HISTORICALLY, What was the Reason for prohibiting CC ?

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/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_reid.txt



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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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. :uhoh:


Edited to make a plural

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.

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/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_reid.txt



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

Click to expand...

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...

imported post

Precisely and exactly what I've been saying that to eliminate criminals and their crimes we don't need more laws or more concealed weapons that give the element of "surprise". What we need are MORE GOOD PEOPLE. People who have nothing to hide, including their weapons!

(http://bobcav.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-good-men.html)

I tend to see things the way the COULD be and ask "Why Not"?



silly me!

imported post

It is evident that our forefathers saw OC as legitimate and CC as at least problematic. The Kentucky Constitution ratified in 1792, in Section 1 states:

"The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."

And Missouri's constitution (~1821) has similar language. I know I have read other state constitutions which are also similar. So within a year of the 1791 ratification of our Bill of Rights, the KY constitution strongly implies that the 2A intent applied to OC rather than CC and that CC was frowned upon if not out right outlawed contemporaneously.

imported post

According to the book Concealed Weapon Laws Of TheEarlyRepublic, restrictions on concealed weapons were largely based on the prevention of dueling and brawling rather than an intent on debating the constitutionality of what to Bear means.

http://www.amazon.com/Concealed-Weapon-Laws-Early-Republic/dp/0275966151

The definition of bear brings up numerous uses that include tocarry and have, not necessarily to outwardly and openly bear..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

It may also suggest that southern colonials were actually attempting to prevent otherserious crimes by regulations..

http://www.claytoncramer.com/duelinganddeliverance.pdf

There may also be racist reasoning behind the restriction of carrying arms in clonial times. Blacks were not allowed to keep arms andcarry openly and it is possible they tried to conceal carry instead. Slave revolts were a concern of the times.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=916

My personal belief is that the carrying of weapons, both openly and concealed is bearing them and is therefore afforded constitutional protections. Some state constitutions refute this but in many of those cases, they were ratified well before the federal constitution was ever conceived.

Additionally, the founders themselves owned and carried "pocket pistols", as they were termed. As an example, Thomas Jefferson bought a pair in 1786 and they are currently on display at his Monticello Estate in Virginia.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Upon reading the ACT, it appears that evenbefore it was rendered unconstitutional, it was perfectly legal to conceal arms while traveling on a journey..

imported post

Yep, I saw that. Still digging though. It would be interesting to read the actual opinions.

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/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_reid.txt



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

Click to expand...

Yes, Bob, thank u;that may indeed reveal the origins of the ill will against cc.

Its interesting that thay did not appear to consider the influence of 2A, only the state constitution; I guess thay were more provincially minded.

The court states as a fact, that "it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense” without explaining its reasoning. I 'm a bit skeptical. If u r a career criminal and u become aware of a man who carries a lot of cash & a visible gun on his hip,thenfrom a TACTICAL standpoint, how will u address the situation ?

I doubt that u will challenge him to a duel; most likely, he 'll be approached from behind, or SOMETHING will be done by the criminal for him to effectively get control of the situation. The robber has 2 goals: A) to get the cash, and B) to survive the event intact.

Tho it was not a robbery, I am reminded of the last moments of Dion O 'Bannion in 1924, whose right hand was shaken in greeting and was not let go, while 2 fellows flanked him and ended his career. He had 3 guns cc, but this was so well known of him that for practical purposes, it was as if he were oc.

I can understand oc being a more efficient defense against the attack ofa beast ( I have had that happen ) but I am not so sure about a man who can see the oc gun andplan his attack. I have a hunch that, in such cases, a backup cc gun may be needed.

David

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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. :uhoh:


Edited to make a plural

Click to expand...

Amendment = change

The 2A changed what went before it, to accomplish the change; otherwise there 'd be no point in enacting the change.

David

imported post

Another way to say the same thing is that Article I section 8 (enacted in 1787)did not nullify the changes that were effected thereto in 1791.

David

imported post

David, you don't have to tell me. I was just giving the reasoning of pretty much every US Supreme Court...

