Y2K
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I sincerely apologize for the blue icon. I didn't mean to tip anyone off. Thanks.
I sincerely apologize for the blue icon. I didn't mean to tip anyone off. Thanks.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Legislative support for open and concealed carry grows after memo
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Spongebob
Regular Member
imported post
You know what I always wonder about? How come, if they wanna pass some new bs law to screw people over they like somehow give it a clever title like "The Patriot Act" or tack it on to the "book-bags for school kids" bill, but if it is some GOOD legislature to HELP the people, you have to go through a whole lot of nonsense and make compromises with the enemy to get it passed.
You know what I always wonder about? How come, if they wanna pass some new bs law to screw people over they like somehow give it a clever title like "The Patriot Act" or tack it on to the "book-bags for school kids" bill, but if it is some GOOD legislature to HELP the people, you have to go through a whole lot of nonsense and make compromises with the enemy to get it passed.
Notso
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Notso wrote:
Maybe my thinking isn't correct but I guess one could argue that the constitution requires that you are allowed to carry. Allowing you to legally open carry means that restricting the right to concealed carry (albeit a bitsuspect) could be construed as constitutional.
From constitution.org:
(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission.
11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements, and using their own or a public means of transportation.
Anyway, the Libertairian/Constitutionalist view is all about rights and property, and how your rights balance against another persons rights and property.
One could argue that CC violates ones right to ones own property since the owner is unaware of the weapon.
So, in this way you could probably define Open carry as the right and Concealed Carry as a privilege.
Notso wrote:
Maybe my thinking isn't correct but I guess one could argue that the constitution requires that you are allowed to carry. Allowing you to legally open carry means that restricting the right to concealed carry (albeit a bitsuspect) could be construed as constitutional.
From constitution.org:
(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission.
11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements, and using their own or a public means of transportation.
Anyway, the Libertairian/Constitutionalist view is all about rights and property, and how your rights balance against another persons rights and property.
One could argue that CC violates ones right to ones own property since the owner is unaware of the weapon.
So, in this way you could probably define Open carry as the right and Concealed Carry as a privilege.
Flyer22
Regular Member
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
That's exactly how it is in Colorado. This is what the state Bill of Rights says:
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Brass Magnet wrote:
That's exactly how it is in Colorado. This is what the state Bill of Rights says:
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Arkyhog
Regular Member
imported post
In Arkansas, the act of concealed carry was outlawed in 1837, due to a growing amount of young men carrying firearms in this manner. It is thought this growth was due to "dueling" also being outlawed in the early 1800's, and the only way a man could uphold his honor when disgraced in public was to pull a concealed weapon and take care of business immediately. Laws were actually passed in states at this time which disallowed men from serving in the state legislatures if they had ever killed someone in a duel.In 1837 in Arkansas, concealed carry was outlawed, and open carry was legal! It is the exact opposite in Arkansas, now, with concealed carry legal with license and open carry outlawed. In the late 1800's, open carry was outlawed also, due to the fear of freed slaves arming themselves, but with a wink and the right skin color, open carry at this time was allowed.
In Arkansas, the act of concealed carry was outlawed in 1837, due to a growing amount of young men carrying firearms in this manner. It is thought this growth was due to "dueling" also being outlawed in the early 1800's, and the only way a man could uphold his honor when disgraced in public was to pull a concealed weapon and take care of business immediately. Laws were actually passed in states at this time which disallowed men from serving in the state legislatures if they had ever killed someone in a duel.In 1837 in Arkansas, concealed carry was outlawed, and open carry was legal! It is the exact opposite in Arkansas, now, with concealed carry legal with license and open carry outlawed. In the late 1800's, open carry was outlawed also, due to the fear of freed slaves arming themselves, but with a wink and the right skin color, open carry at this time was allowed.
NewZealandAmerican
Regular Member
imported post
Stoney-Point wrote:
Now just remember, because a court or the supreme court rules that a Right is "this or that" does not necessarily make it so. A RIGHT is a RIGHT, period and no govt entity or court in all the land can change that or change the meaning therof, The Bill Of Rights mean precisely what they say in the common meaning of the language used in the day. RIGHTS are "IN-ALIENABLE" so as far as it means for carry it really is my RIGHT to carry openly, or concealed or with my gun tied to my forehead if I chose hehe. For most of you I know I am only preaching to the choir
A good book to read on RIGHTS vs privelages and a real good primer on the Constitution & Bill Of Rights is "Good To Be King" by Michael Badnarik http://www.ConstitutionPreservation.org Michael also does a Constitution class and also has a DVD course. Really awesome it is read the book and took his class last Dec 08, read chapter 2 especially on RIGHTS VS privelages! If you don't understand and/or accept what is in chapter 2 then our fight to carry a gun for defense and in the bigger picture for FREEDOM means nothing! REMEMBER only INDIVIDUALS have RIGHTS, not Government, groups, collectives or associations or corporations, they each only have priveleges!
