SC Governor Haley Supports Constitutional Carry

Hot on the heels of signing a bill allowing concealed carry in South Carolina bars and restaurants, Governor Nikki Haley has come out in favor of dropping the permitting process altogether. The idea is to restore the right to carry arms without government permission. According to thestate.com, “Nikki Haley said Tuesday that she backs a proposal that would make it legal for most South Carolinians to carry guns – concealed or in the open – without a permit or the training that the state currently requires.” . . .

Constitutional carry is currently the law in five states and is being considered in several others. No problems have been noted in those states that can be attributed to the restoration of full Second Amendment carry rights.

State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Spartanburg, the chief sponsor of the constitutional-carry proposal, says the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to carry firearms without any government restrictions.

As usual, there are the “I support the second amendment, but” naysayers. Chief among them appears to be Senator Larry Martin R-Pickens, who is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the constitutional carry bill is currently bottled up. He’s credited with killing constitutional carry last year. Here’s the money quote, emphasis added:

“Is it (carrying firearms) a right under our Constitution? Sure it is. But it’s also a huge responsibility that we as citizens should respect.”

Respect does not mean we must allow the government to charge us fees and require us to attend classes and essentially prove that we are not criminals before we can exercise our rights. That’s what’s known as prior restraint.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    I’m guessing you’ll hear more about Governor Haley as the 2016 election cycle kicks into full gear.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Governor Haley is a very nice lady, intelligent, capable in her current position and would be a welcome addition to the U.S. Senate someday; but she isn’t presidential timber.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        Maybe we need to rethink what the qualities of a good President are because, frankly, the current definition hasn’t worked out too well.

        1. avatar Parnell says:

          +1

        2. avatar TheBear says:

          +2

      2. avatar Parnell says:

        “Governor Haley is a very nice lady, intelligent, capable in her current position and would be a welcome addition to the U.S. Senate someday; but she isn’t presidential timber.” Based on what? The present holder of the office? Or perhaps the former Secretary of State? What exactly is Presidential Timber? Judging by most of the choices voters have made in my lifetime, that timber is all in the head!

      3. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        I’m judging by my OWN standard, as I am an intelligent, educated, reading, thinking man.

        That any of you choose to use Obama or Hillary as a standard and say “Well, look who else has done it.” or “Look who the competition is.” means nothing to me. Neither of those two individuals is qualified to be President, either, regardless what the dependency class voted for.

        As for Governor Haley, she has no national reputation, save for a the occasional news item in places like this. She has zero international experience. While she was CFO of a small, apparently now-defunct, local clothing retailer, I wouldn’t consider her in possession of a stellar private sector career. Her strong suit, aside from having the right political philosophy, is that she does have legislative and executive experience; albeit from a small, largely politically homogenous state (59% GOP control of the state legislature, 100% GOP control of statewide offices.) That doesn’t lend itself to dealing with the diversity and intensity of D.C. partisanship, let alone the world stage.

        Where is her piping hot national media spotlight exposure? Where is her face-to-face debate experience? Don’t discount these things as less-than-pivotal. My own Governor’s presidential campaign came crashing down two years ago in an “Ooops!” moment when it came to outlining his vision for a smaller federal government, because he lacked big time political experience. And that’s after having served many terms in statewide elective office in Texas, which is huge and actually was its own country at one time. Not presidential timber.

        Look at former Governor Tim Pawlenty out of Minnesota: lawyer, 20 years in local and state legislative bodies, 8 years as governor, and that was all on top of a successful career as a criminal prosecutor. In 2012, he could go around giving speeches about “Romneycare” all day. Yet, when the moment came in the debates, standing right NEXT to Mitt Romney, he froze up obviously, embarrassingly and couldn’t muster the courage to repeat the claim to the man’s face. Not presidential timber.

        I could go on here, but suffice it to say that what we need at this historic crossroads is a history-making monumental figure. We need someone of Washington, Lincoln or Reagan’s stature. It’s more than mere resume, but that’s a part of it. Governor Nimrata “Nikki” Haley is a fine public figure and I’m proud to count her among our nation’s leaders; but Abraham Lincoln, she ain’t.

