia, national guard and volunteers for, really, whatever she needs. Sandbagging? Check. Search and Rescue? All over it. Need people to guard Society, from whatever (see Rodney King Riots again, if you wish), I consider myself under subject to her authority, if she makes the appropriate declarations, signs on the dotted line and assumes the responsibility of acting in a legal manner.

'Militia' aren't just white supremacist kooks hiding out in the woods, rooting for the collapse of civilization. Some of us take the safety and security of ALL of our fellow citizens, quite seriously. If called upon, I will risk my own safety to protect my family, my neighbor, or, even you. I'd join the Police, but I have a better paying day job.

[yay]

52. It wasn't the NFA...

That made machine guns hard to get. It was the hughes amendment the the 1986 FOPA that banned the transfer of all new machine guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. But the NFA set MUCH tougher regulation upon machine guns.

The $200 tax stamp is somewhat negligable in the grand scheme of things, but actual Registration, and a full background check (NICS doesnt' qualify) set machine guns pretty far apart from normal firearms.

Good point though, the law you cited severely compounded the rarity, and value of these weapons, making them not just difficult to obtain, but caused them to command collectors prices as well.

[Caliman73]

55. Problem with you logic

There is not "regulated state militia" You even proved it in your example. Each state may have a guard but it is the NATIONAL guard meaning able to be federalized. That is not a militia. That is a volunteer professional army. Basically any male citizen who is not legally incompetent, at the age of 18 has to register for the selective service meaning we are eligible to be called up into the armed forces MEANING....MILITIA. Get it?

Fortunately what you are fine with in regards to licensing and registration of firearms is irrelevant as you do not get to make up the rules. Most gun owners are not opposed to measures aimed at keeping dangerous and unstable people from owning any weapons. What most of us oppose are useless measures which have zero effect on crime and punish the law abiding while allowing criminals to continue to act with impunity.

[rl6214]

11. No response to this?

First amendment
Right to assemble but for large gatherings you must get a permit

Second amendment: right ot keep and bear arms but for machine guns, you must have a permit.

Sounds pretty even to me.

[TheWraith]

10. Because you're doing it in a public place.

A limited venue requires guarantees that the area isn't being overcrowded.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. In most states you do need a permit to carry a gun in public.

[beevul]

24. We already have that.

The 1st Amendment grants citizens the right of assembly. Yet if you want to hold a protest or rally in a public venue, you're required to get a permit.

So why is it constitutional to require a permit in order to exercise one's right to assembly, but not constitutional to require a permit for one to exercise one's RKBA?

If you look more clearly, what you have is this:

Yet if you want to hold a protest or rally in a public venue, you're required to get a permit. Yes.

And if one wants to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in public, one may get a concealed carry permit.

The key here is PUBLIC exercise of a right.

No permit necessary in your front yard for either of them.

[NewMoonTherian]

41. Neither is constitutional.

That's an opinion, so no, I don't have case law or precedent on my side. Nonetheless, it's an answer, and it's sincere.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I'll take a little stab at that.

You don't need a permit to speak your mind on your own property.

Public lands are negotiable. A protest may require re-routing of emergency services, may require cleanup, and sanitation facilities.

When we carry in public, we are regulated, in all but one state. Requirements for that regulation vary from state to state, but we are very much regulated. The average is a background check, and some level of state approved training.

When we carry on our own property, we aren't. And neither are you when you speak or assemble your pals on your own property.

[bossy22]

14. because its on public property

but you dont need a permit to start your own blog, put signs out on your front lawn (most of the time) or hold a political gathering on your property....

the same goes for gun ownership....most of the time you need a permit to carry it in public, but not to keep and use on your own property

the same goes for car ownership...only need to be licensed and registered if it is going to be used on public roads

[Hoopla Phil]

59. 100% correct!

[billyoc]

15. Allowing free speech to be doled out by government permit is a mistake.

Don't bother trying to make it worse.

[dashrif]

23. Yup

+1 big time mistake

[notesdev]

16. "Permits" to protest are bullshit

The whole concept of being permitted to protest is absurd.

And "well-regulated" means being able to hit what you're aiming at.

All a permit regime for guns would do is restrict people who are law abiding. Criminals aren't going to give a damn about a permit, most of the time they steal their guns or get them off the black market anyway.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. You mean you aren't satisfied

with your parks department approved free-speech zone, in a little fenced off corner of nowhere?

