Should start before 4th grade.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Training Before Obtaining Carry Permit?
- Thread starter maddog995
- Start date
" if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
Page 5 U. S. 179
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
"No person,' says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
Page 5 U. S. 180
contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office,
too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged.” -- John Marshal Chief Justice Supreme Court
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
Page 5 U. S. 179
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
"No person,' says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
Page 5 U. S. 180
contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office,
too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged.” -- John Marshal Chief Justice Supreme Court
Possibly GA POST or NRA certified trainers.
I took hunters safety course in Ga&Fla. The Fla one was must more informative. We also spent a day at a wildlife mgt area and shot handguns,rifle,blackpowder,&bow. We id a little fishing ,had lunch. It was fun. The Ga one was classes at West Ga College. A couple of the folks had bought handguns and had the wrong ammo for them,no clue.The instructor had at one point climbed a tree stand with his 30/30 and shot himself under his chin and it came out by his eye. So cold out he didn't bleed to death but he could tell you what not to do.Point is I would be for it if done right. But alast if the Gov't is involved it will mess it up
No
The problem with putting in choke points regarding gun rights is that those who wish to change our culture and laws for the benefit of their agenda then target control of those choke points to the detriment of all of us. Creating a chokepoint is just asking for abuse of that chokepoint down the road.
The real question isn't whether people should need training to have a carry permit. It's should you be required to have a permit to carry at all. And the answer is no. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own and posses a firearm. That is the law of the land. Anything contrary to that is an illegal act by government. If our society doesn't feel that law suits our society any longer the framers wisely put in a mechanism to change the Constitution through a constitutional convention. Until they do that the law is what the law is and the only legal way to change that is to alter the Constitution. Which they do not have the public support to do at this time.
It would be good for us all to have a constructive discussion and come to an agreement on what we would be willing to accept. I think the gun debate suffers from a lack of clear, generally accepted definitions. For example, I believe the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people recourse to the threat of tyranny whether that be a foreign or domestic threat. What do we need to accomplish that? Basic infantry platoon is a reasonable standard I think. An infantry platoon has a designated marksman, a 249 used for fire suppression/superiority, accurate semi automatic fire at a reasonable/effective rate of fire and a 203 used to eliminate opposing fire suppression and by the PL to direct fire. That's what the military has decided a platoon needs to be effective in an armed conflict. Disclaimer- if I have any of the details wrong please feel free to correct. While I have military experience I was far from a super soldier and am always willing to learn if I am mistaken in some way. Now we can make up for a lack of some of those capabilies with sheer numbers. I dont mind a license and SOME control over fully automatic. Unfortunately fire suppression, when turned on a tightly packed crowd by a crazy guy, is devastating. Same with a 40mm grenade.
So the question is, what do we need to accomplish the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? How do we allow a chokepoint designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill/convicted criminal element with safeguards that prevent abuse of that chokepoint? Where do we draw the line? I don't feel nuclear warheads on the open market is a good idea or even RPG's or 203's (but I want one for myself
). I think having these thoughts clearly defined and agreed upon will help us protect our rights and our ability to live up to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment .
The real question isn't whether people should need training to have a carry permit. It's should you be required to have a permit to carry at all. And the answer is no. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own and posses a firearm. That is the law of the land. Anything contrary to that is an illegal act by government. If our society doesn't feel that law suits our society any longer the framers wisely put in a mechanism to change the Constitution through a constitutional convention. Until they do that the law is what the law is and the only legal way to change that is to alter the Constitution. Which they do not have the public support to do at this time.
It would be good for us all to have a constructive discussion and come to an agreement on what we would be willing to accept. I think the gun debate suffers from a lack of clear, generally accepted definitions. For example, I believe the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people recourse to the threat of tyranny whether that be a foreign or domestic threat. What do we need to accomplish that? Basic infantry platoon is a reasonable standard I think. An infantry platoon has a designated marksman, a 249 used for fire suppression/superiority, accurate semi automatic fire at a reasonable/effective rate of fire and a 203 used to eliminate opposing fire suppression and by the PL to direct fire. That's what the military has decided a platoon needs to be effective in an armed conflict. Disclaimer- if I have any of the details wrong please feel free to correct. While I have military experience I was far from a super soldier and am always willing to learn if I am mistaken in some way. Now we can make up for a lack of some of those capabilies with sheer numbers. I dont mind a license and SOME control over fully automatic. Unfortunately fire suppression, when turned on a tightly packed crowd by a crazy guy, is devastating. Same with a 40mm grenade.
