Nation-wide OC?

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.”

Click to expand...

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?

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?)

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?)

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.