You ingrate.


(:sarcasm:)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. You don't need a permit to assemble and protest on private property.

[Hoopla Phil]

60. Bingo, we have a winner!

Permits come into play only when on public property. I think 44 states now have some form of permit for carrying in public - they're called CHLs.

[Hoopla Phil]

61. self deleted.

[yay]

26. We shouldn't

Makes no sense. "Oh you can protest but only if we give you permission"

That's BS.

[Statistical]

27. I don't think permits violate the 2nd.

Doesn't mean I have to support them just because they are constitutional.

Just because a permit is constitutional doesn't mean it is a good idea.
There are a lot of ideas that are constitutional that are still a bad idea.

Lowering minimum wage $1.00 is constitutional. Should we do it?

In VA we require a permit/license for CCW.
No permit to buy
No registration to own
No permit to open carry
Permit to conceal carry

Seems to work fine.
However other states are more restrictive.
I don't think a suit on basis of 2nd amendment will either work or is being attempted.

Permits are a legislative issue and fall into SCOTUS comments on "acceptable regulation" in Heller case.
2nd neither makes permits requires nor makes them unconstitutional.
Permits & their scope are something for the legislature to determine.

[inkool]

28. There is nothing to rationalize

You are only required to get a permit to assemble and protest under a very limited set of circumstances. Such as using public space to protest.

You are required to get a permit to own some types of firearms and firearm parts. Such as Automatic weapons (machine guns) and sound suppressors.

So both the first and second amendments sometimes require permits to exercise.

Also "well-regulated" does not mean what you think it means, and if you have an issue with that bring it up with the SCOTUS.

[jmg257]

29. We don't forget - 'well regulated' is well armed and well trained.

Many get it 1/2 right, by supplying themselves with arms as intended by the constitution. The State was to supply the training.

At least we do our part.

[Statistical]

34. Exactly.

Well regulated has NOTHING to do with permits, licenses, or other regulation.

Well regulated simply means "trained & able".

in order to have a capable & trained militia the PEOPLE need to have the right to own & use firearms.

Just like if I were to say:
people need the right to own & read books in order for the state to have capable & trained professionals.

Nobody would logically armed that ONLY professionals should have books.

By creating an environment where the citizens of the state have access to books the entire state is more likely to produce capable professionals.

Just like having a state where citizens have ready access to firearms & training is more likely to produce a capable & trained militia (well regulated).

[jmg257]

30. Because requiring govt permits for exercising the right to arms means the govt is

in control of those arms. While the congress was given the power to come up with general guidelines as to how the people would arm themselves for Militia duty, no other power was given to control those arms, or any others the people acquired; any potential power was severely restricted so they could NOT DISarm the people. (especially in the 2nd).

re: govt controlling arms...

Mr. Jackson: “that he was of the opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms.”

Mr. Wadsworth: “Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them?"

Rep Gerry: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed..."

[Tim01]

32. The permit is about people assembling in a public place. It's not about free speech.

If 50,000 people want to assemble in a public place it can cause problems as far as traffic and stuff. It doesn't matter why they assembled.
If 2 groups who hate each other assemble at the same place and the same time without notifying the local government, it can result in problems that would be avoided if they were not allowed to assemble at the same time. Also there is the notification of police to keep people safe.

[slackmaster]

35. States can probably require permits for gun ownership

The federal government cannot.

[Statistical]

37. Why? n/t

[slackmaster]

38. 10th Amendment

Until the 2nd is incorporated, states may be able to impose all kinds of regulations legally. I'd like to see that change.

[Statistical]

40. Ok agreed.

However I believe the 2nd will be ruled as incorporated by SCOTUS within next few years.

In Heller ruling while not indicating the 2nd was incorporated there is a line that almost begs for a case so the question of incorporation can be decided.

I will see if I can find the quote but paraphrased the decision indicates that in order for right to keep & bear arms to lead to a "well regulated militia" the right must not be infringed by anyone. i.e. if fed is prohibited but the states are not then the protection is meaningless as states could prevent the establisment of well regulated militia.

If an incorporation case hits SCOTUS w/ current set of justices I have no doubt it will be found to be incorporated against the states.

The only risk would be a change in the court before such a case makes it to SCOTUS.

