Something I've noticed regarding CC vs OC supporters

MackTheKnife said:

Walkingwolf and Eye95
I don't usually resort to the pejorative but when I used the phrase idiot, I was nor being pejorative. However. I am beginning to believe that the pejorative might be correct in both of your cases. However one carries, depends on the law where you reside. I don't pick the laws, I just abide by them. You both seem to post not in fact, both in wishful thinking or postulating civil disobedience. You two are implying it's OK to open carry and if I carry CC, and believe in the 2nd Amendment, I don't really believe in the right. Sorry guys or gals, I don't have a choice but to obey the laws. Why don't you tell those in NY or MD who can't carry at all that they don't believe in the right?

Razor Max Tapatalk.

Click to expand...

Calling people idiots because you disagree with them makes you not worth spending my time or bandwidth in discussion.

Moving on.

WalkingWolf said:

You claim to be abiding by a law YOU claim is unconstitutional which makes it void. I have no problem with you and your permission slip. What I have a problem with is your claims that the permission you so willingly accept is a right. It is either a right or it is a privilege, if it is a right the law is void.

There is nothing in the US constitution that would make one believe concealed carry is a right. And much to indicate in the 2nd amendment that it is not. What is a right is to be secure in one's person and property, and the right to not self incriminate. The 4th circuit federal court got it right in Black V US.

I find extremely ironic that a person who says one thing, but does another would call others "idiot".

Click to expand...

You are living in Lala Land. My permission slip is legally necessary for me to carry. I don't agree with it but unfortunately it is the law. It is not ironic. You keep on focusing on concealed carry as if it is anathema. And you throw in the 4th Amendment. I am well versed in the Constitution. When I say idiot, it is because I recognize stupidity when I see it.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

eye95 said:

Calling people idiots because you disagree with them makes you not worth spending my time or bandwidth in discussion.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

Fine. I disagree because you are wrong. Idiot, moron, etc., is an adjective. Take your pick.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

MackTheKnife said:

You are living in Lala Land. My permission slip is legally necessary for me to carry. I don't agree with it but unfortunately it is the law. It is not ironic. You keep on focusing on concealed carry as if it is anathema. And you throw in the 4th Amendment. I am well versed in the Constitution. When I say idiot, it is because I recognize stupidity when I see it.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

Click to expand...

So you are admitting that concealed carry is NOT a right. Because if it was there would be no permission slip. Maybe you should stop staring in the mirror and actually read the constitution.

WalkingWolf said:

Because if you conceal with a permit or license you do not believe that concealed carry is a right. Or you would not ask for permission.

Click to expand...

Well, while we're working towards the restoration of the Constitution, I prefer to remain a law-abiding citizen. That's why I went to the trouble and expense of obtaining a concealed weapon license I Oklahoma and helped work for it to be transformed into a handgun license good for concealed or open carry. We've gone from no provision for law-abiding citizens to carry handguns to a provision to carry concealed handguns to the ability to openly carry them.

Don't you dare denigrate the efforts of the people who got us this far. The fight isn't over yet. Attacking us for following the law while we work to change it is as wrong as concealed carry only adherents attacking those who choose to open carry.

ECS

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

Elm Creek Smith said:

Well, while we're working towards the restoration of the Constitution, I prefer to remain a law-abiding citizen. That's why I went to the trouble and expense of obtaining a concealed weapon license I Oklahoma and helped work for it to be transformed into a handgun license good for concealed or open carry. We've gone from no provision for law-abiding citizens to carry handguns to a provision to carry concealed handguns to the ability to openly carry them.

Don't you dare denigrate the efforts of the people who got us this far. The fight isn't over yet. Attacking us for following the law while we work to change it is as wrong as concealed carry only adherents attacking those who choose to open carry.

ECS

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

Click to expand...

Amen!

Razor Max Tapatalk.

eye95 said:

Carry is a right that has constitutional protection. Concealment is not so protected and is, therefore, subject to regulation by the State (or protection by its constitution), making it a privilege in most States.

Click to expand...

Notice how eye95 conflates "constitutional protection" with the actual existence of a right. (This despite the 9th Amendment.) This is especially clear in other posts of his where he flat-out declares there is no right to carry concealed, without bothering to explicitly frame it in the context of the present law.

His argument is weak because his argument is wrong.

If "concealment" is necessarily a separable act, then so is "display", for whether one or the other is default depends on the firearm, the clothes of the carrier, the weather, etc etc etc.

Once one realizes this, one can discard eye95's sophistry with amazing clarity.

