Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66

Thread: HISTORICALLY, What was the Reason for prohibiting CC ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    What was the historical basis, what was the reasoning, for enactmentof statutes requiring that guns be carried OPENLY or that a citizen just cast his fate to the winds and walk thru the world in a state of helplessness.

    Did the repressionists who enacted these statutes explain their reasoning, and their distinguishing between OC and CC ?

    David

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I have seen many posts on here that have declared that open carry is protected by the constitution but not concealed carry. How they have arrived at that I do not know. For some strange reason at least to me people are quite willing to accept the idea requiring a permit to CC but consider any infringement on OC a violation of 2A.

    I have asked the same question about OC vs CC before but have never gotten an answer.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I have seen many posts on here that have declared that open carry is protected by the constitution but not concealed carry. How they have arrived at that I do not know. For some strange reason at least to me people are quite willing to accept the idea requiring a permit to CC but consider any infringement on OC a violation of 2A.

    I have asked the same question about OC vs CC before but have never gotten an answer.
    I am aware of a USSC case, a 13th Amendment case, of a sailor who jumped ship and claimed the 13th Amendment as a defense ( slavery or involuntary servitude ).

    Summarizing and parafrasing, the court said that all rights have exceptions, and mentioned the judge 's opinion that the right to bear armswas not infringed by laws againstCC. This is what we call "obiter dictum" = utterances in a judicial opinion that r not necessary to justify or explain the court 'sconclusion. Such statements have no value as legalprecedents.

    Its comparable to those who say that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, nor to shout "this is a robbery" in a bank or a liquor store.

    However this may be, I still wonder Y people oppose CC, as distinct from OC.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Historically, cc was prohibited or regulated but not oc because it was believed that honest people wore their guns openly, while criminals did not. That belief has changed somewhat, but is still around.

    Also, the first gun control laws, as most of us know, were aimed at freed slaves to ensure that blacks would not be able to shoot those lynching them. The 14th Amendment in large part was aimed at fixing this problem. Regulating concealed carry helped make sure that the government could control who could protect themselves and who could not.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    The way I understand it...

    Originally, CC was generally for criminals and other people of questionable integrity. Carrying a gun did not cause shame, and those who carried had no reason to hide them. None of that tacticool BS about "element of surprise". If you had a gun, you openly carried it, and that was how it worked.

    This also allowed the citizens to know who was carrying and who was not. The town drunk who hasn't seen sobriety in 30 years would know not to carry a gun openly because hey, everyone would know, and someone would probably do something about it. Looking at the underbelly of our history, though, a black person also would know not to carry a gun openly because he would certainly be disarmed. But essentially, open carry lets everyone know who's carrying and who isn't, and eliminates the need for a background check. If someone is a "prohibited person", so to speak, the public makes sure he doesn't carry a gun.

    Thus, in a society where open carry is commonplace, and only criminals conceal their guns... you better have a damn good reason for being able to legally conceal a gun. Because really, what is the purpose? Hence why many people don't have a problem with licensing for concealed carry so long as unlicensed open carry is available. Of course, this ignores the issue of how it's impossible to know when someone is concealing well, so CC licensing is pretty much unenforcable unless someone is arrested on another charge. It also doesn't reflect the reality of an anti-gun public that necessitates we CC from time to time to avoid being blacklisted form certain establishments.

    As for the second amendment argument, it protects the right to bear arms... it doesn't specify how. And if we look at intent, at the time the document was written, I think we can say the founding fathers didn't intend for people to stash away their guns under heavy clothes. This also goes along with how the second amendment isn't about self-defense, but rather about revolution. I tend to think the founding fathers would rather we carry an AR-15 slung over our shoulder than a little 9mm hidden in a rectal holster. Handguns in general contribute little to "the security of a free State", and I'd go so far as to say that handgun ownership might not be protected by the second amendment... but in the same breath, I'd say that machine guns, rocket launchers, and sawed-off shotguns are thusly protected. Before I get flamed for that, I'm looking at it from a tyrannical-government-resistance point of view. Like I've said, the second amendment isn't about stopping the mugger, unless the mugger is acting as an agent of the government (cue IRS comments).

    That's also a valid point that because the second amendment doesn't specify a mode of carry, it must cover all modes of carry. That is, first amendment protections of free speech don't specify the ability to transmit speech over airwaves freely, but we still acknowledge that the protection is inclusive of all modes, and doesn't let the government pick and choose which modes it allows. Then again, this echoes the cries of those who choose to believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that can be edited to reflect modern realities, rather than trying to change the modern realities to fit the Constitution.

