Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: State Constitution

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Spruce Pine, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    On the State Information for North Carolina webpage for this site, I noticed something in the state constitution which has me puzzled. The second sentence in Article I, Section 30 reads:



    "Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."



    Then wouldn't the practice of carrying concealed in North Carolina be against our state constitution? I guess the 2A arguments in the Supreme Court have lit a fire in me about our rights. How do you folks feel about it?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    It just means that it is not recognized in our constituion as a right, it doesn't mean that anything not recognized as a right is illegal. Being a hair dresser isn't recognized as a right. You can still do it and the state has a licensing process for it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Spruce Pine, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Thanks...I guess that means the unlawful practice of carrying a concealed weapon. Never looked at it that way before.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    CarryOpen is exactly right.

    It is an unfortunate thing to have tacked on to your state-recognized right to keep and bear arms but someone felt as though concealment was potentially criminal and left it open, constitutionally upon the state, to have the ability to enact laws to regulate the practice of concealment. Thankfully they didn't say:


    "Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying [blur]concealed[/blur] weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."



    This is why I can not agree with persons that claim Federal gun laws are bad bad bad and only the states should be creating gun laws. The problem is that states have the WORST gun laws on records, particularly relating to "the practice ofopenly carryingproperly holstered handguns."

    We already live in a minefield ofinterstate gun laws. They should be clarified at one level, the very top, and applied downward. That is what the SCOTUS case presented yesterday, I hope, clarifies and applies the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment down to the lowest levels of governing bodies across the entire land.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    I don't see how it matters - if we repeal all federal legislation and allow states the same amount of power they currently have, it won't make the state laws any worse. It would open up ownership in many places though. The fed. should just be making sure that states are not oppressing people, not legislating issues that are clearly matters of the state.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    CarryOpen wrote:
    I don't see how it matters - if we repeal all federal legislation and allow states the same amount of power they currently have, it won't make the state laws any worse. It would open up ownership in many places though. The fed. should just be making sure that states are not oppressing people, not legislating issues that are clearly matters of the state.
    Considering the Second Amendment, what part of gun ownership is a State matter? The State's have failed at not oppressing people and the Federal government has obviously failed at preventing the States from oppressing people.

    Gun ownership is a Second Amendment matter and nothing should infringe upon it, period. That is not just a Federal or State matter or a matter of Municipal or County governments, but it is an All Encompassing matter.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    I'm not saying that I want states to legislate more, I'm simply saying that in the current system, removing federal legislation will not suddenly empower states more. States do have some areas where they can and should regulate firearms use/posession. One of those places is in or on certain state owned or operated properties. Do you have a right to bear arms in jail? Is that something that the federal government should be legislating?

    Just because we are not correctly applying the 2nd ammendment doesn't mean that what I'm saying is invalid. The federal government has a poor track record as a watchdog. OK, I agree. So, what should we do with them instead? Let them control it?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    I see.

    I do agree with your assessment, however, it gets in gray areas. There are government employees, I am sure, that would like to have the ability to legally store or even carry their firearms at work but local government, similarly to business and private domiciles. I can understand places like jails and possibly even police stations but normal offices? Why should it be any different from a business? Government will usually, collectively, deny non-law enforcement personnel from carrying weapons or even storing them in cars in the parking lot.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    I'm all for opening it up, I don't believe in restricting posession or ownership in nearly all cases. I think we're basically on the same page.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southwest Aisa, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    70

    Post imported post

    You would have to remember back about 200 years or so ago. The practice of carrying a concealed weapon was an act of cowardice and frowned upon at that time. So it would only make sense that they would pass laws against it at that time.

  11. #11
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    I would be curious where this statement gains merit. In the original version of the NC Constitution (1776, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp) article 17 reads:

    That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
    There is no mention of restriction on "concealing" arms in either the original 1776 or any of the amendments ratified by the Convention of 1835.

    The 1868 Constitution, after being forced back into the Union by Lincoln's appointee satellite government, was mostly the same as it was in 1776, with a few minor changes and most of the language unchanged.

    In truth, the word "conceal" did not appear (nor was any similar reference made) in the NC Constitution until it was completely scrapped and rewritten in 1971.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    I'm not positive on this, but if it did not appear till the 70's that probably makes it a product of the Sulivan Act and all the gun laws that followed. Sullivan started from an attempted assassination in NY with a pocket revolver.

    But keep in mind that State V Speller was 1882 and refers to CC as a privilege.

    "We concede the full force of the ingenious argument made by counsel upon this point, but cannot admit its application to the statute in question. The distinction between the "right to keep and bear arms," and "the practice of carrying concealed weapons" is plainly observed in the constitution of this state. The first, it is declared, shall not be infringed, while the latter may be prohibited. " State v Speller

    http://www.guncite.com/court/state/86nc697.html

    The positive in this is that we have at least 3 supreme court rulings in NC that demonstrate that the "bear arms" part means openly carry them. I regularly use that when talking OC v CC in NC. It really gripes folks when they realize OC is the right and CC is the privilege. If that was ever to change to cover both I would be for it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    That's a pretty haphazard (and, in my opinion, deliberately so) application of legislative authority to a "manner conducive to the public peace".

    Much like in Virginia it begs the question - is the manner of carry more or less likely to create a situation where a lawful citizen deploys a weapon in self defense?