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

David, you don't have to tell me. I was just giving the reasoning of pretty much every US Supreme Court...

Click to expand...

The logic of the situation and the correct use of the language involved can be critiquedon its own merit, regardless of what the USSC says. We can 't make the Court do its job logically; we can 't make the Court do its job against its will, but we can look at n discuss the validity of its reasoning.

David

imported post

BobCav wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanx, Bob. It shud be interesting.

David

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Precisely and exactly what I've been saying that to eliminate criminals and their crimes we don't need more laws or more concealed weapons that give the element of "surprise". What we need are MORE GOOD PEOPLE. People who have nothing to hide, including their weapons!

(http://bobcav.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-good-men.html)

I tend to see things the way the COULD be and ask "Why Not"?



silly me!

Click to expand...

Looking at paintings of folks during the 1700s n 1800s, we ofen see jackets, and/or outer coats, extending down around to knee length, or below. That style of clothing can be OK and healthy, if it IS legal to keep a gun on one 's hip or in a shoulder holster, under one 's jacket. If u strap your gun to your hip on the outside of your coat, it will restrain opening the coat, and gravity being what it is, may tend to fall as u walk thru the world, on a daily basis. Depending upon the configuration of the dimensions of your body, u might need a Sam Browne belt to keep your gun off the street.

Thay ofen used to encourage one another to " keep your powder dry "; this may havebeen more difficult to do in heavy rain or snow; ( even lite rain ). Avoiding misfires can be important to the preservation of life. Keeping life-saving emergency equipment in good functioning condition can generate a significant effect on how ofen widows n orphans r created.

On the subject of widows or of wives n mothers: I wonder how difficult the ladies find it to oc. It might be easier for them to cc in their purses. We want to keep our mothers, wives, girlfriends and daughtersalive, but how did thay go about complying with oc laws ( or anti-cc laws ) ?

David

imported post

For Delaware:

This is kind of cool -- because this is an actual notation in the law:

Purpose. - The object of this section is to prevent the carrying of concealed deadly weapons about the person, because persons becoming suddenly angered, and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person. State v. Chippey, 14 Del. 583, 33 A. 438 (1892).

Legislative purpose behind this section, originally and presently, seems to be the avoidance of a deadly attack against another by surprise. Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979).

Purpose of the General Assembly in enacting this section was to remove the "temptation and tendency" to use concealed deadly weapons under conditions of "excitement." Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979).

Click to expand...

imported post

Wynder wrote:

For Delaware:

This is kind of cool -- because this is an actual notation in the law:

Purpose. - The object of this section is to prevent the carrying of concealed deadly weapons about the person, because persons becoming suddenly angered, and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person. State v. Chippey, 14 Del. 583, 33 A. 438 (1892).

Legislative purpose behind this section, originally and presently, seems to be the avoidance of a deadly attack against another by surprise. Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979).

Purpose of the General Assembly in enacting this section was to remove the "temptation and tendency" to use concealed deadly weapons under conditions of "excitement." Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This expressed philosophy is an open and unlimited attack upon 2A and it repudiatesthe concept of self defense; it attacks both oc and cc, in that someone can get mad n use ANY handy weapon he can grab.

David

imported post

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Wynder wrote:

For Delaware:

This is kind of cool -- because this is an actual notation in the law:

Purpose. - The object of this section is to prevent the carrying of concealed deadly weapons about the person, because persons becoming suddenly angered, and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person. State v. Chippey, 14 Del. 583, 33 A. 438 (1892).

Legislative purpose behind this section, originally and presently, seems to be the avoidance of a deadly attack against another by surprise. Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979).

Purpose of the General Assembly in enacting this section was to remove the "temptation and tendency" to use concealed deadly weapons under conditions of "excitement." Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This expressed philosophy is an open and unlimited attack upon 2A and it repudiatesthe concept of self defense; it attacks both oc and cc, in that someone can get mad n use ANY handy weapon he can grab.

David

Click to expand...

The original reasoning appears to be so, yes. However, you see how, 100 years later, that they modified it prevent "suprise" attacks, but in the very same ruling went back to stating that it's legislating behavior.