“Kansans already have two documents granting them the right to concealed carry — the Constitution of the United States and the Kansas Constitution. That should be all they need.” – Kansas State Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady in Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit [at ljworld.com]
Sounds like this is one of the few politicians whose brain works correctly (wish we a had a few more of these in Texas). I would take it a step further, though, and reiterate that government has no business dictating legislation about this, period. The People do not need a permission slip to defend themselves, and the only legislation should regard illegal USE of the weapon. A concealed weapon in a holster poses no threat, no crime has been committed, no one is harmed and no one needs a permit. The “victimless crime” mentality in government needs to go away forever.
Also the concept of “prior restraint”, the idea that passing a law will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. It is a dumb idea, and has been proven wrong for centuries.
Amen. All of this “preventive” legislation is completely at odds with basic civil rights. Severely punish the act or MISUSE of a firearm, not the ownership or carry of that object.
Centuries? Try millenia. I’m pretty sure that Cain knew what he was doing was wrong/illegal when he bashed Abel’s head in with a rock. He had a natural right to arm himself with that rock. He could have carried it around with him in a sack for hundreds of years for self protection and no one, not even God, would have objected, but it was wrong to murder his brother, he knew it was wrong and that he would be punished, and he did it anyway.
Congress thinks their gun laws will work better than the fear of God?
A millenia? I’d amend that to…
Since time immemorial.
…except for one small but crucial distinction. Those documents don’t grant us rights they confirm rights that exist outside of government.
But he does seem like the kind of guy who might get a gun rights hero of the day post sometime soon.
Yep! The People need no permission slip from their government (themselves) to exercise a right that pre-existed civilization.
“some lawmakers’ misgivings about the state dropping its requirement that anyone seeking to carry a concealed firearm undergo at least eight hours of training”
I love this at least 8 hours of training stuff. What they really mean is 8 hours MORE training, when I went for my first CHL course I was probably close to 1000 hours of training, but that did not get me out of the (at the time) required 12 hours of “training”. I had military awarded “Expert Marksman” badges in both rifle and handgun, but that did not relieve me of the “need” for 12 hours of “training” from a guy who probably knew a bunch less about guns than I did, (although a lot more about state law).
The actual purpose is to put as many obstacles as humanly possible in your way, and make you pay for the harassment and infringement.
Good for Kansas.
While it may be smart to educate yourself on the myriad different restrictions each state puts on the USE of your firearm, it always pissed me off that I couldn’t just produce my DD-214 with Expert qualifications and skip the majority of that (unconstitutional) crap, especially proving to someone that I could actually hit a target at 20 feet.
Actually, the DD214 will work in Florida when applying for a ccw license.
Anyone surprised that the two such lawmakers who were quoted were…wait for it…Democrats?
It should be “recognizing” not “granting.” Rights aren’t granted by government, they preexist government, which can only recognize or violate them.
+1
The constitution does not grant us rights.
No but it’s every infringement on the constitution that takes those rights away. Silly libs can’t see a difference It has something to do with a complete lack of critical thinking ability.
I am still amazed. “A well regulated militia”, sound as if there were some conditions to have weapons. I’m all for 2nd Amendment rights, but I have no problem with universal background checks or requirements for CCW/CPLs, just as long as there are VALID reasons for denying these rights, not someone’s arbitrary decision based on prejudice. I have to take a driving test to drive. My car requires a registration. If you don’t believe that all your information isn’t already out there on the Web you’re living under a rock.
Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.
Some words to remember, inalienable rights, endowed by Our Creator, not the .gov “granting” us anything.
The free movement on public roads paid for with our taxes is a right.
The fact that so many people have been conditioned to be believe this fundamental right is a privilege just shows how effective the Statists are in their propaganda.