Mack, I agree with some of what you've said, but whenever you call someone an idiot in a debate, you immediately lose credibility. Do you not realize this? Do you not understand that you damage your cause by engaging in ad-hominem attacks? That even if one's opponent is arguably "an idiot" (or whatever insult you choose), that trying to prove that point is a useless distraction when you're arguing about something else?

Moving on from that ...

I think that it makes sense to pick one's battles wisely. Carrying concealed without a permit in a state where one is required is not necessarily a sensible battle to fight.

One can believe that "Constitutional Carry" should exist, and that carrying openly or concealed without a permit should be legal in the entire United States. But the legislatures and courts have not indicated that they accept this proposition. Breaking the law for the sake of "I believe this is right" is not always a wise course of action. As I posted earlier, the Supreme Court of the USA has made some horrific decisions over the years.

Police have been known to lie in court. Given that it is not far-fetched that an officer could conjure up a "reasonable suspicion" that would allow a "stop and frisk" to be legal, the idea of simply carrying concealed illegally is not really a sensible one. This is especially true for someone who doesn't have the resources to fight such a case in court, even if that person is completely correct that a search of him (that resulted in the police finding an illegally concealed weapon) was an illegal search.

I believe that peaceful people have the right to carry a weapon, concealed or openly, without government interference. That doesn't mean I think it's a wise idea for me to carry concealed in my state without a permit that I'm legally required to have. It's not a battle I'm currently willing or able to fight.

Elm Creek Smith said:

Well, while we're working towards the restoration of the Constitution, I prefer to remain a law-abiding citizen. That's why I went to the trouble and expense of obtaining a concealed weapon license I Oklahoma and helped work for it to be transformed into a handgun license good for concealed or open carry. We've gone from no provision for law-abiding citizens to carry handguns to a provision to carry concealed handguns to the ability to openly carry them.

Don't you dare denigrate the efforts of the people who got us this far. The fight isn't over yet. Attacking us for following the law while we work to change it is as wrong as concealed carry only adherents attacking those who choose to open carry.

ECS

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

Click to expand...

The same people who got us this far, are the people who brought us gun control, the NRA. Following a non constitutional law does not make a person law abiding. In fact in figures brought by the Brady Bunch, the figures that NRA does not want to talk about, but they are legitimate. The people who abuse the second amendment are not constitutional carriers, it is those law abiding privilege holders. It would seem that giving people a privilege and telling them they are special entices them to kill people with that permit.

This is a problem that is not apparent with constitutional carriers. So before getting on your high horse, your acceptance of tyranny is actually bringing more tyranny. IMO you are part of the problem. Some people in history were law abiding while they committed terrible acts. The trail of tears was brought to us by law abiding citizens.

The jailing of Japanese Americans during WW2 was by law abiding citizens. The NSA spying is being done by illegal laws. The killing of Brian Terry was facilitated by our supposedly law abiding AG. Exposing GI's to nuclear blasts decades back was done under color of law. If you obey a illegal law, that harms others, you are part of the problem. If some family is murdered because you succumbed happily to privilege while they were not afforded that privilege who is at fault.

If you believe it is a right, STAND UP for it as a right. Don't slink and then brag about it with the excuse you are a law abiding citizen. Obeying a illegal law is not law abiding, it is breaking the constitution.

mdak06 said:

Mack, I agree with some of what you've said, but whenever you call someone an idiot in a debate, you immediately lose credibility. Do you not realize this? Do you not understand that you damage your cause by engaging in ad-hominem attacks? That even if one's opponent is arguably "an idiot" (or whatever insult you choose), that trying to prove that point is a useless distraction when you're arguing about something else?

Moving on from that ...

I think that it makes sense to pick one's battles wisely. Carrying concealed without a permit in a state where one is required is not necessarily a sensible battle to fight.

One can believe that "Constitutional Carry" should exist, and that carrying openly or concealed without a permit should be legal in the entire United States. But the legislatures and courts have not indicated that they accept this proposition. Breaking the law for the sake of "I believe this is right" is not always a wise course of action. As I posted earlier, the Supreme Court of the USA has made some horrific decisions over the years.

Police have been known to lie in court. Given that it is not far-fetched that an officer could conjure up a "reasonable suspicion" that would allow a "stop and frisk" to be legal, the idea of simply carrying concealed illegally is not really a sensible one. This is especially true for someone who doesn't have the resources to fight such a case in court, even if that person is completely correct that a search of him (that resulted in the police finding an illegally concealed weapon) was an illegal search.

