-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Constitutional Carry tracker.
- Thread starter ChevyGuy91
- Start date
Garys
NES Member
Not necessarily. In LA you have to inform the police you are carrying and surrender it on demand during contact. NOLA used to have a practice of keeping those guns unless the carrier provided "proof of ownership." They also have binding signage, you can't carry in a bar. Carry is prohibited in any law enforcement building or facility, jail or prison, courthouse (like MA), polling place (like MA), any government meeting such as school committee, city council, etc., the state capitol (like MA), any house of worship without permission, any parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued, any liquor store, or any school (like MA) or school bus.
Not being able to carry in a building that has a courthouse, even if it only takes up part of a building, is typical in southern states. In Alabama you can't carry in a courthouse annex even if your business is in any other part of the building. Not being able to carry in a police or sheriff facility is the norm in the south.
The big advantages in most of the south over MA are reciprocity and ease of obtaining a license. Some states require a course, most don't.
Oh the really big difference is how you're likely to be treated if you have to use a firearm in self defense. Provided you don't give the DA all the evidence he needs to convict you, there's a really good chance you'll be no billed by the Grand Jury.
Not being able to carry in a building that has a courthouse, even if it only takes up part of a building, is typical in southern states. In Alabama you can't carry in a courthouse annex even if your business is in any other part of the building. Not being able to carry in a police or sheriff facility is the norm in the south.
The big advantages in most of the south over MA are reciprocity and ease of obtaining a license. Some states require a course, most don't.
Oh the really big difference is how you're likely to be treated if you have to use a firearm in self defense. Provided you don't give the DA all the evidence he needs to convict you, there's a really good chance you'll be no billed by the Grand Jury.
Garys
NES Member
KBCraig
NES Member
Before the Bruen response bills, MA and NY were actually better than most shall-issue states when it came to places off limits by statute. If you could carry legally, you could carry practically anywhere.
Not so in Southern states.
pastera
NES Member
Doesn't mean that those laws down south can't be fought based on the 2nd and the fact that their institution was based on racial discrimination.
Down south you can have any gun you want but not carry everywhere.
In Mass, you have to beg and be a good, obedient boy to have permission to buy from a small, overpriced selection of what they will allow. While you may legally carry in more places, if you your carry alarms someone you risk losing a lot even though acting legally.
After the Cargill arguments, combined with Rahimi and the lack of action on Range, as well as other factors, I think we’ve seen enough evidence in the post-Bruen world that we should really temper our expectations as to what we can actually fight and win at SCOTUS. What we theoretically should win as a matter of constitutional law isn’t the same as what we actually can win as a practical matter.
Let’s take machine guns for example: even though Garland v. Cargill doesn’t technically directly involve machine guns, and even though many people may believe that machine guns would pass the “in common use” test set in Heller, Cargill oral arguments indicate that SCOTUS would still uphold the ban on machine guns if it ever came before them. Even if legally it’s the right thing to do, no judge/justice alive today would in their right mind sign off on repealing Hughes. You thought Roe v. Wade being overturned was bad? Imagine the hysteria after that decision.
xtry51
NES Member
I argue the opposite. We overturned Roe v Wade. Let's keep going with trashing stupid precedents like Miller. Throw it all out.
pastera
NES Member
Dobbs tossed Roe and turned the issue of abortion back to the states.
No change for blue states.
Overturning the Hughes amendment and bringing MGs back under the protection of the 2nd would remove the issue from the states - all states and territories would have to allow possession.
I don't think SCOTUS is ever going to strike down machine guns from the NFA, the other gun related stuff (short barrel guns, AOW, suppressors) they might someday, but to the point Hughes effectively banned machine guns from ever being in common possession due to the cost associated with creating a diminishing amount of registered machine guns. This means they are banned from ever being owned by the average American.
Artificially causing at shortage means unequal protection because now only the rich and the government can own the machine guns and they can use them against the poor and average people who won't have machine guns.
The Founders never would have accepted that.
Artificially causing at shortage means unequal protection because now only the rich and the government can own the machine guns and they can use them against the poor and average people who won't have machine guns.
The Founders never would have accepted that.
Realistically I think SBRs are the only NFA items SCOTUS will probably strike down. Silencers don’t really have a clean litigation strategy, and it’s simple enough to get those removed through legislation by Republicans on Capitol Hill using their brains for once when they negotiate.
KBCraig
NES Member
What ban?
