Federal Judge Rules - "Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry"

StogieC · Jul 11, 2013

When and how those restraints may be applied has been and will be the subject of extensive litigation. In Peterson, 707 F.3d at 1201, the Tenth Circuit held that the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection does not include a right to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. That ruling is binding on this Court and defeats the Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Bonidy should be free to carry his concealed handgun on his person in the Avon Post Office and parking lot. But the Peterson panel did not address whether open carry of firearms outside the home is similarly unprotected; indeed, it explicitly declined to do so. See id. at 1208-09.

Those who believe in the primacy of collective security read Heller narrowly within the factual context in which the case arose. See discussion as to Part III.B in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011); Piszczatoski v. Filko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D. N.J. 2012). Judge Posner persuasively discredited that reading by his textual analysis in the opinion deciding Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Aside from the textual meaning of “bear arms,” he recognized the common-sense view that armed self-defense is important outside the home and that hunting takes place outside the home.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety.

...

In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment.

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/.../2013/07/09/bonidy-v.-usps-order#.Ud6yHEG1F8F

Griz · Jul 11, 2013

In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment

all except for that little infringy part:

subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety

skidmark · Jul 11, 2013

Differentiating the sensitivity of the parking lot from the sensitivity of the Post Office itself is a first step. It opens the way for challenging the sensitivity of the Post Office on grounds other that it has been a longstanding designation. The assertion that the Earth is flat was a longstanding assertion, as was the one about the sun revolving about the Earth. Over time, with challenges being repeated, they were successfully overturned.

I abhore the necessity of "baby steps" but sometimes that is all you can take. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...chu414116.html

stay safe.

davidmcbeth · Jul 11, 2013

I don't need a judge voting on what is a right .... thanks judgy, but your words are meaningless ... ya cannot vote on a right ...

eye95 · Jul 11, 2013

From the ruling:

Just as the liberty protected by the First and FourthAmendments may be limited by restrictions necessary to preserve a well-ordered society, the freedom to keep and bear arms may be restrained by majoritarian governmental action.

I hate that sentence.

77zach · Jul 11, 2013

Interesting.

Stogie, since I think the Fl courts are too corrupt to rule correctly in Norman perhaps you should pursue a federal lawsuit afterward.

marshaul · Jul 12, 2013

eye95 said:
I hate that sentence.

You're OK with it whenever the right in question isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

But I agree with you.

eye95 · Jul 12, 2013

Folks, if you want to know what I believe, please read what I write--or ask me.

Too many people here are willing to present what they believe (or want you to believe) are the ideas of others.

That is dishonest.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

MSG Laigaie · Jul 12, 2013

I stopped going to the main post office because of the restrictions. I have been using a postal annex at the local inandout. No worries about the weapon and no chance of being arrested. Nice that they considered this part >>>""In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. ""

WalkingWolf · Jul 12, 2013

Again another ruling where the courts rule concealed carry is not a right. The only thing the court ruled was that the petitioner had a right to store a firearm in his vehicle. When will these people learn that concealed carry is a carry option, not a right. Bearing arms is the right and the only thing that should be argued. Then the ball is put back into the politicians court, they have to decide whether to allow constitutional carry, or allow constitutional open carry.

IMO this ruling is another failure in a string of failures. A person is already legal to store a firearm in their car as long as they do not give RAS to a crime. Vehicles are not subject to search in a federal parking lot unless it is a secure facility. Actually that goes also for carrying concealed in the facility as long as there are not metal detectors. Black V US even a felon can carry a concealed firearm as long as they do not give RAS to a crime.

If we are not going to fight for the right to bear arms. We should be fighting hard to be left alone when we are minding our own business, and not committing a crime.

If the GZ ruling comes in today(which I doubt) we WILL be armed at all times until things simmer down. And that's included CCing without a permit, both of us, on top of OCing where allowed.

paramedic70002 · Jul 12, 2013

Exactly.

The parchment says "keep and bear" and I don't see "open" or "concealed" anywhere in that sentence.

So far recently the SCOTUS is 2/2 for keep. Bear hopefully will be vindicated soon.

marshaul · Jul 12, 2013

paramedic70002 said:
Exactly.

The parchment says "keep and bear" and I don't see "open" or "concealed" anywhere in that sentence.

So far recently the SCOTUS is 2/2 for keep. Bear hopefully will be vindicated soon.

According to eye95, "concealing" the firearm is a separate action, and since that action isn't enumerated it's not a right.

I argued that, by the same logic, "displaying" an openly carried firearm could just as well be the separate action, and not therefore a right.

That's the argument we'll face, but it's a really brain-dead one IMO.