So the question is, what do we need to accomplish the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? How do we allow a chokepoint designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill/convicted criminal element with safeguards that prevent abuse of that chokepoint? Where do we draw the line? I don't feel nuclear warheads on the open market is a good idea or even RPG's or 203's (but I want one for myself
). I think having these thoughts clearly defined and agreed upon will help us protect our rights and our ability to live up to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment .
All I know is I've shot at ranges, inside and out. I just hope to heck I'm nowhere near should some of those clowns decide to open fire on a perceived threat in a shopping mall.
You are correct but what every person is forgetting is they can't change the Constitution when it comes to your rights THAT IS FLAT OUT TREASON! & these attack's will continue until we get back to hanging traitors, & yes as individual's we have that right only congress can decide the penalty. it only takes 2 witness' & the sherif to arrest them. the point i'm trying to make is these officials are committing treason every day. look at Eric holder, Hillary, hell bill gave the missile technology to north korea!& the American people & the people they elect do nothing. even the republicans could be charge for not not doing their job which is to up hold the constitution. even these men on this web site fall in line with laws that are not laws at all! lets just give up our freedom for feeling secure under BS laws! & as far as criminals are concern you kill them! period! stop giving them free room & board cable tv & a gym membership!The problem with putting in choke points regarding gun rights is that those who wish to change our culture and laws for the benefit of their agenda then target control of those choke points to the detriment of all of us. Creating a chokepoint is just asking for abuse of that chokepoint down the road.
The real question isn't whether people should need training to have a carry permit. It's should you be required to have a permit to carry at all. And the answer is no. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own and posses a firearm. That is the law of the land. Anything contrary to that is an illegal act by government. If our society doesn't feel that law suits our society any longer the framers wisely put in a mechanism to change the Constitution through a constitutional convention. Until they do that the law is what the law is and the only legal way to change that is to alter the Constitution. Which they do not have the public support to do at this time.
It would be good for us all to have a constructive discussion and come to an agreement on what we would be willing to accept. I think the gun debate suffers from a lack of clear, generally accepted definitions. For example, I believe the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people recourse to the threat of tyranny whether that be a foreign or domestic threat. What do we need to accomplish that? Basic infantry platoon is a reasonable standard I think. An infantry platoon has a designated marksman, a 249 used for fire suppression/superiority, accurate semi automatic fire at a reasonable/effective rate of fire and a 203 used to eliminate opposing fire suppression and by the PL to direct fire. That's what the military has decided a platoon needs to be effective in an armed conflict. Disclaimer- if I have any of the details wrong please feel free to correct. While I have military experience I was far from a super soldier and am always willing to learn if I am mistaken in some way. Now we can make up for a lack of some of those capabilies with sheer numbers. I dont mind a license and SOME control over fully automatic. Unfortunately fire suppression, when turned on a tightly packed crowd by a crazy guy, is devastating. Same with a 40mm grenade.
So the question is, what do we need to accomplish the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? How do we allow a chokepoint designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill/convicted criminal element with safeguards that prevent abuse of that chokepoint? Where do we draw the line? I don't feel nuclear warheads on the open market is a good idea or even RPG's or 203's (but I want one for myself
Actually, the framers did put in a mechanism to alter the Constitution. I agree that our legislative bodies are breaking the law with gun control measures and on many other fronts and not being held accountable. I'm not a fan of the idea to just execute criminals unless they have been convicted of a capital crime with due process and appropriately sentenced. My questions still stand as I don't think your post answered any of them.
You and I seem to agree our gov is ignoring the Constitution. The other side does not believe they are doing so. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment falls into two camps. The "Individual Right Theory" where it is determined that citizens have an individual right to firearms that cannot be disputed by government and the "Collective Right Theory" where the 2nd Amendment allows the ownership/use/rights to to be decided by legislative bodies. After reading the intent of the 2nd Amendment from the guy who wrote it, James Madison, and the structure, intent, and how to interpret the Constitution by the guy who wrote it, Thomas Jefferson, it is quite clear to me the "Individual Right Theory" is correct. That is not the opinion of the other camp that promotes the "Collective Right Theory". Question is where do we go from here? How do we properly define the 2nd Amendment and its intent beyond dispute? Where do we draw the line and how do we go about doing so? I doubt we will get any help from government. Supreme Court doesn't seem to interested in making anything definitive. Constitutional Convention? Gun rights organizations and their/our lawyers seem to be constantly on defense. I'm not sure any of this will get decided until our gov is forced to make this definitive.
