VTTW Board Index

I am a firearm permit holder. I took the classes and the training. I'm going to ask the same question here that I asked 5 years ago at the training that nobody could/would answer. The Second Amendment gives me my, and every other americans, right to carry a firearm. That's my right per the Constitution. Tell me why each state has the right to override the Constitution and require anyone to take a class and pass a test in order to legally carry a firearm?  

I too am a permit holder though I rarely exercise my right to do so. I don't know if our founding fathers envisioned the types of firepower that is readily available to the general public. I was watching "Sons of Guns" some months back when a guy comes in wanting a noise suppressor (silencer) for a grenade launcher. Can't remember if they were successful in making one or not but I do remember wondering "Why"?. Times are so different now than back in the 1700's. I do know that the clamoring for stricter gun control has been a bonanza for gun and ammo manufacturers. Talking to a local gun shop owner (same one that I took my permit class under) said he can't obtain enough handguns nor ammo to meet the demand. I haven't purchased any ammo lately but I understand price has skyrocketed.

you can and can't do whether or not it violates the constitution or not. I think in W.Va anyone can carry open, you only need a permit if you carry concealed....that's closer to a non-violation.  :patriot:

What he said. :powert:

With that said, I want myself, wife, and daughter to be permitted. I think reasonable weapons of self defense are good for us all. :patriot:

SOGs are purely for shock value....I mean a suppressor for a grenade launcher??? Suppressors require gov't approval, registration and a hefty priced license and I don't even know what it takes to get approved to own a grenade launcher, probably something similar. The world is only getting crazier with more and more disregard for life demonstrated daily, look at the Ok incident yesterday....IMO if law abiding citizens ever needed the 2nd amendment it's today.  :patriot:

I don't really have a problem with a few hoops to jump through to get a carry permit. If you adhere to a literalist interpretation of the constitution, you could say that one shouldn't be required to demonstrate a working knowledge of firearms in order to carry one, but it seems like common sense to me. (I suppose a literalist could even argue that the constitution protects the rights of convicted felons and others to go armed, but that isn't an argument that I'm willing to make.)

To me, the much bigger question is what gives states the right to tell folks who have been deemed lawful to carry handguns from carrying within their boundaries? For example, New York, Illinois, or California . . . which basically only have CCW statutes because the courts have required them and (in the case of California, along with Hawaii and a couple of other states) issue permits to very, very few of their own citizens, let alone allow visitors to go armed. If I'm traveling, why should my right to defend myself have to be checked at the Kentucky-Illinois border? To me, that is a blatant violation of the constitution, and it demonstrates perfectly why we need a national right-to-carry law that our current president has fought so hard against.

the answer I most frequently see is that the right was intertwined with a well regulated militia.  Now, nobody has notified me yet that I am officially in the militia, but I am plenty regulated.  In theory, each state could require gun owners to become part of the militia, and regulate them to death.  Jump through the hoops, cause it could be worse.

in that time and writing actually would be translated as well "supplied" today.  :patriot: I just thought that was interesting.