They are going to be hard pressed to make a constitutionally based case for skulking around with a pistol hidden in your pants.

What does "bear arms" mean then? It's already in the Const. Not that that's ever stopped the SCOTUS from doing whatever the hell it wanted to. But for those who care about the meaning of words, it's plain as day.

You act like I'm hiding Sammy's dildo.....:rolleyes:

I for one do not care what the law is, I carry. You can not rely on the police to protect you, all they can do is whip out the chalk and yellow tape. Now I am not blaming the cops, I have nothing but respect for the vast majority of them, they do a thankless job in a time of zero respect, but the fact of the matter is they can not be everywhere at once.
The old saying is I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, and there is no way I am going to trust my safety to someone who, in my area, may be half an hour away on a good day.
When I was traveling to NJ, for Subaru, I carried, and yes I know what laws I was breaking and the potential risk involved but guess what, I am not going to be reliant on my cell phone. Like P-O-P said, when seconds count they are minutes away, it's just a fact

Pistol? This is a howitzer right here!

It doesn't mean "concealed."

One would think that the various rulings on poll taxes would apply to having to register oneself or one's guns, but the courts have never made that connection.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the courts tend not to step in as long as the right is theoretically possible to exercise, even if in practice it cannot be exercised.

So you agree that open carry is the law of the land and concealed carry only in states that decide to allow it? Got it.

This has been determined in the court of the law. The police do not have any obligation to protect. That said, most police that I know will do the needful and protect law-abiding citizens from thugs and criminals. However, as stated - if someone breaks into my home, by the time the police arrive, the damage is already done.

As for the equal protection argument and how it relates to the 2nd Amendment, the SCOTUS has essentially paved the way for a national reciprocity law for CCW. If someone has obtained a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit, they should be able to carry concealed across all states.

Three points:
1. In most states, obtaining a CCW Permit requires training, a background check, and being fingerprinted. This is in addition to obtaining any type of permit to purchase or own a firearm.
2. I do not believe any gun advocate wants to allow concealed carry without a permit. I certainly do not want that. But if a law-abiding citizen has taken the necessary steps to obtain a CCW, that person should be able to carry concealed from sea to shining sea.
3. What many people fail to comprehend is that this does NOT allow criminals any more freedom than they already exercise. They will continue to carry a firearm regardless of what the law allows or prohibits them to do.

You'd be wrong there. AZ and VT do not require permits for concealed carry. And, AFAIK, most states that allow open carry don't require permits. Are there bloodbaths that otherwise wouldn't happen if those states' carry laws were tighter?

The argument against needing a permit for CCW is that the process becomes politicized and usually expensive too. Why should I need a gov't. permission slip to exercise a Const. right? Do you need one to write a letter to the editor or your Congressman?

The shall-issue movement got started around 1995 when Oliver North's CCW permit renewal was denied by a judge who didn't like North. And when the law changed to shall-issue, the counties that didn't want to play along made it prohibitively expensive. Between the class, fingerprints, background check and application fees, I was into it for about $200, which was real money in 1995. Lots of people can't afford that and shouldn't have to.

There is a bill in the NH assembly allowing exactly that right now (permitless carry) although I believe it has stalled (doofus liberal governor probably will veto it, not clear whether there are enough votes to override). I think the big hangup is money - the state will lose something like $1M a year if they do away with the permits (and associated fees).

You shouldn't need a permit to carry at all. It's a constitutional right. There's no asterisk. Criminals and ne'er-do-wells (as was just stated) will do it anyway.

Rick -
I stand corrected. I forgot that AZ required no permit for concealed carry. And open carry (in states that allow it) typically does not require a permit. I am so used to the draconian gun laws in NJ, that at times I forget how 'free' states operate! :D

While it is easy to politicize a training class, it is still a good idea - though like you point out - it can be a very grey area. Obtaining an out-of-state Utah CCW requires the applicant to go through training, which costs money and time.

I have always been an advocate of firearm training, but making it a requirement for firearm ownership is a very tricky proposition...

-Z

The colonists were much more laid back, preferring to sit rather than stand.

It means strapped on for the world to see.
Maybe with some leather.

I foresee his and his bridal registration at the local gun store, and a market for fabulously bedazzled firearms and accessories.
Or maybe not. I really don't know if that demographic wants to buy firearms.

lol

LOL! Didn't your mom tell you when you don't have anything to say, it's best to say nothing?

The SCOTUS ordered states to recognition the married status of gay people married in other states whether they allowed gay marriage or not.
Gun proponents are arguing that if the SCOTUS could force states to recognize the laws of other states (gay marriage) that they would have to recognize the right to CCW as recognized by other states.

Seems like a reasonable application of equal treatment.

So is marijuana is legal in two states, does that mean it is legal in all 50 states now?

I did the UT training class, which was a joke. I did it because NV recognized UT permits at the time, but not AZ ones, even though AZ permits at the time required range quals, while UT did not. I used to go to Vegas a lot. And then UT started requiring instructors to travel to UT once a year to take a class to maintain their certification. And then NV stopped accepting UT permits because they wanted people to have to travel to NV and spend money there while taking the class and getting fingerprinted. I did that too, even got into a free class because the store owner was running for local office and wanted people to like him more. Now my NV permit is just about to expire and NV just started accepting AZ permits again, while I can always renew my UT permit by mail. See how much sense this all makes? It's completely political and does nothing to promote gun safety or responsible CCW.

I would say doubtful, 'straight' marriage has had reciprocity in all 50 states forever (the feds needed it for taxes and federal level benefits), that 'precedent' didn't change the state restrictions of CCW, I believe if marriage reciprocity was a factor, it would have been brought up long before now. Added to that 'rights' follow 'people' not 'things'....

The SCOTUS affirmed that the 14th amendment protects the right of gays to marry. It only forces states to act within the constitution. There is no constitutional right to hide weapons, so, no, there is no "right" to CCW for states to recognize.

There is a right to bear arms.....States are denying the right. If the NRA had any balls they would bring suit. I can carry concealed in 38 states, except the one I grew up in.