Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: OpenCarry...Any Court Cases Prove It.......

  1. #1
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Here in the State of Hawaii open or concealedcarry of a firearm is expressly outlawed unless you can get a permit, which is next to impossible considering we are a "may-issue" state. I've been researching here on OCDO and the rest of the web for almost a month now. I'm looking for court case decisions that stated clearly that the open carry of a firearm in and of it self is not a crime, it is a right afforded us by the 2A, and cannot be restricted, require a permit, be outlawed....you get the point.

    Currently there are 2bills headed to commitee....SB327(concealed carry permit) and SB328(open carry permit) both change the wording from "may-issue" to "Shall-issue". At first I assumedthat SB328would be a good thing, a step forward, considering the laws in this state. But the more research I've done, I realize that this is a huge jump in the WRONG direction. Once it becomes a privledge, it becomes something that, as right now, can be disallowed by law, no longer a right.

    The wording in the State Constitution is IDENTICAL to 2A....

    "Section 17.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]".....with the following case note attached...."Right to bear arms may be regulated by the State in a reasonable manner.82 H. 143, 920 P.2d 357."

    I need court case decisions to help in the fight here. I'm new to most of this, never been too political, so I'm on a STEEP learning here. I already have "Nordyke vs. King", "Heller", the AG memo in WI......I'd like more than just these, I don't want to bring "just enough" ammunition to the fight, I want to overwhelm to the point that they say "WE GIVE UP!!!" Any help at all is greatly appreciated. I'm posting this in the Hawaii Forum as well. Thks.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    Actually the State Constitution is different than the US Constitution. Your's, as does NC's, states the "right of the people". Imagine how much clarity that would bring to the gun control fight if it were stated in the US Const. that way.

    State of NC v Kerner.

    He was arrested for openly carrying in Self defense after being assaulted. The link goes in to better details.

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



    "The statute in this case, Public-Local Laws 1919, ch. 3172 is
    especially objectionable in that it requires (sec. 2) that in order
    to carry a pistol off his own premises, even openly, and for a
    lawful purpose, the citizen must make application to the municipal
    court, if a resident of a town; or to the Superior Court if not
    residing in town, "describing the weapon and giving the time and -
    purpose for which it may be carried off his premises, and must pay
    to the clerk of the court the sum of $5 for each permit, and must
    file a bond in the penalty of $500 that he will not carry the
    weapon except as so authorized." In the case of a riot or mob
    violence, or other emergency requiring the defense of public order,
    this would place law-abiding citizens entirely at the mercy of the
    lawless element. As a regulation, even, this is void because an
    unreasonable regulation, and, besides, it would be void because for
    all practical purposes it is a prohibition of the constitutional
    right to bear arms. There would be no time or opportunity to get
    such permit and to give such bonds on an emergency.

    On this occasion, the defendant, threatened with violence, was
    forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business,
    where he had the right to keep his pistol, "being on his own
    premises," and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in
    self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The
    court below most properly adjudged, upon the special verdict, that
    he was not guilty."


    "This is, I think, the correct principle, and it appears to me
    the constitutional privilege is infringed by the act, under which
    the defendant is indicted, as it makes one guilty of a violation of
    law, who carries a pistol off his own premises openly and for a
    lawful purpose without a permit and he is required to pay $5 and to
    give a bond in the sum of $500 before the permit can issue.

    No provision is made for an emergency, and no exception in
    favor of one who carries a pistol off his premises openly, in the
    necessary defense of his person or property, when he has had no
    opportunity to secure a permit.

    STACY, J., concurs in this opinion."


    NC Constitution Sec 30

    Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

    [size=A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.][/size]

    [size=

    Good luck!][/size]

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    I need court case decisions to help in the fight here. I'm new to most of this, never been too political, so I'm on a STEEP learning here. I already have "Nordyke vs. King", "Heller", the AG memo in WI......I'd like more than just these, I don't want to bring "just enough" ammunition to the fight, I want to overwhelm to the point that they say "WE GIVE UP!!!" Any help at all is greatly appreciated. I'm posting this in the Hawaii Forum as well. Thks.
    As seen on this website,
    Senator Orrin Hatch, during the 2nd session of the 97th Congress, has declared, "that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms". The Constitution was accepted by all States to be superior to their own, as far as I can see, so these together show that American citizens have the right to own and carry arms (read as guns).

    For a very old case, see
    this case from 1903. This case references the Vermont Consitution, so it may or may not be of use.

    In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), Justice Black said that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States." (Curtis, Michael Kent (1994) [1986]. No State Shall Abridge. Duke University Press. p.202. ISBN 0-8223-0599-2.) This should be read by all that the Bill of Rights is totally incorporated. Sadly, the case is judged as incorporating only the 6th.

    I will try to remember to post more cases later.


    Cheers

  4. #4
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Thanks guys.....getting alot of great info here. We Will Prevail!!!
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Alabama has a case from the Alabama Supreme Court:

    http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open%20Car...EXIS_335,_.PDF

    we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from
    bearing arms openly, because it [the constitution] 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 defence.
    Article 23 of the AL constitution:

    Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the state.

Posting Permissions

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