|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Are Concealed Carry Licenses (CCL) Constitutional?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two attorneys in my home state of Illinois were reported, by Personal Defense World, to have challenged the state’s requirement for a CCL (Concealed Carry License) as unconstitutional.
I’d brought this up with friends and family, and a few arguments came up against Constitutional Carry: the position that it is unconstitutional to infringe upon one’s right to carry a weapon, open or concealed. The general consensus was that people should be required to undergo a certain amount of training in order to concealed carry. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/26/2019)
|
| Absolutely.. All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such licenses are illegal. |
| Comment by:
jdege
(1/26/2019)
|
As long as Chevron Deference remains, anything the government decides to do is constitutional, so long as they say they have a good reason for it.
Which is why it needs to die.
And it may, soon. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
