TexasCHLforum.com

So either on this forum or somewhere else I read someone's post where the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

If the constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms, why do I have to ask the state for a license to bear those arms? I have the right to keep arms and not ask the government for a license to keep those arms in my house, so why do I have to ask for permission to bear the arms?

The post reply that I read basically indicated that by being licensed we have already started to allow our rights to be taken away.

Does anyone know why we have to be given permission to carry when we already have that right?

Of course it is. But awe have been a long time down this road. It took a while to get to the point was were at a few years ago with almost no states were shall issue had good luck carrying a gun if you we not on your own land. Now with great effort we have made enormous inroads, but it has not been able to do it all at once. I am for constitutional carry. Iof you can own a gun you should be able to carry it however you like. But it will take time to get there.

trumanOscar wrote:If the constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms, why do I have to ask the state for a license to bear those arms? ?

Go re-read the Declaration and the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT give us the right to keep and bear arms. The Declaration says all men have the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution goes on to say that Congress shall not pass any law to infringe on the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. A small twist on the words but it make a profound difference.

The GUN-BAN mob's favorite talking point of late is extracted from the Heller decision majority opinion wherein Justice Scalia alludes to no right being "absolute"- including the 2A right. OK, then.

I would tend to agree that there may very well be some practical, and logistical limits to the arms that might reasonably be expected to be available to the people under 2A protection.

Recalling the 1835 Texian raid on the Mexican armory at Anuhuac ( hope I spelled that right)- the 2A LOGICALLY then - only applies to such arms that the people are able to sieze when they raid an armory of any tyrannt threatening their liberty.

I think I can live with that "limitation".

Anahuac but point taken, lol.