Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: An interesting perspective: Open Carry actually IS legal in all states

  1. #1
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139

    An interesting perspective: Open Carry actually IS legal in all states

    Now let me preface this post by saying that I believe in States' Rights, and I do not necessarily agree with this perspective as of the time of the writing of this post. I guess I am just entertaining ideas. I would love to hear others' thoughts on the following post I copy+pasted from a comment section on another site, especially that of practicing lawyers/judges.

    "Supreme Court Ruling –
    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

    “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed.”

    Ruling –
    The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons. To do so would be a violation of the Second Amendment right to carry weapons for self-defense. As there was no proof that Nunn had been carrying his pistol concealed, the conviction was overturned.

    Conclusion –
    No matter what State you live in they can’t stop you from carrying your gun openly!! They can only make you get a permit to have a CCW permit. Cops hate open carry but love CCW. Why!?!? If I was a cop and coming up to someone I’d sure like to see and know he is armed before I interact with him. That way I know right away that I could get shot. If they CCW I have no idea that they do have a gun and can shoot me anytime! I also wouldn’t know they had a gun before I start interacting with the person. Is it better to KNOW someone has a grenade and has pulled the pin or is it better for me to NOT KNOW someone has a grenade and has pulled the pin?"

    Source: http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/03/19/...on-open-carry/
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-07-2014 at 01:46 PM. Reason: Fixed title

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Some blocking out with quotes and other hints as to who is writing what would make it easier to figure out what you are commenting about, other than Nunn v State. For example, I'm pretty sure what follows the heading "Conclusion" is not from the court ruling but because it is not set off and attribution noted it looks like it is.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Seems pretty clear to me.

    While I appreciate the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does specifically protect open carry, I disagree that it does not protect concealed carry. Additionally, I believe that even if the Second Amendment does not protect concealed carry, it's still a right and there would still be an obligation to respect that right.

    As to whether or not it's legal... well, even if it technically is (such as if the prohibitions were invalid, being unconstitutional), I know that if I OC in Texas right now I will have a long and expensive road of proceedings ahead of me
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    States' rights?

    States' don't have rights, they have limited authorities.

    The people (human being type thus far) have rights.

    Get that straight first.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    States' don't have rights, they have limited authorities.

    The people (human being type thus far) have rights.

    Get that straight first.
    states' rights

    The rights belonging to the various states, especially with reference to the strict interpretation of the constitution, by which all rights not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/states+rights

    States' Rights
    A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ates%27+Rights
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-07-2014 at 06:59 AM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    State can also refer to the people in the state, Madison used 3 different variation of the word state. When they talked about state rights it referred to the people who make up the state if I remember correctly.

    Wasn't this a state supreme court decision. So only really applies to that state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    states' rights

    A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ates%27+Rights
    This is my interpretation of the term. You all will find it is my strong belief that States do indeed have Rights, Rights that may not be infringed upon by the Federal Government for any reason other than Unconstitutionality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man
    States' don't have rights, they have limited authorities.

    The people (human being type thus far) have rights.

    Get that straight first.
    Would you care to oblige as to how you came to such a conclusion?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    This is my interpretation of the term. You all will find it is my strong belief that States do indeed have Rights, Rights that may not be infringed upon by the Federal Government for any reason other than Unconstitutionality.



    Would you care to oblige as to how you came to such a conclusion?
    States are not living, they have no intelligences, you cannot make a state bleed.

    I will agree that the the federal government has no authority to generally interfere with the smaller governments.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    States are not living, they have no intelligences, you cannot make a state bleed.

    I will agree that the the federal government has no authority to generally interfere with the smaller governments.
    Each state represents the people through the election process - the state is a legal entity.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Each state represents the people through the election process - the state is a legal entity.
    As long as we agree that states are not humans, I will concede that states have rights. I will however not agree that state rights trump human rights.

    If you're going to use the legal entity argument then corporates should be receiving ballots in the mail for voting.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    As long as we agree that states are not humans, I will concede that states have rights. I will however not agree that state rights trump human rights.

    If you're going to use the legal entity argument then corporates should be receiving ballots in the mail for voting.
    I agree 100%

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    --snipped--

    If you're going to use the legal entity argument then corporates should be receiving ballots in the mail for voting.
    Corporate entities depend upon their structure - if one holds preferred stock v. common stock there is ample opportunity for input via shareholders meetings. Although I am not familiar with any that vote through USPS.

    We are going to far astray from the OP I fear.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Each state represents the people through the election process - the state is a legal entity.
    Well, that's a bogus theory. But yeah, off topic, moving along....
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Well I'll take this moment to address part of my own post...

    "and not such as are used by the militia,"

    I'm wondering what exactly this means. 'Tis a quite broad statement...

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    states' rights

    The rights belonging to the various states, especially with reference to the strict interpretation of the constitution, by which all rights not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/states+rights

    States' Rights
    A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ates%27+Rights
    I do believe the ACTUAL Constitutional phrase on this is very similar to this.... "reserved to the various States or the people." Personally, I strongly believe it is of UTMOST importance to include "the People" on this phrase EVERY TIME it is quoted otherwise the PEOPLE, State or Federal Government will be misled!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    In spite of that ruling, Illinois still makes it illegal to OC anywhere except on your own property (home or business).
    I think the point of the OP is to say they actually can't rightfully make it illegal and I would agree. Article six of the Constitution states clear as a bell

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    By this we see the states are bound by the federal Constitution and where we get the idea that anything not legislated by the federal Constitution can be legislated by the state/city etc. However the Constitution has already legislated the bearing of arms and limited all government at every level and prohibited them from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    Therefore the ruling quoted as well as the one i've quoted several times affirms the unquestioning right to bear arms whether concealed or openly.