Stoney-Point wrote:
Now just remember, because a court or the supreme court rules that a Right is "this or that" does not necessarily make it so. A RIGHT is a RIGHT, period and no govt entity or court in all the land can change that or change the meaning therof, The Bill Of Rights mean precisely what they say in the common meaning of the language used in the day. RIGHTS are "IN-ALIENABLE" so as far as it means for carry it really is my RIGHT to carry openly, or concealed or with my gun tied to my forehead if I chose hehe. For most of you I know I am only preaching to the choir
A good book to read on RIGHTS vs privelages and a real good primer on the Constitution & Bill Of Rights is "Good To Be King" by Michael Badnarik http://www.ConstitutionPreservation.org Michael also does a Constitution class and also has a DVD course. Really awesome it is read the book and took his class last Dec 08, read chapter 2 especially on RIGHTS VS privelages! If you don't understand and/or accept what is in chapter 2 then our fight to carry a gun for defense and in the bigger picture for FREEDOM means nothing! REMEMBER only INDIVIDUALS have RIGHTS, not Government, groups, collectives or associations or corporations, they each only have priveleges!
utbagpiper
Banned
imported post
44Brent wrote:
The point of mandating open carry was to discourage freed blacks from being armed as any black visibly armed might be confronted and any black carrying concealed would be committing a crime.
A powerful essay and strong facts to have in your bag if you ever engage in gun rights debate with those from the left side of the political spectrum.
Charles
44Brent wrote:
The excellent essay by Clayton Cramer entitled "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" provides insights into this. It can be read at several on line sources including <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html>.
The point of mandating open carry was to discourage freed blacks from being armed as any black visibly armed might be confronted and any black carrying concealed would be committing a crime.
A powerful essay and strong facts to have in your bag if you ever engage in gun rights debate with those from the left side of the political spectrum.
Charles
imported post
NewZealandAmerican wrote:
Now just remember, because a court or the supreme court rules that a Right is "this or that" does not necessarily make it so.
You are 100% dead wrong. If the SCOTUS sez something is a right then that's what it is. If the SCOTUS sez something is NOT a right, then it ain't a right. The SCOTUS sez what the constitution is and we can wail against that untill the cows come home but that is NOT going to change.
NewZealandAmerican wrote:
Now just remember, because a court or the supreme court rules that a Right is "this or that" does not necessarily make it so.
You are 100% dead wrong. If the SCOTUS sez something is a right then that's what it is. If the SCOTUS sez something is NOT a right, then it ain't a right. The SCOTUS sez what the constitution is and we can wail against that untill the cows come home but that is NOT going to change.
NewZealandAmerican
Regular Member
imported post
HariCarry wrote:
HariCarry wrote:
Actually I am DEAD RIGHT! what if SCOTUS had 9 crooked judges and they decided that you have no free speech or freedom of religion and no right to defend your self (no guns) for example then following your logic we don't have RIGHTS becuase a bunch of men can tell you what RIGHTS you have or not and that is FALSE, RIGHTS are inalienable, we don't get granted rights from government or courts of law. RIGHTS are inseperable from us as individuals! We always have and have had RIGHTS and the Bill of RIGHTS were only established to acknowledge that we have RIGHTS and to protect them, Would anyone else in the forum care to explain perhaps more eloquently than I have to HarryCari what RIGHTS really are???
NewZealandAmerican
Regular Member
imported post
HariCarry wrote:
HariCarry wrote:
Actually I am DEAD RIGHT! what if SCOTUS had 9 crooked judges and they decided that you have no free speech or freedom of religion and no right to defend your self (no guns) for example then following your logic we don't have RIGHTS becuase a bunch of men can tell you what RIGHTS you have or not and that is FALSE, RIGHTS are inalienable, we don't get granted rights from government or courts of law. RIGHTS are inseperable from us as individuals! We always have and have had RIGHTS and the Bill of RIGHTS were only established to acknowledge that we have RIGHTS and to protect them, Would anyone else in the forum care to explain perhaps more eloquently than I have to HarryCari what RIGHTS really are???