    So in a long-winded way, that's the historical basis for restricting CC while protecting the right to OC uninfringed.



    As for where I stand, I'm split. I don't really care about concealed carry rights so long as open carry rights are protected. However, we're not there yet. And ignoring concealed carry rights in order to pursue expanding open carry rights could lead us to shooting ourselves in the feet, so to speak, in the event that restrictions on CC advance faster than expansion of OC. And it also does nothing to change the hearts and... lack of minds of those who have a jihad against guns. That is, even if anyone not currently in prison or mental hospitals were, overnight, allowed to open carry any gun, anywhere in the United States, while completely banned from carrying concealed, many people would be fired from their job for OCing a gun where they would still be employed if they continued to CC. There's also the issue of how a ban on CC could be abused to prosecute people who accidentally cover parts of their guns. And then there's that hairy issue of how criminals are going to keep concealing anyway. So I accept concealed carry for right now in history, and will fight to protect the peoples' right to do it uninfringed, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Originally, CC was generally for criminals and other people of questionable integrity. Carrying a gun did not cause shame, and those who carried had no reason to hide them. None of that tacticool BS about "element of surprise". If you had a gun, you openly carried it, and that was how it worked.
    I want to return to that mindset. That's why I OC

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Er, it looks like ama-gi provided a much shorter version of what I said, about a minute before I finished mine...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    I knew about the anti-black laws.

    I did not think of that connection, tho; thank u.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Originally, CC was generally for criminals and other people of questionable integrity. Carrying a gun did not cause shame, and those who carried had no reason to hide them. None of that tacticool BS about "element of surprise". If you had a gun, you openly carried it, and that was how it worked.
    I want to return to that mindset. That's why I OC
    Is OC consistent with wearing a business suit and an overcoat, if the weather requires it ?

    If so, how do u do it ?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    The way I understand it...

    Originally, CC was generally for criminals and other people of questionable integrity. Carrying a gun did not cause shame, and those who carried had no reason to hide them. None of that tacticool BS about "element of surprise". If you had a gun, you openly carried it, and that was how it worked.

    This also allowed the citizens to know who was carrying and who was not. The town drunk who hasn't seen sobriety in 30 years would know not to carry a gun openly because hey, everyone would know, and someone would probably do something about it. Looking at the underbelly of our history, though, a black person also would know not to carry a gun openly because he would certainly be disarmed. But essentially, open carry lets everyone know who's carrying and who isn't, and eliminates the need for a background check. If someone is a "prohibited person", so to speak, the public makes sure he doesn't carry a gun.

    Thus, in a society where open carry is commonplace, and only criminals conceal their guns... you better have a damn good reason for being able to legally conceal a gun. Because really, what is the purpose? Hence why many people don't have a problem with licensing for concealed carry so long as unlicensed open carry is available. Of course, this ignores the issue of how it's impossible to know when someone is concealing well, so CC licensing is pretty much unenforcable unless someone is arrested on another charge. It also doesn't reflect the reality of an anti-gun public that necessitates we CC from time to time to avoid being blacklisted form certain establishments.

    As for the second amendment argument, it protects the right to bear arms... it doesn't specify how. And if we look at intent, at the time the document was written, I think we can say the founding fathers didn't intend for people to stash away their guns under heavy clothes. This also goes along with how the second amendment isn't about self-defense, but rather about revolution. I tend to think the founding fathers would rather we carry an AR-15 slung over our shoulder than a little 9mm hidden in a rectal holster. Handguns in general contribute little to "the security of a free State", and I'd go so far as to say that handgun ownership might not be protected by the second amendment... but in the same breath, I'd say that machine guns, rocket launchers, and sawed-off shotguns are thusly protected. Before I get flamed for that, I'm looking at it from a tyrannical-government-resistance point of view. Like I've said, the second amendment isn't about stopping the mugger, unless the mugger is acting as an agent of the government (cue IRS comments).

    That's also a valid point that because the second amendment doesn't specify a mode of carry, it must cover all modes of carry. That is, first amendment protections of free speech don't specify the ability to transmit speech over airwaves freely, but we still acknowledge that the protection is inclusive of all modes, and doesn't let the government pick and choose which modes it allows. Then again, this echoes the cries of those who choose to believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that can be edited to reflect modern realities, rather than trying to change the modern realities to fit the Constitution.