+1
Incrementalism won’t restore the free exercise of the right to travel either. If the RKBA problem isn’t solved in one or two generations at most, future generations will likely see the exercise of that right widely treated like operating motor vehicles. So many today already talk of the right to bear arms like they do the right to travel by motorized means. Future generations will know even less truth. In fact, they will point to compromises we make today in legislation, courts, and media as facts to support their arguments in the public eye, legislatures, and courts.
In fact, the Federal Constitution only guarantees a right to travel interstate, IINM. The Fed Constitution does, however, specifically express the right to keep and bear arms, and says that such right shall not be infringed. Hence the difference between “driving” and RKBA.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the privilege to wholesale interfere with the right to travel the way it does. The government pins its privilege flimsily on interstate commerce. Government hasn’t any privilege outside that specifically portioned to it in the Constitution. The right to travel, especially when not for commercial purposes (i.e. not “driving”), is still a right with protection through the fact that the privilege to regulate it is not doled out to government in our Constitution. However, it doesn’t have the double layer of specific protection that the right to keep and bear arms does via the Second Amendment.
I think travel is probably covered by the 9th or 10th amendments
That is the schtick started by the heads of state police. However, those bastards should have had their noses rubbed in the 9th amendment. I doubt any of them would get in a time machine and tell George Washington or Andy Jackson that riding their horses was a privilege bestowed upon them by themselves the Commandant of the Highway Patrol. Furthermore, DL are generally done on a shall issue basis.
Please define “VALID” as you use it, because I can’t think of a single valid purpose as I understand the meaning of the word for UBC’s or other infringements. A training requirement is an infringement. It is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose other than to deter people from applying for a permit. As far as UBC’s… well we’ve beaten that horse to death, back to life, and killed it again. It is a by-product of the Utopian mindset that liberals want to force feed us and doesn’t work in a world governed by reality.
Sure, practicing rights are inherently dangerous. We should require a literacy test to vote.
Religion can be dangerous so let’s get a requirement to get a permit to practice certain accepted religions.
People writing on the Internet can inflame anger and rebellious tendencies, so let’s require a back ground check before being able to post on the web.
Yep. I agree, let’s also require back ground checks before buying a gun, the state needs to know and have control of all of these priviliges, oh, I mean rights.
Also mandate a requirement that all computers must be registered with the government.
Nah they don’t need that, NSA has already back doored anything you can buy.
You’re on the internet, your computers already registered with .gov.
We the people should look into rectifying that issue as well whilst speaking of infringements. Due to the fact that it “should” fall under the purview of prior wiretap law (teletype & telegraph data as the precedent. Both of which require a warrant, according to law). Funny how no one thinks of that one… :/
They just keep slipping them in, one after another. So often, that even the hyper-aware can’t even track all the illegal infringements.
Well if you have no problem with universal backround checks you’ll have no problem with universal registration either than right? Now, please explain to me how universal backround checks would stop any crime ever, in the history of crime.
Again, another one of you, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but…” types. By the time you get your universal back round checks and registration you’ll be saying, “well, yeah, I guess I don’t really need a 30 round mag either…”
And, not surprisingly, a self-admitted “lefty” (as per a comment on another thread).
If you tell someone they can deny you something if they can come up with a valid reason and you’d be surprised what reasons they come up, and that it will be to their validation, not yours.
That being said, the car-gun analogy is a poor one at best. Driving is not a right, especially when your license is only so you can prove you can operate a vehicle on roads the government makes. Also if you want to compare guns and cars then do you believe we should subject ours to safety inspections and registrations? Do you think I should be able to take my gun anywhere I please like I can my car? Can we give teenagers the right to carry where they please when they turn 16, or earlier with a hardship license? Can I trick out my gun with blue lights underneath it? Well, yes, I can, but maybe that one should be illegal.
Under your logic I could have a license to operate any vehicle I want, but I don’t need to have any registered at all. A friend or family member could let me borrow one effectively forever with no paperwork involved and I wouldn’t be breaking any laws. If that extends the same to gun laws the whole argument is moot anyway.