        1. avatar RKflorida says:

          I’ve watched her stare and debate down the toughest and nastiest politicians in her state. She out talked and out witted them.
          Abe Lincoln wasn’t Abe Lincoln until he became president and was challenged with a national crisis. I would choose her over every president we have had since Reagan.

        2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          RK? Please. Lincoln grew up under very difficult circumstances and suffered severe personal losses along the way, even for the times. He was essentially self-educated, the only one literate in his family, and would routinely walk for miles to obtain books. He built a small business career for himself. He volunteered for and served in the Blackhawk War; elected as Captain by the other volunteers among him. Later, after being elected to the Illinois state legislature, he taught himself law and was admitted to the Bar.

          In the U.S. Congress, he was the only Whig from the Illinois delegation, yet managed to maintain true to his principles rather than caving to the majority. He also spoke out against the Mexican American War, despite its popularity, a stance which kept him from running for re-election.

          When next he returned to politics, it was to take on sitting Senator Douglas, the President and the Supreme Court in a campaign based on opposition to the Scott v. Sanford ruling, which had declared blacks non-citizens with no rights. Then came seven historic debates, covering wide-ranging issues of the day, which are still studied today. He lost that Senate race in the Illinois legislature (there was no direct election of U.S. Senators back then), but won the Presidency just two years later.

          That’s already a whole lot of moxie, life achievements, tragedies overcome and character building of Abraham Lincoln, long before he stepped foot in the White House. President Lincoln might not be as much and fondly recalled today, were it not for the Civil War; but only because that event gave him a grand stage to demonstrate his already immense potency, not to incubate it.

          We’re two years out from 2016’s race. Compare that to Lincoln in 1858. The only plausible answer is actually a question: Nikki who?

  2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Any legislation that agrees with “shall not be infringed” is common sense in my book.

    1. avatar RepubAnon says:

      The right to travel within the US is also guaranteed in the Constitution – shall we eliminate drivers licenses? Vehicle licenses? Traffic signals?

      Cars and trucks are relatively safe when handled in a safe manner by persons with the appropriate level of training (although we still see lots of people killed or injured in accidents each year). When operated by people without adequate training, cars and trucks are very dangerous.

      Do you seriously want people carrying firearms around in our cities with no requirement that they first receive training on their proper use? To put it another way – are there any people you can think of that you wouldn’t trust with a loaded firearm? Wouldn’t you feel a bit safer if those people had some basic firearms training before they decided to tote firearms in your general vicinity? Aren’t these careless and/or idiotic people the same folks who’ll just strap on whatever looks cool and start spraying rounds about – unless there’s a law that allows the police to ask them for their permit BEFORE they kill and/or injure someone?

      Or do we just decide that the Hatfields and the McCoys were visionaries and had the proper solution to such issues?

      1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

        There is a massive difference between “people should be trained before they carry a firearm” vs. “people should be imprisoned if they don’t get trained before they carry a firearm.” Do you not see the difference?

        Should people be trained in how to use a firearm before they carry it around? Of course they should. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the government has no right to prohibit someone from carrying a firearm, even if they haven’t been trained. The thing to keep in mind is that carrying a firearm, by itself, HARMS NO ONE. The simple act of carrying a firearm results in NO VICTIM – not until the firearm is used (or misused). Even if the firearm is used, there may not be a victim, since self-defense is a legitimate, lawful use of a firearm.

        Carrying a firearm creates a victim in the same way that carrying a fruit basket creates a victim – it doesn’t.

        There are tens of millions – perhaps well over 100 million – gun owners in this country. A tiny, minuscule number of them commit crimes. Why do you think it is justifiable to assume that someone who wants to carry a firearm should be forced to “prove his innocence” before he is allowed to exercise his right of self-defense?

      2. avatar ThomasR says:

        Well Repubanon; sigh; licensing shouldn’t be needed to be on the public road; freedom of travel is also a right. That’s a discussion for another time. But the proof is in the pudding; we have constitutional carry in five states; and yet their crime rate by law abiding citizens carrying weapons, OC or CC is similar to those that states that have Shall issue. In other words, the licensing and training by shall issue states makes no difference in whether a person is going to be responsible in the way they use a gun or be a complete idiot.