The entire NFA, including the Hughes Amendment, is a taxation measure. It's not a ban. If you pay the right tax, you can own any NFA item.
I get it, taxation and post-'86 limitations and import restrictions create market scarcity that drives the price out of the reach of most people, but none of it is banned under federal law.
Let’s not get into semantics here. They’re banned. It’s death by 1000 cuts. You’re using the same logic anti-gunners are using in the post-Bruen world by saying, “you can have your carry permit, just jump though all of these massive hoops to get it” essentially.
Although you’re technically right on the logistics of it all, even SCOTUS isn’t going that far and is content with saying that machine guns are currently banned.
oldguy68
NES Member
What other right requires you to apply for or pay anything for it?
Is it really a right after all?
What is illegal is every law written by our politicians that even slightly prohibits our citizens rights!
But they will never be charged and law enforcement will enforce said illegal laws written by such.
They and law enforcement know what they are doing is a civil rights violation.
But power corrupts and they are treated as a special class with special powers. People will do anything for money and to stay in power.
Is it really a right after all?
What is illegal is every law written by our politicians that even slightly prohibits our citizens rights!
But they will never be charged and law enforcement will enforce said illegal laws written by such.
They and law enforcement know what they are doing is a civil rights violation.
But power corrupts and they are treated as a special class with special powers. People will do anything for money and to stay in power.
Last edited:
pastera
NES Member
MGs are defacto banned for the majority of people since there are less than 200k legally available and at least 80 million gun owners (0.25% supply)
And the issue isn't limited supply, it's the government limiting supply.
The good news is that the conference committee stripped the absolute immunity for legislators and court officials from any criminal liability for carrying into any premises posted against carrying. The bad news is that it left different penalties for CWP holders versus non-CWP holders. This was the poison pill that the RINOs put into it in a shrewd attempt to scuttle Constitutional Carry and blame the House if they don't go along.
This puts Oath Keeping legislators in a tough spot. Do they vote Aye on a bill that they know violates the Constitution by passing laws that treats different people unequally, hoping (relying) on the courts (who are completely untrustworthy), or do they vote Nay. They are truly damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If the House passed this odious version, it will probably pass the Senate, unless the RINOs who added the poison pill want to kill it bad enough that they're willing to take the blame. That the filing period for candidacy in the primaries is open and these games will be recent memory during those primaries might play into their decision.
South Carolina is the bluest red state in the country.
On the positive side, the Presidential Primary ballot also had a question asking whether South Carolina should register voters by party. If we can close the primaries and not have Democrats selecting our nominees, we will see a lot fewer RINOs elected.
Lucus
NES Member
Was curious on how many have had to use their Utah Concealed Firearm Permit. This will be my third time renewing it but never had to show in any of the allowed states.
KBCraig
NES Member
Effective July 4.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,411
- Likes
- 33,347
Watched Washington Gun Law (he's getting a bit to sensational in his video titles) yesterday and he was talking about we will stalemate at 30/20 after the Carolinas.
I found that odd. I could see Wisconsin, maybe Michigan, Idaho and NM coming to the light-side in time. MA? Um, no. LOL. But maybe in 30-50 years. I mean, we WERE the last area to have issues with desegregating our schools. ROFL!!
I found that odd. I could see Wisconsin, maybe Michigan, Idaho and NM coming to the light-side in time. MA? Um, no. LOL. But maybe in 30-50 years. I mean, we WERE the last area to have issues with desegregating our schools. ROFL!!
KBCraig
NES Member
Michigan has been going backwards on gun rights. NM is a cultural oddball for the region.
Idaho is already a constitutional carry state.
New Mexico is not happening, did you forget what their governor did by banning guns completely for 30 days?
Michigan’s Governor is just as bad as NM’s.
Wisconsin? Eh, maybe if the stars align just right. Admittedly I’m not as familiar with the makeup of their legislature.
Last edited:
Although I agree with him in this instance, generally speaking I don’t think he’s a good source of 2A knowledge. He tends to get things wrong a lot of the time and has bad reasoning for his arguments. Much prefer Four Boxes Diner, he’s very rarely wrong.
Garys
NES Member
I don't think the response to repealing it would be nearly as large as the response was to overturning Roe v. Wade. Most people in favor of gun control already assume we all have machine guns and "dangerous assault rifles/ weapons of war". They care a LOT more about their right to commit infanticide without consequence. Especially women.
Similar threads