In any case our ownership and usage of arms is a right, not to be infringed, regulated, restricted, etc. Don’t compare it to a modern luxury.
Driving is a right as well. The only reason the governments get away with requiring a license is because the population is conditioned to it. The right to travel doesn’t mean solely the right to walk, no more than the right to self-defense means only the right to punch and kick your attacker.
Yep. Just as the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean only weapons current to when the constitution was written, The right to travel on public roads doesn’t mean only by foot, horse and wagon.
People often use the driver license as an example of why permits should be required for carry. Most of the responses to your post correctly have to do with rights (firearms) versus privileges (driving), but there are also major differences in the acts themselves. We don’t need a license to buy a car or drive it on private roads. Besides, driving on a public road is an act which involves constant, potentially-dangerous interaction with drivers and instantaneous decisions being made during the entire process. In fact, statistics show that driving is much more dangerous as well. Buying or carrying a firearm are both innocuous acts which do not present ANY potential for injury or death. It is only on that rare occasion that the firearm is actually used that the danger exists, and THAT is the time where we determine if the act is legal. It is usually licensed law enforcement that cant use the firearms correctly and hitting bystanders during firefights. Background checks and permits add no value and only serve to give government powers they shouldnt have.
Plus, DL are issued on a “shall issue” basis as long as the written and road test are passed.
Also, I don’t think “A well regulated militia” means what you think it means. Like most liberals, you’re looking at the wording how you want to see it, and picking and choosing the sentence you want to stand out. Again, just because you personally feel that one sentence makes it a government right to hand out has a privilege doesn’t make it so.
Then you are o.k with registries and lists of lawful gun owners that can be used at some point for confiscation.
The phrase “well-regulated” just meant “well-functioning,” “in good working order,” etc…at the time. It had nothing to do with government regulation as we know of it today. You can find references to a “well-regulated hairstyle,” a “well-regulated house,” and even a “well-regulated government” back then. The clause itself, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is just a prefatory clause, a statement about an important reason for protecting the right. The protection of the right itself itself comes in the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And those last four words of the operative clause are important.
Think of it this way. Imagine you had an amendment written as follows:
“A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.”
Now clearly this would not be protecting a right to read and write books only for those who meet some government-defined standard of being “well-educated.” The prefatory clause is just stating an important reason for the protection of the right, but the protection itself is independent on the prefatory clause.
Regarding automotive licensing and registration, those are required at the state levels, not the federal level, and the only reason why the state governments get away with them is because they can. It is a way to keep tabs on people and a violation of their right to travel. Let’s face it, the requirements to get a basic driver’s license are an utter joke. If we really required serious training for people, then many people would not be able to drive. The main reason for requiring registration and licensing is to keep tabs on people.
Universal background checks would be at the federal level, not the state level, and the only known way to enforce such a system would be via the creation of a federal registry, and historically gun registries lead to gun confiscation, throughout the world and also within this country (it has happened at the local and state government levels). In addition, it goes against the concept of something being a right if you have to register it with the government.
Outstanding post, Kyle!
Jeff Hunt,
You wrote, “‘A well regulated militia’, sound as if there were some conditions to have weapons.”
“A well regulated militia” is one reason (of many) to have firearms, not a condition. The Bill of Rights limits government. It does not, I repeat, does NOT limit We the People of the United States.
You know, I find this pretty damned remarkable. How many times do you see government, at any level, giving up any authority once it has taken it? But now I’m seeing several states giving up the authority to regulate the concealed carry of firearms after having arrogated that authority to themselves and exercised it for years. I’m pretty shocked now that I think about it.
+1
The turnaround is stunning, and meaningful.
Kansas was one of the last “no permit at all” holdouts. It may revert to “no permit at all” soon, but in a good way. Between that and raising the speed limit along I-70 (it’s now 75 along the stretch that should be posted Warp Nine, but that beats the 70 it used to be) it seems like they are heading in the right direction in general.