        I know it’s frightening to think that people are actually free to practice such a powerful right without big brother giving the blessing to be able to bear that weapon. But when people show themselves to the idiot; that is when the law is supposed to step in; after the fact. This compulsive and perverted need to do pre-crime and preemptive control to stop the idiots before they can act is a complete violation of free will and a presumption of guilt; that all people are guilty until proven innocent; that isn’t the way our justice system is supposed to work.

        So just take a deep breath and just allow yourself and the people around you the chance to show if they can be trusted to be responsible human beings; and if a few odd ones show a lack of respect for their fellow human beings and violate basic laws of the road or laws against unprovoked physical assault; well, that is what situational awareness, seat belts and a gun are for.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Outstanding! 🙂

      3. avatar Josh in TX says:

        Ok, I’ll bite. If your concern is controlling people then I don’t know that we have much to talk about. If your concern is a lack of training and understanding regarding firearms and their use, pressure your school board to add basic firearms safety and handling courses (along with basic self defence law) to the high school curriculum.

        Requiring paid training and licencing fees before being”alowed” the means to defend yourself in public disproportionatly disenfranchises minorities and the poor.

      4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        90% of what you need to know about firearms is summed up in four simple rules. They’re tantamount to “stop, drop, and roll” or “look left, look right, look left again before crossing the street.” Literally, children can understand all of it. In other words, it’s common sense.

        As for drivers license, so what? Driving a car is simple, too. Yet, some people choose to disobey some very basic tenets of common sense. Forcing everyone to get licenses isn’t improving anyone’s driving ability any more than it’s preventing anyone’s idiocy.

        Really, using one ridiculous government mandate as justification for another sounds a lot like that slippery slope argument that the gun grabbers always say is a myth born of paranoia.

      5. avatar Cliff H says:

        “The right to travel within the US is also guaranteed in the Constitution – shall we eliminate drivers licenses?”

        I can see why you are Republican Anonymous – you have the Liberal ability to find “rights” in the Constitution that do not actually exist.

        Please show me anywhere in the Bill of Rights that guarantees our right to travel. The CLOSEST you could come would be the right to peaceably assemble.

        I have been a professional driver since 2002 and have over 800,000 miles on the road. I can tell you without any doubt that the possession of a driver’s license granted by some overworked state bureaucrat in NO WAY guarantees the ability to safely and efficiently operate a motor vehicle. I lost track of the number of times I saw people do incredibly stupid things only to be saved by my or some other professional driver’s superior ability to avoid trouble. And many more where involved parties were not so lucky.

        Quite aside from the FACT that the Second Amendment is a clear and unambiguous prohibition against the government having ANY ability to restrict, regulate, control, license, set standards for, or determine in any way an individual’s suitability for carrying arms, the comparison of that natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to the slipshod and rudimentary driver training and licensing requirements is just so much wishful thinking and BS. “…shall not be infringed.” means that the government has no authority in the matter and cannot set the standards, otherwise the very people the amendment was intended to allow to form militias in the event of the government devolving into a tyranny would be those people the government would refuse to permit or license.

        1. avatar Duke says:

          “The right to travel” has been found in the “privileges and immunities” clause. Art. IV, Sec. 2, Clause 1. It guarantees the right to interstate travel. It would likely prevent for example, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona from building a fence along their border with California to keep the crazy contained.

      6. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        To answer your question truthfully, I can think of a lot of people I would prefer not to see armed, but given their constitutional RKBA it isn’t for me or the government to decide who can exercise a constitutional right!

      7. avatar Thesophist says:

        Sure there are people I wouldn’t trust with a gun. They are also the same people I wouldn’t trust with a knife, a bat, a car, power tools, a hammer, or open flames. I’d also prefer they not reproduce. Thankfully for them, and you, what i trust and prefer are immaterial to their, and your, right to do as you wish until you have proven through action that they, and you, cannot be allowed to own a gun, a knife, a car, a hammer, and so on.