I believe that peaceful people have the right to carry a weapon, concealed or openly, without government interference. That doesn't mean I think it's a wise idea for me to carry concealed in my state without a permit that I'm legally required to have. It's not a battle I'm currently willing or able to fight.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I very rarely use any pejorative words or employ an ad hominem attack, but these guys are out of their minds. Stupid seemed apropos, or I could have used possibly unwise, naive, etc. I believe, as others have said, that the 2nd Amendment "is my carry permit" but that is not reality. We have to obey the law even when SCOTUS, etc. get it wrong. I meant no offense but realize that offense was felt. My apologies to all.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

marshaul said:

Notice how eye95 conflates "constitutional protection" with the actual existence of a right. (This despite the 9th Amendment.) This is especially clear in other posts of his where he flat-out declares there is no right to carry concealed, without bothering to explicitly frame it in the context of the present law.

His argument is weak because his argument is wrong.

If "concealment" is necessarily a separable act, then so is "display", for whether one or the other is default depends on the firearm, the clothes of the carrier, the weather, etc etc etc.

Once one realizes this, one can discard eye95's sophistry with amazing clarity.

Click to expand...

I agree with eye on this. And if you read the constitution you will see he is right. Concealed carry falls under the 4th and 5th amendment, just the same as carrying a ounce of pot in your back pocket would be. Any private act that does not harm others, if kept private, should stay private by the constitution. I don't care if the person is concealing a bazooka, as long as it is fully concealed, and the person is not harming others.

Yes properly and fully concealed sidearms is covered in the constitution, but not by the second amendment. Black V US cleared that up for our circuit. And other rulings have cleared it up for the rest of the country. Whatever you conceal, even if it is battery acid in a squirt gun is constitutional. As long as the person commits no acts of aggression that would affect the fellow citizens.

WalkingWolf said:

I agree with eye on this. And if you read the constitution you will see he is right. Concealed carry falls under the 4th and 5th amendment, just the same as carrying a ounce of pot in your back pocket would be. Any private act that does not harm others, if kept private, should stay private by the constitution. I don't care if the person is concealing a bazooka, as long as it is fully concealed, and the person is not harming others.

Yes properly and fully concealed sidearms is covered in the constitution, but not by the second amendment. Black V US cleared that up for our circuit. And other rulings have cleared it up for the rest of the country. Whatever you conceal, even if it is battery acid in a squirt gun is constitutional. As long as the person commits no acts of aggression that would affect the fellow citizens.

Click to expand...

This sure ain't what eye95 thinks. I'll tell you why: the SCOTUS doesn't share your reasoning. By your reasoning, all laws which create personal contraband are unconstitutional. Drug possession laws, knife possession laws, etc etc etc.

Furthermore, if the 4th protects such property despite the SCOTUS having said it doesn't, then the 2nd damn well protects all manners of bearing firearms too.

I don't disagree with this utility of the Fourth amendment, I merely disagree with your limiting the Second contrary to the plain language.

marshaul said:

This sure ain't what eye95 thinks. I'll tell you why: the SCOTUS doesn't share your reasoning. By your reasoning, all laws which create personal contraband are unconstitutional. Drug possession laws, knife possession laws, etc etc etc.

Furthermore, if the 4th protects such property despite the SCOTUS having said it doesn't, then the 2nd damn well protects all manners of bearing firearms too.

I don't disagree with this utility of the Fourth amendment, I merely disagree with your limiting the Second contrary to the plain language.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the second to support concealed carry, there is in the fourth. Bearing arms is a open act, they did not use the terminology of open carry back then because conceal carry was not really a option. Knives were large, and worn on the belt. You certainly could not conceal a sword. Pistols were large because they were used as one shot, and then as a club. They had to be large to be used as a club. People who hid small weapons were considered criminals. The second had nothing to do with self defense from one another. It had to do with self defense from tyranny, and that has to be done openly, and not controlled by government.

Private and personal matters as to a persons papers and affects are covered under the fourth. Most of the problems with what SCOTUS interprets has to do with our own bias. The court is wrong in assuming public and social norms when interpreting the constitution. It should only be interpreted by what is written. And what is written supports open carry in the second amendment. The fourth supports those things private remain private even if the public finds them distasteful. The fifth amendment supports that we do not have to tell the government we are carrying a howitzer under our coat, or a sex toy, or drugs. Only when we obviously break the law should we be subject to search.

The fourth circuit federal court made this clear when they let a felon off the hook for possession of a concealed weapon. And it was not done on the merits of 2A, it was done on the merit of 4A. If the ruling were to be pushed up, I have no doubt SCOTUS will agree with the circuit federal ruling.

