Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Nation-wide OC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    28

    Post imported post

    District of Columbia V Heller
    No. 07-290 Argued March 18, 2008 - Decided June 26, 2008

    Page 19.
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
    these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
    the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
    case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
    by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
    We look to this because it has always been widely understood
    that the Second Amendment, like the First and
    Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
    very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
    the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
    “shall not be infringed.”
    Not being a lawyer I am not sure my interpretation would stand up
    in a court of law, but it says to me that the Second Amendment to
    our Constitution says we CAN legally carry a weapon. I would hasten
    to add, "if we can legally obtain one". In other words, if you are
    a convicted felon or have been judged "mentally challenged" (and
    also includes those addicted to drugs, etc.) you do not share this
    right.

    AND (note the big AND) that it not be concealed,
    without proper permit.

    To me, that guarantees National OC to be legal. That means DC, NY,
    Chicago, LA (Kalifornia), etc. - - - Anyone want to be the
    test case?



  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Where in the second amendment do you read that it only applies to some people and not others, and that the methods of carrying a firearm can be infringed upon (such as concealed?)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Where in the second amendment do you read that it only applies to some people and not others, and that the methods of carrying a firearm can be infringed upon (such as concealed?)
    I fail to see how you arrive at your interpretation of the OP. It obviously refers to the various restrictions upon gun ownership and possession that are currently in place. Furthermore, there aremore restrictions on CC than on OC.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    The quoted text says we have a right to carry a weapon.

    It doesn't say how. There are states that currently ban open carry too, so if we are going only by what is currently legal (and I don't know why we are), OC is still restricted. There may be more restrictions on CC in most places but not true everywhere. In D.C. they are both equally restricted and you would be equally arrested despite for both despite the unconstitutionality. In TX and FL you would be arrested for open carry, and the only legal way to carry is to get permission from the government and CC.

    Thus, my interpretation of the OP is, I don't see how he can say "This means we can all OC anywhere we want in the whole U.S. but it can't be concealed without proper permit."

    Heck, in Alaska and Vermont even that is a non-issue. I think if you were true to the constitution the carry laws would be more like theirs.

    If we only went by what is legal everywhere at this exact moment that would only mean in unloaded in a locked box in your trunk, which is protected by federal law. To me its not obvious that the current restrictions on open carry are ignornable due to being in the minority wheras the current restrictions on concealed carry must be allowed to remain in place.I don't see in the the excerpt of the case any arbitration saying that gun laws that exist in the majority of states are now federal law, and that gun laws that exist in the minority of states are meaningless.

    All I get out of it, is that it is a right to carry.

    And my interpretation of a right (as opposed to a privelege) is that the government doesn't get to license only those they choose to be worthy.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    The quoted text says we have a right to carry a weapon, but the opinion is also very clear in saying that the current CC restrictions are Ok and that making someone get a permit doesn't count as "infringing". So, I think the only case you could make for laws against OC being unconstitutional would be in places like IL and WI that don't have any provisions for allowing CC. WI doesn't appear to have any OC laws but all the OC laws in IL should be unconstitutional.

Posting Permissions

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