    So in a long-winded way, that's the historical basis for restricting CC while protecting the right to OC uninfringed.



    As for where I stand, I'm split. I don't really care about concealed carry rights so long as open carry rights are protected. However, we're not there yet. And ignoring concealed carry rights in order to pursue expanding open carry rights could lead us to shooting ourselves in the feet, so to speak, in the event that restrictions on CC advance faster than expansion of OC. And it also does nothing to change the hearts and... lack of minds of those who have a jihad against guns. That is, even if anyone not currently in prison or mental hospitals were, overnight, allowed to open carry any gun, anywhere in the United States, while completely banned from carrying concealed, many people would be fired from their job for OCing a gun where they would still be employed if they continued to CC. There's also the issue of how a ban on CC could be abused to prosecute people who accidentally cover parts of their guns. And then there's that hairy issue of how criminals are going to keep concealing anyway. So I accept concealed carry for right now in history, and will fight to protect the peoples' right to do it uninfringed, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
    It is a historical FACT that the Founders were concerned about the right to revolution.

    Thay saw government as a realty manager hired by owners of realty (meaning the citizens). The owners shud never be prevented from firing their property manager. The Founders were still breathing hard and nursing their wounds from the last time that thay overthrew a government.

    We shud be aware that in the 1700s, when the Constitution and its Bill of Rights were written, there were NO POLICE anywhere in America, nor were there any in England until the following century. It was obvious that everyone had to be able to defend his life and other property from the predatory violence of man or beast; i.e., the need toKABAwas undisputable as the need to wear warm clothes in winter.

    For BOTH of those reasons, 2A deprived any government of any jurisdiction to interfere with the citizenry preparing to defend itself. Indeed, Colonial gun control laws REQUIRED the citizens to be armed when going to Church or to work, in the same spirit as today 's mandatory seatbelt laws. In both cases, it was deemed irresponsible negligence to fail to prepare to protect yourself from possible injury.

    David


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    If predatory bad guys single out someone who is financially well off, and who open carries, thay may choose to arrange circumstances such that thay will disarm him before the robbery. His life may well depend on his having a backup gun secreted upon his person. If there is a law against that, then the death penalty may well apply to OBEYING that law.

    David

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Er, it looks like ama-gi provided a much shorter version of what I said, about a minute before I finished mine...
    But yours was more detailed and in depth

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    David, I'll address separately three of the points you made.

    First, as far as carrying a backup piece concealed, I'd tend to think that would be allowed. You've already made your intent known by openly carrying a gun, and it's obvious that you are carrying a gun. All cliches aside, you're either visibly armed or you're not, and if you already have an OCed gun, you wouldn't be any more "armed" if you had a backup piece or two.

    Second, as far as dressing warm, I'd tend to think that covering up in the cold would still fit with the intent of the framers. Though perhaps their answer may be just to carry a long arm slung over your shoulder... haha. But in all seriousness, that is a complication that needs to be addressed, and I'll admit that I don't properly know how to address it.

    Third, as for wearing a business suit, or in any situation where a person would need to legitimately conceal for one reason or another, those would be situations where concealed carry permits would be useful. But they would be the exception rather than the rule.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    David, I'll address separately three of the points you made.

    First, as far as carrying a backup piece concealed, I'd tend to think that would be allowed. You've already made your intent known by openly carrying a gun, and it's obvious that you are carrying a gun. All cliches aside, you're either visibly armed or you're not, and if you already have an OCed gun, you wouldn't be any more "armed" if you had a backup piece or two.

    Second, as far as dressing warm, I'd tend to think that covering up in the cold would still fit with the intent of the framers. Though perhaps their answer may be just to carry a long arm slung over your shoulder... haha. But in all seriousness, that is a complication that needs to be addressed, and I'll admit that I don't properly know how to address it.

