View Full Version : Why constitutional carry?

08-30-2013, 12:13 AM
How come?
Why do states regulate the RKBA?
Why don't they restrict other constitutional rights?
Or, I suppose that they do. Or at least factions in many, if not all states, do, in fact, work to dismantle the bill of rights.
I went on wiki. Entered in "constitutional carry", and skimmed through the highlights. As many concerned with 2A know, there are five "constitutional carry" states. Several others had passed the legislation, only to have it vetoed by a (D)governor.

Do state legislatures decide wether or not to restrict free speech? Separation of church and state? Due process?

I suppose that they do try, sometimes. Some legislatures or, at least legislators, try to do such things.

Some of the "free states" have made it their law that there can be no further restrictions than the federal laws. I know there have been rulings by SCOTUS regarding our freedoms and rights. Some have favored the second Ammendment, and some have allowed states or other localities to restrict certain rights.

As a citizen, and resident of California, bordered by AZ, who honors the second Ammendment, and NV, who would issue me a CCW more readily than my home state, and OR would, as well.... It is non-sensical. It appears to me that I could carry in Arizona, and I could more easily be permitted that "privelage" in NV and OR than my home state(I reside in Santa Clara cty)(and will never vote for L Smith).

Why can't the constitution be the law of the land?

Our rights become infringed. SCOTUS, at times says some of this is allowed. Persons sworn to defend THE CONSTITUTION, decide to interpret 2A as some kind of option.

Restrictions on 1A have been upheld. "FIRE!!!!" In a movie house is not protected..... Because it hurts other people... Murder is not permitted... Menacing and threatening someone is illegal. .... But speech is not a crime. Opinions are not crimes, and politicians aren't active in trying to restrict my speech.

Owning, purchasing, and carrying a firearm should not be illegal. There is no reason to argue that obtaining or carrying should be a crime. Murdering, assaulting, etc, kidnapping, imprisoning, etc, are crimes. And they should be. Maybe the penalties should be increased for those criminals who employ deadly weapons.

Law abiding citizens should not have their rights infringed. Period. A law abiding citizen never murdered anybody, nor did they join a "street gang".... Nor did they engage in anything illegal. They abide.

Why are states like AR authorizing the constitution? Why do they even have to?

Forgive my late night ramblings. But damn the law of the land. Damn the grabbers. Damn the protectionists. Damn Fine shhwine. Damn Yii. Damn bockser. Damn pill ossi. Damn day lyonne, damn ammi yawn-o....

I rant. Forgive me.

Damn them all! :TFH::confused::cool2::(:chris:

08-30-2013, 12:21 AM
I won't vote for our current overlord smith either. She is totally leftist and anti constitutional unless you donate 5 figures to her campaign fund, have some political pull or are some CEO/celebrity.

Hope she gets caught with her hand in the cookie jar, and for forced out!

08-30-2013, 12:44 AM
there are so many laws and regulations nobody knows them all

there is a group called the sovereign persons they are using old laws that haven't been taken off the books its kind of cool as they are flipping the script since before it was the government that would pull laws out of its azz to bother people now they are pulling researching the law and poking the bear

i like their theory about being travelers and since they are not transporting commerce they are not true drivers so do not need drivers license and are also not bound to register their cars since that is just their private property