      8. avatar Parnell says:

        “The right to travel within the US is also guaranteed in the Constitution – shall we eliminate drivers licenses? Vehicle licenses? Traffic signals?” While the right to travel may be guaranteed, the means of travel is not. Your argument, therefore, holds no legal or Constitutional validity. Driving is not a right protected by the Bill of Rights it is a privilege that can be exercised under regulation.

        1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          Hmmm………nope, not buying it. That’s like saying one has freedom of speech, but the government gets to decide what means you use to communicate. The natural extension of that reasoning could include regulating the very language and words you use.

          Freedom of speech, but………you can only one sheet of parchment per month and must use only the first 50 words listed in Webster’s pocket dictionary of Tagalog……doesn’t much cut it as a right, now does it? Same with government regulations on RKBA, and travelling, for that matter. You have the right, but……..we’re going to infringe the living crap out of it until it’s virtually nonexistent. A right? Not a right? It quickly becomes a distinction without a difference.

  3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    This lady rocks.
    Maybe I need to move down to Myrtle Beach and be with family. Love the beaches there.

    1. avatar Gude Poast says:

      If you have family there they can tell you about the tons of crime, missing persons, gang activity and the liberal taxaholic Myrtle Beach mayor who joined MAIG. Myrtle Beach is becoming a mini Las Vegas, a burgeoning retiree population bumping up against tourists out for a good time and all the thugs who supply the drugs to a party town. As far as Nikki Haley, kudos for her RKBA stance but she lied and tripled the state Medicare rolls after saying she wouldnt.

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        Myrtle beach sucks.

    2. avatar stormchaser says:

      Well, you will have to buy land there to carry a gun due to their lack of reciprocity which is rooted in racism & preventing blacks from being armed.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        That’s silly. While it’s true that gun control laws in general have origins in racism, to say that South Carolina’s recipricity structure today is influenced by racism does not stand up to scrutiny. We might as well say America was founded on slavery, so every last law and all of our folkways and mores today are rooted in racism. When does it stop?

        South Carolina recognizes twenty states’ permits as valid for concealed carry in SC. Oregon is not among those states whose permits are recognized. I don’t know why not. To connect that to racism, however, one would have to explain why South Carolina does recognize permits from Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas, for examples, all states with not insignificant black populations. One might also attempt to explain why the state is attempting to disband its own permitting process, despite its own abundant black population.

        Really, with as many actual monsters as there are roaming the countryside, going around fabricating new ones offers answer to what valuable purpose, exactly?

      2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        oh, you mean their Black senator, Tim Scott, who is LOVED by the people?

  4. avatar Vhyrus says:

    There was overwhelming response in favor of this when I lived there last year, but it was killed in committee anyway. I honestly don’t expect this to go very far.

  5. avatar mike123 says:

    If you want to see how lucy graham gets elected, look at the frauds elected as Republicans in the State House, especially the Senate. Sometimes, its hard to tell the difference between the positions of Gov. Cuomo of NY and these frauds.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Really? You can’t tell the difference between the SAFE Act and SC’s permissive gun laws?

      FLAME DELETED

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        FLAME DELETED

  6. avatar Excedrine says:

    Keeping my fingers crossed, but I’m not expecting it to make it to her desk.

    Even then, politicians these days are, for the most part, very “flighty”; i.e. they blow in whichever direction the wind comes and whenever it’s politically expedient for them.

  7. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Senator Larry Martin’s career needs to get killed at the ballot box next time he is up for election.

    1. avatar That Guy says:

      This. SC needs to make sure this guy is gone next go round.

  8. avatar TJ says:

    The constitution is federal law which preempts any state law. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear language. States should not be able to regulate the second amendment. The constitution is all the documentation we should need to carry a firearm. In order to regulate the carry of firearms you must first change the second amendment. Until it is changed, constitutional carry is the only type of carry. How SCOTUS has been able to interpret the 2A to give states the ability to regulate, is a complete bastardization of the constitutional congress’s intent.

  9. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

    Can ttag start a petition to nominate her for the republican presidential primary’s; I’m sure the gun blogosphere would play along if Farrago peddled it around.