    Third, as for wearing a business suit, or in any situation where a person would need to legitimately conceal for one reason or another, those would be situations where concealed carry permits would be useful. But they would be the exception rather than the rule.
    I am confident that the Founders were all pro-gun freedom both to enable the citizens to overthrow any government in America ( as thay had just finished doing ) and for personal defense from the predatory violence of man or beast. I am aware that in the 1700s, there were no police anywhere in America, nor in England ( until the following century ). IfTHAY were to accept any gun control laws, those laws wud MANDATE that the citizens be well armed, the same as today seatbelt use is mandated. Thus, if I were the judge on such a case, I 'd rule accordingly.
    Do u know of any precedent qua concealed backup guns ?
    Qua use of business suits, and full length coats against cold, rain & snow: some states do not grant CC licenses, de jure, or de facto, on a discretionary and discriminatorybasis of licensing the right to defend your life and other property.
    David

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    SNIP First, as far as carrying a backup piece concealed, I'd tend to think that would be allowed. You've already made your intent known by openly carrying a gun, and it's obvious that you are carrying a gun. All cliches aside, you're either visibly armed or you're not, and if you already have an OCed gun, you wouldn't be any more "armed" if you had a backup piece or two.
    I'm not sure this totally fits the discussion. I've not read the entire thread.

    It will depend, I think, on the statute. For example, in VA the statute makes having a concealed weapon illegal, with specific exceptions set out for property owners, business owners, CHP holders, etc. Having another weapon visible is not one of the exceptions.

    § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

    A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or...
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    So where do your opinions lie on the topic of the 6 states that have Banned open Carry? I live in Texas and I'm not happy about. I love my state but it seems frivilous that one must be REQUIRED to conceal a fire-arm about his person should he choose to wear one. I don't disagree at all that one should be made to A. Take a class on the topic, and B. Qualify in target practice to be allowed to legally carry a firearm, that only seems logical to me. But to completely ban open carry seems to infringe on my 2a rights.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    David, I entirely missed that quote of yours regarding the need for citizens to police themselves. Or, rather, I missed the quote connecting it to the need to allow concealed carry. At any rate, it's a very good point. I think we need to find out what was done historically in regards to carrying in bad weather. That is, what did OCers do in bad weather? I honestly don't know.

    Citizen and DopaVash, in this thread I'm entirely ignoring statutes on the books, and am talking about what is compatible with the Constitution and the thoughts and opinions at that time regarding OC v. CC.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    DopaVash wrote:
    So where do your opinions lie on the topic of the 6 states that have Banned open Carry? I live in Texas and I'm not happy about. I love my state but it seems frivilous that one must be REQUIRED to conceal a fire-arm about his person should he choose to wear one. I don't disagree at all that one should be made to A. Take a class on the topic, and B. Qualify in target practice to be allowed to legally carry a firearm, that only seems logical to me. But to completely ban open carry seems to infringe on my 2a rights.
    We have the same horrible state of affairs in NY; if u have a license to carry, your gun must be secreted upon your person, unless u r in some kind of uniform ( e.g., a security guard wud be OK ).

    I disagree with your comment about qualifying qua target practice; the 2 A disables governments in America from having jurisdiction to legislate concerning defensive weaponry; it does not confer jd to discriminate against poor shots.

    Indeed, the Constitution requires equal protection of the laws; that includes lousy shots.

    David

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    David, I entirely missed that quote of yours regarding the need for citizens to police themselves. Or, rather, I missed the quote connecting it to the need to allow concealed carry. At any rate, it's a very good point. I think we need to find out what was done historically in regards to carrying in bad weather. That is, what did OCers do in bad weather? I honestly don't know.

    Citizen and DopaVash, in this thread I'm entirely ignoring statutes on the books, and am talking about what is compatible with the Constitution and the thoughts and opinions at that time regarding OC v. CC.
    Thank u.
    Writings surviving from the 1700s are permeated with DREAD of the Founders of what we now call "police forces"; thay called them "standing armies" which thay regarded as instruments of tyranny, as did Englishmen for a long time before that.

    It is worthy of observation that encumbering a right with conditions precedent will, in effect, kill exercise of the right. For instance, a statute allowing the civilian carry of guns, but onlywith minimum barrel lengths of 7 feet; or poll taxes imposed upon the right to vote.

    Gun control statutes on the books are acts of USURPATION of ultra vires activity, overthrowing the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land, and any statute inconsistent therewith is null & void. Tell that to the fellows languishing in jails & prisons for exercising their constituitional rights.