People in all states have been concealing in states without concealed carry permits without arrest, for decades, probably a couple centuries. They do it, because they do it right and keep their nose clean. I carried a large Gerber folder under my truck seat for years, and NCHP/DOT inspectors have even seen it there when the door was opened. Technically the knife was concealed and over length limits, yet no arrests, not even a question. Police officers in the past understood the concept of the constitution, actually most people with common sense did. Common sense is a thing of the past it seems. And it got that way by having stupid laws, that outlaw commons sense. Mind you they are not constitutional. The only cases where the gov supports personal contraband is when there is a lawful search. If the search is not lawful there is no contraband.

In the past to make a concealed weapons charge stick, or even get the SA to charge, there had to be supporting charges. Even old Judge Rhodes one of the toughest judges for a criminal to go against would toss a case on CW without a good supporting charge. I have a good story about him sometime.

I don't need no stinken privilege card.

Just looked up the the word "to bear" in an 18th century dictionary......1. to carry as a burden 2. to convey or carry 3. to carry as a mark of authority .......

Plus several more like to hold up as in bearing walls, which can definitely be hidden.

Common law and natural law dictates when two meanings are presented in law the most innocent is the meaning we must interpret.

So the right to keep and bear arms ( which isn't granted in the 2A we are born with it) has no other limitations on it concealed open etc.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT7#v=onepage&q&f=false This is the dictionary....you have to scroll down.

Edit: To ad looks like that dictionary was given as a gift to someone in 1828, so maybe the meanings drifted.....just maybe.....

A limitation on concealment is not a limitation on carry. It is a limitation on a secondary and separate act, not necessary to the carry.

Also, we are not born with a right to keep and bear arms. We are born with a right to defend ourselves from thugs: outlaw thugs and thugs operating with the power of the state. The Framers wisely enshrined the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to ensure we could exercise the God-give (or natural, if you prefer) right to self-defense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

A limitation on concealment is not a limitation on carry. It is a limitation on a secondary and separate act, not necessary to the carry.

Also, we are not born with a right to keep and bear arms. We are born with a right to defend ourselves from thugs: outlaw thugs and thugs operating with the power of the state. The Framers wisely enshrined the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to ensure we could exercise the God-give (or natural, if you prefer) right to self-defense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Openly or concealed wasn't mentioned. A license to conceal is limitation on carry, because it infringes upon how you may carry.

Arms in the same dictionary...weapons of offense or defense.

The 2A had little to do with personal self defense, this was already a right recognized by English common law, the purpose of writing a limitation on the government in the 2A was to make sure that the people were an armed check on government.

sudden valley gunner said:

Openly or concealed wasn't mentioned. A license to conceal is limitation on carry, because it infringes upon how you may carry.

Arms in the same dictionary...weapons of offense or defense.

The 2A had little to do with personal self defense, this was already a right recognized by English common law, the purpose of writing a limitation on the government in the 2A was to make sure that the people were an armed check on government.

Click to expand...

Concealed carry is NOT a armed check on government, or a check on anybody else. A CC looks just like any other subject or victim. The whole intent of the 2A was in fact deterrence by bearing arms. You can't have a deterrence if nobody knows about it. And it damn sure is not a right if you have to ask permission.

Most people in the time of the BOR did not even own a handgun, they owned long guns which could not be concealed. Handguns were used by the navy and dueling pistols, they were not the arms of the time. There is nothing in the militia acts about handguns/pistols. Citizens were expected to be armed with muskets, now I don't know about anybody else, but concealing a musket is not going to be practical.

sudden valley gunner said:

Openly or concealed wasn't mentioned. A license to conceal is limitation on carry, because it infringes upon how you may carry.

Arms in the same dictionary...weapons of offense or defense.

The 2A had little to do with personal self defense, this was already a right recognized by English common law, the purpose of writing a limitation on the government in the 2A was to make sure that the people were an armed check on government.

Click to expand...

Holstered vs. brandished was not mentioned either.

The 2A mentions only what is protected: Carry. It mentions no attendant behaviors. So what. As long as you can carry, regulation of attendant behaviors does not stop the carry, and the carry is uninfringed.

Again, win back the right to carry first, then fight all the less significant battles to make carry convenient.

DWCook said:

I'm on both sides too, some days I like to Open carry and some conceal only.

Click to expand...

I guess, I have gotten lazy. I much prefer to open carry. The only time I conceal carry is at work.

Oh for God's sake. It says the right to bear arms. Not how, but that we all can. Why are you guys so willing to get caught up in these pointless arguments when your energies could be spent making a difference. The important thing is that we're carrying, right? Otherwise, you're no worse that the close minded CCers that dog on us for OC.

Come on guys...

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2