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      The MSM would tear her to SHREDS, because as a woman she’s off the proverbial plantation. Women are supposed to be liberal, after all.

      1. avatar CA.Ben says:

        Or she might tear the MSM a new one.

      2. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

        As opposed to what they’ll do to any republican candidate male or female?

    2. avatar JSF01 says:

      Yes please!!! I really want her to run for President. She seems like the kind of person that is more conservative than Chris Christie, but still won’t scare away the moderates like the GOP seems to be so terrified of doing.

      Honestly I am very much opposed to Chris Christie becoming President, almost to the point that I would almost rather have a democrat president instead. Not because I don’t that it makes no difference between him and a democrat (I believe he would still be 2-3 times better than any democrat president) but because if a republican gets elected at least 1 if not more conservative Supreme Court judges will retire, and if Chris Christie is in charge we will wind up with some moderate judges replacing them. In which case we probably will never see another 2A Supreme Court case taken up much less win, for at least a couple of decades.

      At least If a democrat is elected, the conservative judges won’t step down, though of course with some of their ages I would be deafly afraid of one of them dyeing with a democrat president because that would be much worst.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Repubs ran Bob Dole, George Bush Sr., John McCain, Mitt Romney…Chris Christy is just another in a long line of RINOs that have claimed the Republican slot on the presidential ticket and have no chance of winning.

        Until the moderate RINOs are booted and a real conservative takes the nomination we don’t stand a chance of beating the Dems. This next 2016 election is a watershed event and may well determine if our Constitutional Republic can survive.

  10. avatar Rokurota says:

    South Carolinians, tell us about Haley. Is she competent? A good administrator and manager? I’ve seen her on the talk shows and she seems sharp, always quick with a good riposte to the typically lefty interviewers. But we can’t afford another four years of criminal incompetence and contempt, even toward the left.

    1. avatar Steven says:

      She’s pretty good overall, but not perfect. There haven’t been any major issues to my knowledge, she is pro-business, with tax breaks and what-not to get new investment. She has had to make some rough decisions on the government budget, for example she defunded the commission for the arts, but that last one is a necessary evil, with the budget the way it is. She is a woman, obviously, and is of Indian descent. While normally that is a good thing, so the left can’t throw the race card around, I doubt they’d hesitate considering their recent treatment of my man Tim Scott.

      1. avatar MMinSC says:

        She is definitely no Tim Scott, but pretty good overall. It is really hard to tell though. The governor of SC is designed to have less power than in other states. This was do to post Civil War legislation. They were worried that there would be a black elected back thenl so made the legislature more powerful.

      2. avatar Triga says:

        Go with a powder fodioatnun or just use concealer to places where you need it. However, I personally think liquid fodioatnun is fine to use also for this look, just don’t add powder. This creates a dewy, healthy glow look. Line your tightline (not waterline or lid) with a black eyeliner. Use a black mascara after curling your lashes. Top your lips off with a light pinkish lipstick that is almost the same shade as your natural lip color but gives your lips a pop of color. Use a soft pink blush color also if you’d like to top it off.

  11. avatar fuque says:

    awesome woman….

  12. avatar Dennis says:

    “You can carry a weapon openly if this bill is adopted and I’m offended by that,” said committee chair Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens)

    Sen. Martin heads the committee that shelved the bill last year. I am offended by his breathing my air.

    Putz.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I can understand requiring a permit for concealed carry much more so than open carry…

  13. avatar launchpadmech says:

    Thank you Lady Governor!

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    North Carolina being one of the friendly states that allows permit holders from any state (reciprocating or not) to carry there, I am not surprised…

    1. avatar Maineuh says:

      Wow, really? So if I were to visit the state, I could carry, even though there’s no Maine-NC reciprocity? That’s pretty damn cool.

    2. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Haley is South Carolina’s governor.

  15. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    She is a breath of fresh air, and not hard on the eyes either.
    Waiting to Dirk to start obsessing over her lol
    I support constitutional carry. End of story.
    We can debate it for centuries, but it is a right I feel should be just that.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      unfortunately, I have been told by management she is off limits. She is attractive (Indian by birth) but since I like her politics (and my job), I will respect her. Besides, she is not a marriage destroying, gold digger like certain anti-gun organziers we know who sucked on daddy bloomy, now is she?