    As a criminal intent on causing harm is already determined to violate the law, why would he care if conceal carry is "illegal" or "regulated"? He wouldn't.

    These types of laws exist only to give people a feeling of security and I argue, most of them are to provide law enforcement with a greater discretion to violate law-abiding firearms carriers.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    CarryOpen wrote:
    I don't see how it matters - if we repeal all federal legislation and allow states the same amount of power they currently have, it won't make the state laws any worse. It would open up ownership in many places though. The fed. should just be making sure that states are not oppressing people, not legislating issues that are clearly matters of the state.
    Considering the Second Amendment, what part of gun ownership is a State matter? The State's have failed at not oppressing people and the Federal government has obviously failed at preventing the States from oppressing people.

    Gun ownership is a Second Amendment matter and nothing should infringe upon it, period. That is not just a Federal or State matter or a matter of Municipal or County governments, but it is an All Encompassing matter.
    Remember that until the turn of the last century, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal Government from infringing on the rights of the people and the States. That is the nature of a Federal form of Government.The individual Stateswereautonomous and were not constrained by the limits imposed by the Bill. Since the late 1890's the ammendmentshave been selectively"incorporated"or ruled by the SCOTUS toapply to State as well as Federal Government.The second ammendment is one of those which has yet to be incorporated.This means that a state or municipality is able to ban firearms if their respective state constitution allows.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    I don't agree that it is only intended to keep the federal government from usurping our rights. It is applied directly to the federal government and then selectively applied to the states when they fail at protecting our rights. Well, that's how it should work anyways :P

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    USNRCorpsman wrote:
    Remember that until the turn of the last century, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal Government from infringing on the rights of the people and the States. That is the nature of a Federal form of Government.The individual Stateswereautonomous and were not constrained by the limits imposed by the Bill. Since the late 1890's the ammendmentshave been selectively"incorporated"or ruled by the SCOTUS toapply to State as well as Federal Government.The second ammendment is one of those which has yet to be incorporated.This means that a state or municipality is able to ban firearms if their respective state constitution allows.
    Isn't that covered under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution?
    Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
    If you ask me, there should be no question as to whether or not any Constitutional Article or Amendment be incorporated.

    Someone, somewhere, opened the flood gates and this was collectively allowed and now it must be fought in court. Checks and Balance of power is great but it's even better when blatan disregards for what is written occurs less by law makers, interpreters, and enforcers. Of course, I could be reading this all wrong.


    Then you have:
    Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    If you ask me, if something says: "Shall not be infringed" then that means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! That is where the "reasonable" laws foolishness comes in to play, depending on who is in office when and where. People believe; "Well, they didn't mean the 2nd Amendment to be that loose on gun control, we have to have REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS." Such as not letting someone have a gun period (in the case of Chicago apparently).

    No state or municipality should have the right to ban weapons.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Jacksonville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    225

    Post imported post

    All good arguments. I actually stayed up last night and read the arguments of SCOTUS in:

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
    OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL.,
    :
    Petitioners
    :
    v.
    :
    No. 08-1521
    CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. :
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C. Tuesday, March 2, 2010



    Very good read. A bit dry and some language that is hard to follow but still good. Man the NRA is all powerful. Bow and profess your faith.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/08-1521.pdf

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post


    If you ask me, there should be no question as to whether or not any Constitutional Article or Amendment be incorporated.

    Someone, somewhere, opened the flood gates and this was collectively allowed and now it must be fought in court. Checks and Balance of power is great but it's even better when blatan disregards for what is written occurs less by law makers, interpreters, and enforcers. Of course, I could be reading this all wrong.



    A good exampleof the Bill of Rights originallypertaining moreto Congressthan the state legislatures, as well as how incorporation has changed the nature of its application to the states,is the "establishment" clause of the first ammendment. The original purpose of this statementwas toassure Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut and Massachusetts, all ofwhich had constitutionally recognised religions,that the federal government would not establish a national religion which might conflict with their own. Now, rather than protecting the states from federal domination in regards to religion, it is used to expunge religion from all levels of government.

    Let mesay that, even though I ambasically a federalistwho believes in the right of the states to self determination, I agree that we are all probably better off with theincorporation doctrine, because the Bill of Rights (as opposed to some of the later ammendments),is universally fundamental to liberty, and, because federalism has allowed the states the freedom to enact some misguidedlaws.State and localgovernments are the ones who,rather than seeing the armed populace as an asset in insuring that the central government does notturn on its people,aremore comfortablewith an impotent poulaceover which they can maintain control. Sadly, the masses have been brainwashed to acceptthisas desirable, asis evidenced bya number of "frightened" citizens whomsomeof the members of this board have encountered, and whoappearently agree that government agents are the onlyindividuals who should be armed. It is also true that, thankfully, it isat the local level where we have the most power and abilityto affect change.

    I do hope that the Supreme Court makes both the intelligent and correct decisionto"save us from ourselves" and find that the second ammendment doesindeed apply to bothstate and municipal governments, but in the long run the most important thing is forus toget behind groupslike the fledglingNCCDL (thanks OpenCarry)and othercivically activemovements because Raleigh is wherewecan bestinsure that our rights are not legislated away.





Posting Permissions

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