[umccoyw]

44. i disagree

Constitutional law is supreme law and according to constitution now that 2nd amendment is individual right its protected under 14th amendment. Yes i know it isnt officially incorporated but once the right case goes to court i think a lot of the laws will be repealed. The states can make any law they want but its up to the citizens to fight the unconstitutional ones and get them repealed. Also (check with a lawyer first) i believe that if you file a civil rights case and win the government (depending on who you sue) will have to pay reasonable lawyer fees for your lawyer. If you lose however your stuck with the bill.

[jmg257]

39. For handguns maybe, for CCW, but 'should' not be for general possession.

If the states were allowed gun-controlling permits, they could deprive the feds of an effective militia (besides the people of effective means of defense).

While even handguns were common arms of the Militias, and were required for certain members by Congress, CCW could be another issue.

Constitutionally speaking of course. "Shall issue", or "MUST issue" would probably be OK, as the people have since decided certain people should not be allowed ANY arms, even though they can walk around free in society (???). But those permits could be used by a state govt to DISarm all the people, and so 'should' also not be allowed.


edit:
initially mis-read post replying to

[notesdev]

42. Read the text of the 2nd

It cannot be clearer that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE, not to the states.

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

The existence of a permit regime implies that permission can be refused. A permit to keep and bear arms is no more compatible with our Constitution than a permit to speak one's mind.

[umccoyw]

45. Your right.........

Thats another problem with our system. If look at case law ( D.C. V. Heller for example) Judges use there opinion which becomes law. The heller case for example if you read the decision they go through and talk about each part of 2nd amendment and say what it mean. They talk about every part except neglect to discuss the phrase "shall not be infringed" They also show specific examples of infringements which are ok. Now a strict interpratation would in effect allow everyone to own a gun even if felon or mentally ill. Now i agree that those people should not own firearms but if the courts can make exceptions whose to say they are always going to be legit. There should be no Bias in there decision but obviously there is or they would always vote with each other and not disagree.

[benEzra]

36. You have to have a permit to assemble in a public place. You ALSO have to have a permit

to carry a gun on your person in a public place.

You do not need a permit to gather at someone's house, any more than you need a permit to merely own a firearm.

However, I dare say that if there was a powerful, well-funded lobby scaremongering about public gatherings and trying to use parade permitting systems to shut down such gatherings, then the parade/assembly permit system might indeed be reevaluated.

[umccoyw]

46. I need a permit just to buy a pistol

i live in NY and you cant but a handgun without first getting a permit. I think they require permits to assemble so that they know why your going to be there and so that they can have the toilets available and a police presence if they think it will get out of hand. i could be wrong.

[Pullo]

43. Permits for PUBLIC assembly, permits for PUBLIC carry

one does not need a permit to assemble in one's home, and its ridiculous for governments to 'permit' people to defend their homes.


....."well regulated" = can hit what they shoot at

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Why am I not surprised she hasn't been responding?

[AtheistCrusader]

51. I think it's because we're pretty much all on the same page here.

And on-message for once.

(Queue some jackass whining about us spreading NRA talking points, without any evidence the NRA has advocated any such points)

[scrinmaster]

53. That isn't an argument to require a permit to own firearms,

it's an argument that you shouldn't need a permit to peaceably assemble.

[Caliman73]

54. Permits

First, the permit is not for the right to protest. Permits are usually required when an assembly will be blocking access, will have amplified sound, or will be moving through city streets. Any individual can typically stand in any public area and protest as long as their actions do not endanger others.

Second, people are allowed to own and carry firearms but if you want to carry concealed, you do need a permit in all but 1 state. Some states allow open carry of unloaded firearms, but carrying openly brings a person a great deal of unwanted attention. Otherwise you can keep you firearm in you home without a permit as long as you are not doing anything to disturb the peace, just like you can assemble people in your home for a protest.

As far as the "well regulated" part, most gun owners remember that clearly which is why we clean our firearms, go to the range to shoot, and some purchase a variety of arms, so that they will be "well equipped and trained" to use those firearms in a lawful way if needed.

Nice try though on trying to pass off the "well regulated" phrase as meaning "controlled". It has been repeatedly acknowledged that "regulated" in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights meant supplied and trained.

[Hoopla Phil]

58. Because "well regulated" in that context doesn't mean what you think it means.

Might want to look it up.

[Hoopla Phil]

62. How about, "because it's just another law criminals will ignore."