  16. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    But aren’t the streets going to run red with the blood of all the innocent victims, children even, after it turns into a wild-west shooting spree because of every little thing?

    /sarc

  17. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

    How would readers react to laws that didn’t interfere with owning guns as such, but required gun owners to join a well regulated militia on pain of forfeiting their guns? I’m not presenting that as a way to ban guns indirectly by not allowing them to join unless they met other conditions amounting to gun control, i.e. joining a militia should be a realistic option.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      All other arguments aside as to whether or not militia training is a good idea, and I have stated before that I think completion of boot camp/basic training in the summer between the junior and senior years should be a requirement for a high school diploma, the Second Amendment says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Therefore, the government has no authority and CANNOT set any restrictions or requirements before you can exercise that right.

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” states the reason the RKBA shall not be infringed, as agreed by all 9 SCOTUS justices in Heller, but there is NOTHING in the amendment allowing the government any ability to require a citizen to be part of a militia.

      The point of the Second Amendment is to tell the government, “Hands Off! This amendment is to protect US against YOU.”

      1. avatar P.M.Lawrence says:

        That’s the issue I was trying to bring out. What if they didn’t infringe the right to bear arms at all, not even by sneaking in other conditions, but just required anyone bearing arms to join a well regulated militia – the very thing that is supposed to be furthered by that right? I mean, without making that an added burden in any way, say if joining a militia was a paying position, maybe funded by a tax on people who didn’t join. So, your reply was addressing a point I wasn’t making, that they can’t add conditions to restrict bearing arms; I meant, with an obligation that actually left people better off, and that wouldn’t hinder bearing arms but would actually help it. After all, for a long time U.S. communities had regular “mustering days” to sort out who was on tap if needed; I think those were obligatory, and they do go back to the very beginnings of these things.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          I’m going to assume you’re British based on your use of the language and as such give you a free pass on misinterpretation of both the text and founders intent Re: The 2A.

          The first difficulty with your proposal is that the requirement to join a militia before exercising the right to keep and bear arms would itself be an infringement on the right and a fairly burdensome one. Even without it being a paid full time position as you suggest (a rather bizarre suggestion at that as it would mirror service in the already extant army) it would limit the rights found in the 2A to only those fit for militia service and only for the period of time during which they remain so and would thus, presumably, deny the rights to the disabled, the elderly and potentially other large swaths of the population. On both counts limiting 2A rights to active members of a militia either infringe or eliminate the right respectively.
          Regardless, the clear text of the 2A expressly prohibits such infringement.

          The second and potentially more troubling difficulty is that what is meant by ‘militia’ in the language of the 2A is specifically different from ‘army’ and cannot conceivably be a group created by the government. For the moment setting aside the tax payer funded status of ‘militia’ you suggest, the militia is made of the whole people and formed by the people, though liable to be called up by the government in time of need. Thus every person is already a member of the militia and the arms held by those people form the ‘well regulated’ portion of the prefatory clause.
          Given that an important reason for the inclusion of the ‘militia’ clause was to indicate that the arms to be held by the militia existed not only to defend the nation from external threats but to defend the liberty of the people from tyrannical government, nothing approaching the 2A definition of ‘militia’ could possibly be formed by the government.

          Now for the truly absurd notion that the militia be a tax payer funded organization;
          We have such a ‘militia’ (though not one that would meet the definition of ‘militia’ in the 2A) already, it’s called the army. It’s an agency of the government and is provided with pay, keep, and arms with tax money. To build a second standing army, conceived by the government and funded with tax dollars and require membership in it in order to exercise the rights described in the 2A would accomplish the precise opposite intent of the framers in setting down the 2A in the first place.