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Our founding fathers recognized that we as human beings have rights. We don't have rights as citizens of this country. We don't have rights because our government says we do. Being a human being affords us these rights.
It has always been that way. What? Do you think rights didn't exist before our country was formed? Hogwash. Rights have always existed.
Rights are not "given" by any government. HOWEVER many governments DENY our rights.
People in China have THE SAME RIGHTS WE DO. Theirs are just being denied by their government.
This is the philosophy of our founding fathers. And it is correct. Governments exist among men, deriving their powers BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
WE THE PEOPLE!
I recognize that our government (among many others) have brainwashed, usurped, and stolen many of ourrights away from us. So much so that many people now believe that rights are 'given' by government. Nothing could be further from the truth. And our founding fathers are shedding tears from the grave at how much a once free nation has discarded its principles at the hands of a few thousand individuals over the years who, through government, have stolen the rights away from MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of their fellow men in THEIR personal quest for power and control and desire to force their personal desires on other people.
Our founding fathers recognized that we as human beings have rights. We don't have rights as citizens of this country. We don't have rights because our government says we do. Being a human being affords us these rights.
It has always been that way. What? Do you think rights didn't exist before our country was formed? Hogwash. Rights have always existed.
Rights are not "given" by any government. HOWEVER many governments DENY our rights.
People in China have THE SAME RIGHTS WE DO. Theirs are just being denied by their government.
This is the philosophy of our founding fathers. And it is correct. Governments exist among men, deriving their powers BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
WE THE PEOPLE!
I recognize that our government (among many others) have brainwashed, usurped, and stolen many of ourrights away from us. So much so that many people now believe that rights are 'given' by government. Nothing could be further from the truth. And our founding fathers are shedding tears from the grave at how much a once free nation has discarded its principles at the hands of a few thousand individuals over the years who, through government, have stolen the rights away from MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of their fellow men in THEIR personal quest for power and control and desire to force their personal desires on other people.
NewZealandAmerican
Regular Member
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
hugh jarmis wrote:
AMEN Hugh! Very well put. I should hope that this clarification on what RIGHTS are for ALL human beings has hopefully schooled HariCarry!
ccwinstructor
Centurion
imported post
Concealed carry *should* be constitutionaly protected in Arizona, but our liberal supreme court refuses to protect it. When Bob Corbin was the Attorney General in Arizona in the 70's, he did some research on the debate during the Arizona constitutional convention. The current wording in the Constitution was in place. A faction of the delegates did not like it, and attempted to amend it to give the legislature the power to regulate concealed weapons. These attempts were voted down twice.
In the case Dano vs. Collins, the constitutionality of the concealed carry statue was challeneged. The supreme court agreed to hear the case. Bob Corbin prepared a detail breif showing that the legislature had been deliberately denied the power to regulate the carrying of arms by the Constitutinal delegates. The Supreme read the briefs, and found that they had "improvidently agreed to hear the case" and retracted their decisition to hear it, thus upholding the appeals court decision to uphold the concealed carry law as Constitutional.
This is very well documented. There is an extensive article about the case in print. I don't know if it is on the net. I talked to Bob Corbin about it 20 years after the fact, and he was still angry about how the justices had violated their oaths of office.
Concealed carry *should* be constitutionaly protected in Arizona, but our liberal supreme court refuses to protect it. When Bob Corbin was the Attorney General in Arizona in the 70's, he did some research on the debate during the Arizona constitutional convention. The current wording in the Constitution was in place. A faction of the delegates did not like it, and attempted to amend it to give the legislature the power to regulate concealed weapons. These attempts were voted down twice.
In the case Dano vs. Collins, the constitutionality of the concealed carry statue was challeneged. The supreme court agreed to hear the case. Bob Corbin prepared a detail breif showing that the legislature had been deliberately denied the power to regulate the carrying of arms by the Constitutinal delegates. The Supreme read the briefs, and found that they had "improvidently agreed to hear the case" and retracted their decisition to hear it, thus upholding the appeals court decision to uphold the concealed carry law as Constitutional.
This is very well documented. There is an extensive article about the case in print. I don't know if it is on the net. I talked to Bob Corbin about it 20 years after the fact, and he was still angry about how the justices had violated their oaths of office.
jerg_064
Regular Member
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
+1million, here's a literary Ananlysis.