    David


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Ya know, there are times that I question the reality of carrying either OC or CC...maybe it's the three Murphy's/five beers/ screwdriver talking, but as I see it (in my enhanced mental state of mind), but I've come to this conclusion...I just CARRY. It's the only reason I got the CCW. That way, I was able to carry concealed when it was necessary. My .45 rides my hip regardless of where I am. If it's summer, then it's OC all the way, unless I have to go somewhere thats "OC unfriendly" such as large crowds, posted areas, etc. When its cold out, I don't need to worry about my sidearm. It's always there whether under a coat or not.
    Plain and simple. I carry.
    Earlier this morning my 2 yr old and I were at Wallyworld grocery shopping. I had a hoodie on so I was mostly concealed only because the hoodie comes down that far, and not because I was trying to conceal. Whilst in the checkout line, Gavin pulled my hoodie up and yelled "DADDYS BANG!!!", rather funny right? Well the soccer mom behind us freaked. I might as well as showed her my pitiful scottish manhood. "OH-MY-GOD!!!!!!" was her reaction, and it loud enough that it echoed. The checkout guy and I had a hearty laugh...but lil miss soccer britches had a freakin canary. Oh well, I did nothing to "hide my shame", but left the exposure as it was and continue to load my cart.
    I am now beyond giving a rats ass about what anyone thinks. I found that out today.
    Honestly tho, my first impulse was to cover up. Within a hairs split second, I came to my wits and thought about slapping her upside the cheek with my scottish friend (but the mgmt would have frowned upon that), but then just let it be as it was.

    For those of you who are able in your state, just CARRY. Nothing more, nothing less.

    OK, enough of my addelled ramblings. Proceed with the topic.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    David, the best I can find so far is1839-1840when the constitutionalityof concealed carry was brought before the courts in Alabama. Perhaps there were other cases in other states a bit earlier?

    State vs Reid is an historic case that actually defends Open Carry as being more effective for self defense:

    THE STATE V. REID

    1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil
    practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly,
    or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms
    in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent
    with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution.


    [snip]

    “But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.”

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...ate_v_reid.txt



    I need to research that act if the 1st of February 1939!

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    DopaVash wrote:
    So where do your opinions lie on the topic of the 6 states that have Banned open Carry? I live in Texas and I'm not happy about. I love my state but it seems frivilous that one must be REQUIRED to conceal a fire-arm about his person should he choose to wear one. I don't disagree at all that one should be made to A. Take a class on the topic, and B. Qualify in target practice to be allowed to legally carry a firearm, that only seems logical to me. But to completely ban open carry seems to infringe on my 2a rights.
    My opinion is that they should allow OC.

    Next, its dangerous to concede that requirements should be allowed to, "...legally carry a firearm." Its already been legal since the Founding to carry arms. The Constitutions of the several states guarantee the right, aligning the legality with the pre-existing basic human right to self-defense, rather than the other way around. That's not to say that people shouldn't become minimally proficient with arms; I'm saying to handle it socially without resorting to giving government further power over it. If they are to be believed, teh NRA has made a huge dent in accidental deaths of kids by firearms with their safety training. Perhaps wecouldjust require everyone who has a firearm to become minimally proficient, but the penalty for failure is a fine, not a restriction on the gun itself. Not a restriction on carry.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    OmSigDAVID wrote:
    The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land, and any statute inconsistent therewith is null & void. Tell that to the fellows languishing in jails & prisons for exercising their constituitional rights.
    But, but, there's Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." And Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

    See, those two sentences mean that the government can do whatever it wants, and all of the rest of the Constitution can be ignored. Only those two sentences matter! Don't you know?

    :?

    I think if the founding fathers knew then what we know now, they would have stricken those two clauses from the document altogether.



    Or they could have just stuck with the Articles of the Confederation.


    Edited to make a plural

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Wow, here's a great collection of State court opinions on federal and state right to arms! Time to start digging!

    http://www.guncite.com/court/state/


    Apparently earlier than 1840 as in Reid;

    In 1822 in Bliss v Commonwealth, the court declares that:

    3. The act to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms, is unconstitutional and void.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    David, the best I can find so far is1839-1840when the constitutionalityof concealed carry was brought before the courts in Alabama. Perhaps there were other cases in other states a bit earlier?

    State vs Reid is an historic case that actually defends Open Carry as being more effective for self defense:

    THE STATE V. REID

    1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil
    practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly,
    or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms
    in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent
    with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution.


    [snip]

    “But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.”

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...ate_v_reid.txt



    I need to research that act if the 1st of February 1939!
    Thanks, Bob. It looks like early Americans didn't take kindly to the "element of surprise". Take that, tacticool CCers!

    Actually, I'm going to add that to my sig line at PAFOA...

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •