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

rightwinglibertarian · Aug 8, 2014

Grapeshot said:
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

OC Freedom · Aug 8, 2014

rightwinglibertarian said:
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

OC for ME · Aug 8, 2014

Primus said:
Good luck.

Non-answer answer. Can mean anything down the road regardless of the outcome of any issue. Perfectly used in this instance.

WalkingWolf · Aug 8, 2014

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.

WalkingWolf · Aug 8, 2014

Primus said:
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?

The Truth · Aug 8, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
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?

I haven't been here very long, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what Primus meant by, "good luck."

As for mine, OC for ME, Walking Wolf, and rightwinglibertarian's feelings on the Constitution, it would behoove you, Primus, to support the rights of the people.

rightwinglibertarian · Aug 8, 2014

OC for ME said:
Non-answer answer. Can mean anything down the road regardless of the outcome of any issue. Perfectly used in this instance.

WalkingWolf said:
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?

perfectly dodged more like. Those are the words of a politician or government official. One step forward, two steps back and sidestep the issue. Or in this case totally ignore it. And probably meant the latter Wolf. I've not read a single attempt to disprove the point of this thread. It's like i'm reading something out a mainstream news source. many words, saying very little.

guy fawkes · Aug 8, 2014

rightwinglibertarian said:
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.

Although I agree with your interpretation, and fervently wish it were so, let me echo Primus' sentiment of "Good luck" - that is, history has shown and the courts have ruled otherwise so your battle is one that requires more than mere words typed into a thread on an internet forum.

Let me say this - and although I've used your post as a launch pad, this is not directed at you or anyone else in particular. If it applies to you, you'll know - and if it does not apply to you, you'll likewise know just as certainly.

For those who are stalwart enough to act upon their convictions and are determined to see their way through adversity to stand for what is right, I salute you.

For those who give their time and energy to stand for and advocate for freedom and liberty in the real world with real people and are willing to suffer real consequences, I salute you.

For those who do no more than "preach to the choir" by railing against the status quo from the relative safety and security of their keyboards in a forum filled with like-minded individuals - I have nothing. Certainly not a salute, but also no disdain, no contempt, or any other emotion. You are nothing but background noise. And until you *do* something to promote freedom and liberty and are willing to sacrifice something of yourself, that's all you'll ever be. Background noise.

rightwinglibertarian · Aug 8, 2014

guy fawkes said:
Although I agree with your interpretation, and fervently wish it were so, let me echo Primus' sentiment of "Good luck" - that is, history has shown and the courts have ruled otherwise so your battle is one that requires more than mere words typed into a thread on an internet forum........

.....For those who are stalwart enough to act upon their convictions and are determined to see their way through adversity to stand for what is right, I salute you.

But this is it......my point is the courts ruling is of no (Constitutional) effect. The court isnt allowed to make such rulings. This is the crux of the matter and the real point. Now granted the police, courts etc do beleive those rulings to be valid and thus will try to prosecute you and terrorize you and commit crimes against you. The first battle is getting even right-wingers to accept and stand for that and act upon it. you're right, bleating on an internet forum is utterly pointless but many won't even do that because they don't actually believe in the in the 2A and have long since compromised to the degree they don't even know they have.

I should add I for one have not taken any offense and I applaud you.

Grapeshot · Aug 8, 2014

guy fawkes said:
Although I agree with your interpretation, and fervently wish it were so, let me echo Primus' sentiment of "Good luck" - that is, history has shown and the courts have ruled otherwise so your battle is one that requires more than mere words typed into a thread on an internet forum.

Let me say this - and although I've used your post as a launch pad, this is not directed at you or anyone else in particular. If it applies to you, you'll know - and if it does not apply to you, you'll likewise know just as certainly.

For those who are stalwart enough to act upon their convictions and are determined to see their way through adversity to stand for what is right, I salute you.

For those who give their time and energy to stand for and advocate for freedom and liberty in the real world with real people and are willing to suffer real consequences, I salute you.

For those who do no more than "preach to the choir" by railing against the status quo from the relative safety and security of their keyboards in a forum filled with like-minded individuals - I have nothing. Certainly not a salute, but also no disdain, no contempt, or any other emotion. You are nothing but background noise. And until you *do* something to promote freedom and liberty and are willing to sacrifice something of yourself, that's all you'll ever be. Background noise.

Welcome to OCDO.

Do we know each other? Your voice has a familiar timber to it.

WalkingWolf · Aug 8, 2014

guy fawkes said:
(snip)

For those who do no more than "preach to the choir" by railing against the status quo from the relative safety and security of their keyboards in a forum filled with like-minded individuals - I have nothing. Certainly not a salute, but also no disdain, no contempt, or any other emotion. You are nothing but background noise. And until you *do* something to promote freedom and liberty and are willing to sacrifice something of yourself, that's all you'll ever be. Background noise.

Which is exactly what YOU are doing, the same as the rest of us, unless you want to disclose your identity and back up what YOU have done to "do something".

Otherwise it is a exercise in irony...

The Truth · Aug 8, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Which is exactly what YOU are doing, the same as the rest of us, unless you want to disclose your identity and back up what YOU have done to "do something".

Otherwise it is a exercise in irony...

I was going to note the same thing - especially since that was hist first post as a registered user...haha.

guy fawkes · Aug 8, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Which is exactly what YOU are doing, the same as the rest of us, unless you want to disclose your identity and back up what YOU have done to "do something".

Otherwise it is a exercise in irony...

Even as I posted I understood there would be those who would try to make it about me and my choice of mask. I'll say this - when I look in the mirror without my mask I can say I am satisfied with who I am and what I've done. If you can say the same then why challenge me? If not, well, that's the thing, isn't it?

rightwinglibertarian · Aug 8, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Which is exactly what YOU are doing, the same as the rest of us, unless you want to disclose your identity and back up what YOU have done to "do something".

Otherwise it is a exercise in irony...

While true, in this context, having heard nothing viable with which to use to refute whats been said, now is not the time. This is just another attempt to digress from the point of the thread by removing heat. I will ask again, what if anything has been said that can Constitutionally (or via amendments) be refuted. As this is the highest law of the land, anything said must be backed up by that document(s). And why do I still feel like i'm debating politicians?

EDIT:

guy fawkes said:
Even as I posted I understood there would be those who would try to make it about me and my choice of mask. I'll say this - when I look in the mirror without my mask I can say I am satisfied with who I am and what I've done. If you can say the same then why challenge me? If not, well, that's the thing, isn't it?

+1

Yep. Blame and dodge. Wonder where I've heard those kinds of arguments before

The Truth · Aug 8, 2014

guy fawkes said:
Even as I posted I understood there would be those who would try to make it about me and my choice of mask. I'll say this - when I look in the mirror without my mask I can say I am satisfied with who I am and what I've done. If you can say the same then why challenge me? If not, well, that's the thing, isn't it?

I think the point is the irony that your first post as a registered user is to tell us that we should be activists and not just 'internet warriors,' under the moniker of 'Guy Fawkes.' For me, it was a friendly chuckle. I think you'll find some great examples of activism on this forum if you stick around long enough. I know I have in just my short time posting here, although I lurked for quite awhile before actually posting.

WalkingWolf · Aug 8, 2014

guy fawkes said:
Even as I posted I understood there would be those who would try to make it about me and my choice of mask. I'll say this - when I look in the mirror without my mask I can say I am satisfied with who I am and what I've done. If you can say the same then why challenge me? If not, well, that's the thing, isn't it?

I challenged you because you made a insult to the members of this board, with putting up no proof of your supposed heroics. Clearly if anyone is playing keyboard commando it is not the established members here.

guy fawkes · Aug 8, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Welcome to OCDO.

Do we know each other? Your voice has a familiar timber to it.

Thank you, and well met.

My voice is that of an idea, the timbre of which is familiar to both those who defend it as well as those who oppose it. As to the possibility that we are associates under different guises I'll simply marvel at the paradox of two masked men pondering the identity of the other.

guy fawkes · Aug 8, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
I challenged you because you made a insult to the members of this board, with putting up no proof of your supposed heroics. Clearly if anyone is playing keyboard commando it is not the established members here.

I insulted no one, I simply held up a looking glass - if you read my words and felt slighted, perhaps that glance in the mirror was too much for you to bear and you thus lash out at the reflection.

If on the other hand my words were an affirmation, or even emboldened or encouraged you, again I but point you to your own achievements - build on them and purpose to do more!

I have not ascribed to my self heroics - far from it. Where have I laid any claim to such? To do so would be folly for though I have done some for the cause, I have done less than others, and doubtless could have done more. Where is the heroism in that?

OC for ME · Aug 8, 2014

guy fawkes said:
Although I agree with your interpretation,...

Prattle...

Ending with

guy fawkes said:
...Background noise.

Anyway, this thread is not so much about legal OC but unlawful infringements instituted by the judgery class.

The true mark of restoring our 2A is getting 2A advocates elected at the state level.

I think there is a forum rule that addresses this very notion in some small part.

Freedom1Man · Aug 8, 2014

Unless the people wake up

While the ruling is interesting it will have no meaning unless the people believe it.

While I agree that the courts have no business trying to "interpreter" the constitution away, the general populace believes that they have that authority/power and when called to jury do will uphold that power. Once the people really wake up and realize that the emperor has no clothes, then they will take the action of liberty that can only peacefully found in a jury box.

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

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member