          Having said all that I will recall Hanlon’s Razor and attempt to remain civil. However I cannot refrain from suggesting that your proposal was intended to loop back upon itself and that your intent in posting it conceals some agenda other than an honest attempt at resolving the issue of infringement of the rights declared in the 2A. Since it presents such an obviously self defeating argument it sounds much like the sort of thing that could only be conceived of by someone who cannot understand why anyone would or should keep and bear arms, and in its particulars suggests an attempt at a de facto ban on private exercise of the 2A while attempting to avoid the clear constitutional issues by ‘allowing’ exercise of the right to those in the government employ. That is not, I think, something someone who is familiar with the issues pertaining to the RKBA or the constitution would suggest.

        2. avatar KCK says:

          We will voluntarily join a militia as the need arises.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Upon re-reading your initial post it occurs to me that I may have failed to clearly articulate in my reply below the meanings of ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’ as they pertain to the 2A.

      In this initial post, absent the concept of militia membership being a paid position, and with your insistence that no obstacle be placed in the path of membership, I can actually agree with what you suggest but only with two caveats;

      The first is accepting the framers definition of ‘militia’ as referenced in the 2A, in that it was made up of ‘the whole people’. Thus everyone with or without arms in the US is already a member of the ‘militia’. This definition saves your suggestion from being counter to the concept of liberty intended by the Bill of Rights but at the cost of making it completely irrelevant.

      The second is accepting the framers definition of ‘well regulated’ which translated into modern English would read more like ‘well armed’ or ‘well supplied’ or perhaps even stretched to mean ‘well trained or organized’ though such training and organization would, just as the initial formation of the militia, have to remain entirely voluntary for the people and would have to be carried out by the people, without government interference.
      The meaning of ‘well regulated’ as used in the 2A does not translate to ‘with sufficient government oversight’ or to ‘operating within rules defined by the government’. This is made clear in the various writings of the framers in which it is clearly their intent that the militia be capable of overthrowing the government should it become necessary, a requirement which would not be congruous with an organization controlled by the government.

      Thus your suggestion retains relevancy only if a misunderstanding of the framers definition of ‘well regulated’ exists. Using the framers definition of ‘well regulated’ what you suggest is that the ‘whole people’ of the United States be allowed to keep and bear such arms as they wish without infringement since they are already ‘the militia’ and the degree of their ‘regulation’, being dependent on the type and number of arms they possess, no law should exist that in any way limits the type or number of arms possessed by the people, nor concerning when or where they may bear them.

      Now that is a position I can stand fully behind, however I suspect it is not what you intended to suggest.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Both of the comments that you wrote were spot on! Well done, Ardent.

    3. avatar Chris says:

      According to US code I’m already part of a militia, the unorganized militia. These restrictive carry laws along with the NFA and GCA prevent me from being well regulated, ie trained and equipped.

  18. avatar Chris says:

    Can she first direct whoever decides reciprocity to allow everyone then so more states will recognize my SC permit? We only recognize 20 permits and then there’s another 10 or so that recognize all permits. I’d like to visit family in PA without having to disarm.

    1. avatar Dennis says:

      Most of your problem is due to the changes that PA has made to its recognition of out of state and non-resident reciprocity. Next time you are in PA find a rural county sheriff’s and ask about a non-resident PA carry permit (they use to issue them by mail but no more). Just stay a long way from Philly.

  19. avatar Mark Scanlan says:

    Mixed feelings…like the idea that people get some sort of training….

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That’s an understandable concern, however, it’s part of the risks that we must accept as free beings. If we wish to maintain a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by government. This means that the occasional irresponsible person may use a firearm in an inappropriate or criminal way. To allow government infringement invites tyranny. Freedom can be risky. Freedom comes with responsibilities. The best that our free nation can do is have laws that address actual criminal acts after they are committed. As far as I know, no better arrangement to preserve Liberty has presented itself in all of human history. In my opinion, our legal system ought not impede the reasonable use of force in self defense situations as much as it currently does.

      Ideally, the community would encourage training. Perhaps firearm training, including marksmanship, could be taught in public school. I also imagine that firearm dealers could require training before purchase. However, government government shouldn’t.

  20. Best news for iPhone and Ipad owner! Do u are looking for Kamen rider in just your palm?. You’ve seen heroes a few times on TV, at present It’s the moment to think&guessing them
    daiki kaito – kamen rider wiki drive by truckers http://apple.co/293e5r0

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email