Open Carry for 2A Incorporation - Motivation for OC

imported post

Hey, I was reading this article about incorporation of the 2nd Amendment... http://tinyurl.com/y86a7gq

The author says, "The relevant legal argument put forward is that the Second Amendment should also be incorporated against the states via a substantive due process analysis. This analysis boils down to a question of whether a right is "fundamental" based upon being rooted in the history, tradition and practices of our collective national conscience."

While a case for individual gun ownership should not be hard to show with this criteria, the article made me think about CC/OC too... especially the "practices of our collective national conscience" since that seems to refer to our *current* practices & conscience.

Did I interpret that right? Do the practices need to be current? If so, it's pretty hard to influence the national conscience with CC (unless stats for CC permit holders are used, which is weak since many people with permits don't actually exercise that right). Since many of us feel you don't need a permit to exercise a right... then the most effective way to influence practice and conscience is to OC.

After reading this article, I have a new appreciation of OC'ing in order to exercise my individual rights, but also realized it's also about contributing to the practices and collective national conscience as well.

Anyone else see this as a renewed motivation to OC?

imported post

The more the general public sees OC by law abiding citizens in their mist, without the prophecied "gun fights in the streets" ocurring, the less fearful they will be of an armed society. They will come to realize that the rhetoric of the anti-gun organizations is BS.

CC is an"out of sight - out of mind" thing that does little if anything to contirbute to the "practices and collective national conscience." The media rarely reports on the number ofcarry permits are currently valid in an area. Because of that the public has no idea how many of their fellow citizens go armed.

imported post

The right to BEAR arms has nothing to do with activities that are "rooted in history, tradition and practices of our collective national conscience."

It is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, like the right to free speech, the right to practice (or not practice) the religion of one's choice, the right to be secure in one's self and property, or the right to be free from discrimination because of race, color or creed.

Incorporation of the 2A into State laws simply serves to emphasize the fact that states have NO legal, moral, or statutory justification to infringe on human rights. Just as a state may not make laws to prohibit certain people to vote because of their race, class or creed, the TRUTH is that NO state or municipal government has the moral authority to restrict ANY right that is fundamental to human existence.

And the right to self-defense--against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic--is a FUNDAMENTAL human right, and simply cannot be infringed or restricted by any government, if that government wished to maintain any sort of moral, ethical, or legal authority in the eyes of the people.

Any other argument for 2A rights is missing the point...

imported post

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

To believe this simple statement, one must also believe that our unalienable rights include the right to defend our lives, and our liberty...from who-so-ever threatens either...as Dreamer said...it's a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT that cannot be taken away or otherwise infringed upon by ANY government...and any attempt at infringement of this right by ANY government is a direct attack on our liberties by that government and should be defended against.

imported post

Yes yes yes blah blah blah. We all know this and believe it. The point is we are concerned about what we can do with the legal environment we have, as talking about the legal environment we should have doesn't do @#$%.

The Bill of Rights does NOT apply to states(legally):
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

However, the 14th Amendment allows for INCORPORATION of a right against States. The case you are quoting is attempting to do this.

Some of us like to talk a lot about what we should have, these guys are going out and GETTING it. Why would you bash them? You should buy them a steak dinner. I will if I ever meet them.