Note: It seems obvious to me that whether open or concealed is "default" when bearing a firearm depends on clothing – and the firearm – as much as anything else. For example, in winter I often have to make special accommodations in winter to ensure my carry is "open". The notion that government should be the arbiter of what is "correct" in these regards is farcical (at best). From this I conclude "keep and bear arms" can reasonably give no indication of in what manner the bearing occurs (i.e. openly or concealed).

eye95 · Jul 12, 2013

paramedic70002 said:
Exactly.

The parchment says "keep and bear" and I don't see "open" or "concealed" anywhere in that sentence.

So far recently the SCOTUS is 2/2 for keep. Bear hopefully will be vindicated soon.

Concealment and carry are two separable acts. People have been suckered into accepting a licensing scheme by the State "permitting" concealment and carry as though they were a single, inseparable act.

It is possible to conceal a firearm and not carry it. It is possible to carry a firearm and not conceal it. The Right is to carry, not to conceal.

Fight for unlicensed carry. Go for unlicensed concealment after we have won the battle for carry, because, of the two, that is that act that matters.

When you fight for the privilege of carry and conceal, you are playing the NRA's game, the one that got us away from generally accepted open carry, exercised as a right, to generally accepted carry and conceal, exercised as a licensed privilege.

77zach · Jul 12, 2013

paramedic70002 said:
Exactly.

The parchment says "keep and bear" and I don't see "open" or "concealed" anywhere in that sentence.

So far recently the SCOTUS is 2/2 for keep. Bear hopefully will be vindicated soon.

In Steven Halbrook's book on the right to bear arms, you'll find that quite a few state supreme courts said that concealed carry was a right also. Most of these decisions came in the 19th century. I believe Vermont is the only state that still respects their court's decision that concealment is a right, which, of course, it is (if we're talking natural law).

marshaul · Jul 12, 2013

eye95 said:
It is possible to conceal a firearm and not carry it. It is possible to carry a firearm and not conceal it. The Right is to carry, not to conceal.

It is possible to display a firearm and not to carry it. It is possible to carry a firearm and not display it. The Right is to carry, not to display.

This logic sucks.

eye95 · Jul 13, 2013

Display? What the hell is that?

I don't display my firearm. I carry it. I don't hide it because, at the moment, that would be unlawful. But that ain't display. That's carry. And carry is the Right.

Even once my license comes through, I probably will just carry. Circumstances my cause it to become concealed, but I generally won't look to do that separate action. At the moment, I exercise caution not to conceal.

marshaul · Jul 13, 2013

eye95 said:
Display? What the hell is that?

I don't display my firearm. I carry it. I don't hide it because, at the moment, that would be unlawful. But that ain't display. That's carry. And carry is the Right.

Even once my license comes through, I probably will just carry. Circumstances my cause it to become concealed, but I generally won't look to do that separate action. At the moment, I exercise caution not to conceal.

Conceal? What the hell is that?

I don't conceal my firearm, I carry it. I don't display it because, at the moment, that would be unlawful (I live in Texas). But that ain't concealment. It's carry. And carry is the Right.

Even if they were to change the law, I probably will just carry. Circumstances may cause it to be displayed (I feel threatened), but I generally won't look to do that separate action. At the moment, I exercise caution not to display.

(For the record: I'm arguing solely to demonstrate how completely arbitrary eye95's logic is.)

Come on, eye. Your argument sucks. Do better.

marshaul · Jul 13, 2013

Nightmare said:
Post-modern rhetoric and empty.

Exactly! And you'll note it's precisely the same argument eye95 has been bandying about for months to justify abrogation of right.

The forum ought to call him out on it once and for all, IMO.

WalkingWolf · Jul 14, 2013

marshaul said:
Conceal? What the hell is that?

I don't conceal my firearm, I carry it. I don't display it because, at the moment, that would be unlawful (I live in Texas). But that ain't concealment. It's carry. And carry is the Right.

Even if they were to change the law, I probably will just carry. Circumstances may cause it to be displayed (I feel threatened), but I generally won't look to do that separate action. At the moment, I exercise caution not to display.

(For the record: I'm arguing solely to demonstrate how completely arbitrary eye95's logic is.)

Come on, eye. Your argument sucks. Do better.

But you are only carrying with PERMISSION, so concealed carry is not a right. The only way it would be a right for you is if you carry concealed without the express privilege of a permission card.

Thundar · Jul 14, 2013

eye95 said:
From the ruling:

I hate that sentence.

Me too. It is as if he thinks we live in a democracy, not a representative republic.

Federal Judge Rules - "Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry"

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member