Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Open Carry and the right of privacy

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    The federal right of privacy, is defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny.
    If a person has a right to carry a handgun under state law, then by logical extension they should also be able to carry it concealed via federal privacy-right.

    The Michigan Constitution guarantees every person the right to bear arms for defense of self or the state; likewise, the federal right of privacy requires that they can do so in a manner that allows them to be free from public scrutiny.

    The requirement that one carry a gun openly, seems a gross violation of this federal privacy right, since we are being subjected to unreasonable search of our persons and effects for full public view.

    Has there ever been a federal case involving this right? It seems that the state of Michigan is simply taking advantage by passing laws to harass citizens.


  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    BradAnderson wrote:
    The federal right of privacy, is defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny.
    If a person has a right to carry a handgun under state law, then by logical extension they should also be able to carry it concealed via federal privacy-right.
    A penumbral right, so to speak?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    BradAnderson wrote:
    The federal right of privacy, is defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny.
    If a person has a right to carry a handgun under state law, then by logical extension they should also be able to carry it concealed via federal privacy-right.
    A penumbral right, so to speak?
    Precisely: and the state is infringing on this penumbral right via CCW laws, which deliberately target a particular right in order to selectively harass and disarm citizens by making a right into a privilege, if one wishes to exercise their right of privacy in doing so.

    For example, consider the following at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/25539.html :


    A Peace Officer's Perspective

    Open carry is legal in Virginia. I haven't seen much of it. There are restrictions on where you can possess firearms in Virginia, open or concealed, you should know these. My reaction while on duty would be based on the context. In the high crime, high drug areas where I work, if I saw someone open carrying a gun I would stop and identify them. We have too many shots fired calls in some areas to ignore anyone with a gun. If I saw some guy planting a tree in his yard, or eating dinner in a restaurant while open carrying I wouldn't blink.
    Right here, we see that a person is subjected to public scrutiny under open-carry laws against carrying their gun concealed-- i.e. police are notified that you are bearing arms, despite that this is your absolute right under the Michigan Constitution, Article I Section 6.

    But this isn't all:

    Tactically though I don't like open carry. If you walk into 7-11 the guy standing in line may be planning on robbing the place. With you there he knows he needs to shoot you first and remove you from the equation. He's got the drop on you and surprise is on his side. Or maybe he wants to disarm you. Even with Level 3 retention holsters (lots of safeties in the holster to hold onto the gun) some cops get disarmed every year, there's just no way to guarantee not being disarmed.
    So not only do police have scrutiny over you, but so does everyone else and his grandmother.
    Likewise:

    Concealed carry is much safer in this regard. If you do it right, nobody knows you have it. You have the element of surprise on your side if anything breaks sideways on you.
    In other words, Open Carry laws compromise your safety as well as your privacy-- which is likewise an infringement of your right to life, and therefore a 14th Amendment violation via undue legal process.

    And finally:

    In closing, be mindful of your surroundings when you do open carry. Some cops may be very curious about you, especially depending on where you are. Watch your back in places with a high likelihood of being robbed.
    I think this says it all, that Open Carry requirement (vs. Concealed Carry being a privilege under state law) is a serious violation of federally guaranteed rights, which seriously infringe on citizen rights and freedoms through harassment and arbitrary selective disarmament/exposure to public scrutiny in the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Michigan state constitution

    While a state doesn't have to allow citizens to carry guns at all, according to federal law (US v. Cruikshank), states which DO recognize such a right (vs. a privilege) CANNOT selectively strip away federal protections in the handling thereof.

    I would therefore suggest that we consider a federal suit against Michigan Open Carry requirements.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Brad,

    If you are going to go after Michigan law, may I suggest that you take your thread to the MIchigan sub-forum.

    If you want to keep your idea "global" I need to know where this federal right to privacy is coming from. I cannot find "privacy" in the constitution, and also cannot find any reference in the writings of the Framers, be they Federalist or Anti-Federalist.

    Yes, I am aware that the various courts, including SCOTUS, have created certain privacy rights out of whole cloth. Even so, I cannot see how those creations can be extended to a blanket federal right of privacy. I need to be educated on that point, and so am asking you to school me.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    I believe the "penumbral" view of rights originates with the text of the 9A wherein is stated that the failure to list (enumerate) a right does not mean it does not exist.

    Just as the Federal Government has taken the Interstae Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause and even the Preamble and run with them to justify all kinds of stuff, so courts and lawyers have taken the 9A as their gigantic loophole. All I can say on this proposition is that 9A or no, if I strip naked, paint myself blue and sacrifice a pig to Quetzacotal in the middle of Main Street at high noon and cite the 1A AND the 9A as my defense, I will be lucky if I am only sent back to the screw factory to get re-threaded.

    The 9A simply means that the Feds have no business telling me how many gallons of water to use when flushing down my poop, for instance. (oh, and BTW it is simply ASTONISHING to many in the Third World that here in the USA we use DRINKING WATER to accomplish this task). Firearms rights in particular have no need for gimcrack aluminum-siding constructs such as enabled Roe v Wade.

    We have the SECOND AMENDMENT and it is written in PLAIN ENGLISH. "Keep AND BEAR" "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". It is not rocket science and it isn't writ in Ubbi-Dubbi.

    I'd write some more but the crapper just shut off so I can finally make that second flush......

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pahrump, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    I cannot find "privacy" in the constitution
    Ninth Amendment

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    A protected privacy right exists under federal law, but it is not without some significant limitations. See Whalen v. Roe, for example. I wouldn't try concealed carry w/o a permit hoping to make some good law unless you can afford some serious time in the hoosegow.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    BradAnderson wrote:
    The federal right of privacy, is defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny.
    If a person has a right to carry a handgun under state law, then by logical extension they should also be able to carry it concealed via federal privacy-right.

    The Michigan Constitution guarantees every person the right to bear arms for defense of self or the state; likewise, the federal right of privacy requires that they can do so in a manner that allows them to be free from public scrutiny.

    The requirement that one carry a gun openly, seems a gross violation of this federal privacy right, since we are being subjected to unreasonable search of our persons and effects for full public view.

    Has there ever been a federal case involving this right? It seems that the state of Michigan is simply taking advantage by passing laws to harass citizens.
    You also have the right to wear a dead fish tied around your neck when you go out in public. You want to sue the first person that says something about it, for violation you "privacy rights"?

    Here's the thing. When you go out into the public we all relinqish some of are "rights to privacy". If you don't want your right to privacy to be violated, exercise your privacy rights in the privacy of your home.

    Celebrities have tried in the past to sue the paparzzi for following them around in public. The courts have said that as long as a person is in the public arena, their privacy can not be garaunteed. While in the confines of their own home is another matter.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    kent, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    474

    Post imported post

    Home Domain? how does this extend to the private business,say even in New York or Hawaii.Chicago? Can a business owner allow OC or hell even CC in their private place of business?
    These Federal Gov needs a swift kick for sure,how can you limit federally, peoples rights not granted by the fed when they didn't give it.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I just reread the OP and his additional post on this thread and it appears to me that BradAnderson is an anti-OC person. In his second post it seems as though he fears anyone knowing that he's armed.

    I wonder if he'd also be uncomfortable in having what he says in public scrutinized as well? He probably feels that he should be able to go to Walmart in the nude without anyone complaining about it.

    If one has the right to do something out in the open (as in OC) then they should do it,and not worryabout someone not liking it.

    Perhaps BradAnderson is a BG that can't get a CCW to sneak around armed with.

  11. #11
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Funny how sceptical a bunch we are.

    Though, I also believe that brad anderson does not particularly like OC.

    He also seems to be encouraging such illegal behavior as concealing without a permit, regardless of locality.

    Agent provacatuer perhaps?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    Agent provacatuer perhaps?
    That's what I was thinking, too.

    I guess he doesn't take into account that CC was originally prohibited in many states due to the "dishonest" connotations of that carry mode. What is it that we normally say today, in defense of OC? That the BG's always CC their weapon until they're ready to commit a crime.

  13. #13
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Note that he references a thread about OC, in which the poster expresses distate for the alleged tactical disadvantage of OC.

    It seems the purpose of doing so was in order to strengthen his position, and establish familiarity with the forum, as if he were a long time lurker.

    At the same time, he fails to recognize that we have debunked the tactical disadvantage ad nauseam.

    Interesting few posts to say the least.

  14. #14
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Interesting, it appears our Bradanderson has stated that he cannot get a license to conceal as he has PTSD from being a victim of crime.

    He also states that "because I can" is not a reason to OC.

    Then when another poster references a situation made in a cartoon called Metalocalypse, (A cartoon I find disgusting, and vulgar) he says that death clock is his favorite cartoon. Death Clock being the name of the band in the cartoon.

    In another thread, he claims his PTSD is from "early childhood experiences" Then also states that he worked for a while, but quit because he was the victim of crime because he was not allowed to carry a gun.

    In another thread he claims that OC will not be a detterent to crime, and in the same post professes to be a "legal scholar"

    In another thread, he claims to have experience in criminal prosecutions.

    Interesting to say the least.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    Interesting, it appears our Bradanderson has stated that he cannot get a license to conceal as he has PTSD from being a victim of crime.

    He also states that "because I can" is not a reason to OC.

    Then when another poster references a situation made in a cartoon called Metalocalypse, (A cartoon I find disgusting, and vulgar) he says that death clock is his favorite cartoon. Death Clock being the name of the band in the cartoon.

    In another thread, he claims his PTSD is from "early childhood experiences" Then also states that he worked for a while, but quit because he was the victim of crime because he was not allowed to carry a gun.

    In another thread he claims that OC will not be a detterent to crime, and in the same post professes to be a "legal scholar"

    In another thread, he claims to have experience in criminal prosecutions.

    Interesting to say the least.
    Hmmm....

    Ya know, just about all criminals have "experience in criminal prosecutions".

    It basically sounds like this guy is a fraud.

  16. #16
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    That was my overall impression.

Posting Permissions

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