"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free stateconstitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
"The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
"The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
"The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
"The phrase 'well-regulated militia'means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
"There has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: 'Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged'."
"As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, comparethe text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:'A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
The "'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure." There is nothing inthe sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Taken from here:http://www.largo.org/literary.html
hugh jarmis wrote:
+1million, here's a literary Ananlysis.
"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free stateconstitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
"The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
"The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
"The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
"The phrase 'well-regulated militia'means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
"There has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: 'Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged'."
"As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, comparethe text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:'A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
The "'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure." There is nothing inthe sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Taken from here:http://www.largo.org/literary.html
me812
Regular Member
imported post
Concealed carry *should* be constitutionaly protected in Arizona, but our liberal supreme court refuses to protect it.
Yeah, they also say that park carry bans don't violate RKBA because you can just walk around the park. If some city banned political demonstrations in its parks, I don't think that the idiots would've tolerated any arguments from the city that it didn't violate the freedom of speech since people could just demonstrate outside the park.
They treat Article 2, Section 26 like the bastard stepchild of our state Constitution.
Concealed carry *should* be constitutionaly protected in Arizona, but our liberal supreme court refuses to protect it.
Yeah, they also say that park carry bans don't violate RKBA because you can just walk around the park. If some city banned political demonstrations in its parks, I don't think that the idiots would've tolerated any arguments from the city that it didn't violate the freedom of speech since people could just demonstrate outside the park.
They treat Article 2, Section 26 like the bastard stepchild of our state Constitution.
me812
Regular Member
imported post
Be careful that if and when legislation is passed, that OC is prohibited in the law.
Yes, I fear that in order to get CCW in Wisconsin, the payoff will be no more open carry (or at least no more open carry without a permit.)
When CCW came to Oklahoma, the payoff was turning unlicensed carry from a misdemeanor into a felony.
Beware of the payoff, and beware of the NRA Vichys who will rush in there and agree to it.
Be careful that if and when legislation is passed, that OC is prohibited in the law.
Yes, I fear that in order to get CCW in Wisconsin, the payoff will be no more open carry (or at least no more open carry without a permit.)
When CCW came to Oklahoma, the payoff was turning unlicensed carry from a misdemeanor into a felony.
Beware of the payoff, and beware of the NRA Vichys who will rush in there and agree to it.
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
imported post
Alabama has a pretty good supreme court decision describing how CC is a privilege and OC is a right:
http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open Carry/1_Ala._612,_1840_Ala._LEXIS_335,_.PDF
Basically. Alabama only has a right to bear arms for defense, and the only defensive way to carry is OC. CC is considered an offensive method since you 'surprise' your opponent.
Alabama has a pretty good supreme court decision describing how CC is a privilege and OC is a right:
http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open Carry/1_Ala._612,_1840_Ala._LEXIS_335,_.PDF
Basically. Alabama only has a right to bear arms for defense, and the only defensive way to carry is OC. CC is considered an offensive method since you 'surprise' your opponent.
jerg_064
Regular Member
imported post
kurtmax_0 wrote:
No court or human being has the ability to take a right away from another human being. They may make threats of violence or incarceration in an attemp to surpress these rights, but they can never remove them.
Though CC is primarily a offensive tactic on an individual basis, it is not soley a offensive tactic. When criminals know there are ppl carrying, yet do not know who is carrying it works to keep them paranoid and deters them from attacking even unarmed people since they'renot sure if thepotential victim isarmed or not. Deterrenceis a defensive tactic brought about by offensive measures.
When goodpeople work together while exercising theirindividual rights they do it to protect the population as a whole.Sometimesrights must be used offensively by a few in order to defend the masses; that's howour founders won our freedom.
kurtmax_0 wrote:
No court or human being has the ability to take a right away from another human being. They may make threats of violence or incarceration in an attemp to surpress these rights, but they can never remove them.
Though CC is primarily a offensive tactic on an individual basis, it is not soley a offensive tactic. When criminals know there are ppl carrying, yet do not know who is carrying it works to keep them paranoid and deters them from attacking even unarmed people since they'renot sure if thepotential victim isarmed or not. Deterrenceis a defensive tactic brought about by offensive measures.
When goodpeople work together while exercising theirindividual rights they do it to protect the population as a whole.Sometimesrights must be used offensively by a few in order to defend the masses; that's howour founders won our freedom.