    All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void
    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

    To sum up, no law limiting the bearing of arms has any genuine power and those that enforce such laws are in violation of the Constitution as well as the people who are foolish enough to submit to it are submitting to something that Constitutionally has no force whatsoever. This also goes to show just how low law enforcement as well as the justice system has sunk if it's assumed they have the right to make such rulings and thus makes it foolish to try to fight these rulings through the courts as they do not honor nor respect the Constitution. Therefore it is up to us, the People to enforce the Constitution, insisting and demanding the rights we already have.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I think the point of the OP is to say they actually can't rightfully make it illegal and I would agree. Article six of the Constitution states clear as a bell



    By this we see the states are bound by the federal Constitution and where we get the idea that anything not legislated by the federal Constitution can be legislated by the state/city etc. However the Constitution has already legislated the bearing of arms and limited all government at every level and prohibited them from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    Therefore the ruling quoted as well as the one i've quoted several times affirms the unquestioning right to bear arms whether concealed or openly.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

    To sum up, no law limiting the bearing of arms has any genuine power and those that enforce such laws are in violation of the Constitution as well as the people who are foolish enough to submit to it are submitting to something that Constitutionally has no force whatsoever. This also goes to show just how low law enforcement as well as the justice system has sunk if it's assumed they have the right to make such rulings and thus makes it foolish to try to fight these rulings through the courts as they do not honor nor respect the Constitution. Therefore it is up to us, the People to enforce the Constitution, insisting and demanding the rights we already have.
    Here, here!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I think the point of the OP is to say they actually can't rightfully make it illegal and I would agree. Article six of the Constitution states clear as a bell



    By this we see the states are bound by the federal Constitution and where we get the idea that anything not legislated by the federal Constitution can be legislated by the state/city etc. However the Constitution has already legislated the bearing of arms and limited all government at every level and prohibited them from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    Therefore the ruling quoted as well as the one i've quoted several times affirms the unquestioning right to bear arms whether concealed or openly.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

    To sum up, no law limiting the bearing of arms has any genuine power and those that enforce such laws are in violation of the Constitution as well as the people who are foolish enough to submit to it are submitting to something that Constitutionally has no force whatsoever. This also goes to show just how low law enforcement as well as the justice system has sunk if it's assumed they have the right to make such rulings and thus makes it foolish to try to fight these rulings through the courts as they do not honor nor respect the Constitution. Therefore it is up to us, the People to enforce the Constitution, insisting and demanding the rights we already have.
    Good luck.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Good luck.
    The lack of any real, meaningful response is very telling. This seems to be the catch-all phrase used when a person disagrees but isn't willing to explain themselves. That or 'stay safe'. So tell me, what exactly is wrong with the the ideas of the OP and myself? Why can't you simply agree with the Constitution as it's written, plain as day? For that matter why doesn't anyone who isn't a raving liberal?
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Good luck.
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    The lack of any real, meaningful response is very telling. This seems to be the catch-all phrase used when a person disagrees but isn't willing to explain themselves. --snipped--
    What response are you trying to elicit? What do you expect?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    What response are you trying to elicit? What do you expect?
    i'm just amazed it's not simply understood that the Constitution is the final authority in places like OCDO. It boggles the brain the gymnastics people go through not to. The evidence given is powerful and leaves little doubt exactly what we must stand for and indeed act upon
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    i'm just amazed it's not simply understood that the Constitution is the final authority in places like OCDO. It boggles the brain the gymnastics people go through not to. The evidence given is powerful and leaves little doubt exactly what we must stand for and indeed act upon
    +1

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Good luck.
    Non-answer answer. Can mean anything down the road regardless of the outcome of any issue. Perfectly used in this instance.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    I try not to read extra into the BOR that is already there. The second amendment does not say "people who do not live in states" that just does not make any sense. Unless the 2A was only meant for DC, then DC should clearly be a open carry district. The 2A makes it clear, the people have a right to keep and bear arms. IMO bearing arms is open carry, concealed carry IMO is not bearing, it is just keeping under garments. The main purpose of the 2A is to avoid a tyrannical government by deterrence, without open display of firearms to the government we look like slaves.

    I believe if the conservative justices stay on the SCOTUS long enough Constitutional Open Carry will be enforced. Unfortunately three things hinder that, the age of those justices, Hillary probably getting elected for 8 years, and the AG avoiding bringing cases to the court until she can change the scope of the court.

    I pray that anybody a flaming progressive gets elected to POTUS, but it does not look like it at this point in time. If we got a republican or libertarian president we would have constitutional carry. Or the very least, which is most likely shall issue privilege carry.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Good luck.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    He either means good luck in good faith, or he is being a sarcastic statist, completely ignoring the intent of the second amendment.

    Primus which is it?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •