• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

"why do you scary carry?"

Tony Santiago

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
41
Location
, ,
imported post

was the question i was asked earlier today at rite aid. i was ocing my sig p95, and a customer had quietly walked up to me and asked me that. i told him that i felt it was a good deterrent to crime, and he started preaching about the advantages of carrying concealed incase small children try to come up and grab my gun, and then lectured me on how i could be sued if something happened or something. this was at the rite aid in the kent valley
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
imported post

I find it disturbingly ironic that the only times that I have seen the term "scary carry" used, prior to your post, has been by certain members of this board when referring to the peaceable carrying of slung long arms.

Perhaps this is a case of "chickens coming home to roost." To me, there is no difference between the antis picking and choosing which Constitutional rights are worthy of full and free expression and us doing so among ourselves.

Just my $0.02.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

tony has two imaginary guns,, he claimed to own a sig, in an early thread,
then he later was going to buy his first gun, a ruger p95, in a later thread..
he was worried about the safety while carrying the sig "mexican",
them came back asking about the loading and operation of a ruger semi auto..

he shouldnd be fed,, maybe he will study before he comes back to write stupid stuff...
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

1245A Defender wrote:
tony has two imaginary guns,, he claimed to own a sig, in an early thread,
then he later was going to buy his first gun, a ruger p95, in a later thread..
he was worried about the safety while carrying the sig "mexican",
them came back asking about the loading and operation of a ruger semi auto..

he shouldnd be fed,, maybe he will study before he comes back to write stupid stuff...
Well there ya have it. He owns a Sig and a Ruger, so he put them together to form one gun.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:
was the question i was asked earlier today at rite aid. i was ocing my sig p95, and a customer had quietly walked up to me and asked me that. i told him that i felt it was a good deterrent to crime, and he started preaching about the advantages of carrying concealed incase small children try to come up and grab my gun, and then lectured me on how i could be sued if something happened or something. this was at the rite aid in the kent valley
First time he didnt post something funny and thought provoking. I dont like him any more.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tony Santiago wrote:
was the question i was asked earlier today at rite aid. i was ocing my sig p95, and a customer had quietly walked up to me and asked me that. i told him that i felt it was a good deterrent to crime, and he started preaching about the advantages of carrying concealed incase small children try to come up and grab my gun, and then lectured me on how i could be sued if something happened or something. this was at the rite aid in the kent valley
Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

ManInBlack wrote:
I find it disturbingly ironic that the only times that I have seen the term "scary carry" used, prior to your post, has been by certain members of this board when referring to the peaceable carrying of slung long arms.

Perhaps this is a case of "chickens coming home to roost." To me, there is no difference between the antis picking and choosing which Constitutional rights are worthy of full and free expression and us doing so among ourselves.

Just my $0.02.
+10 ManInBlack!!
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.

This is a dangerous line of reasoning. "Shall not be infringed" does not make an exception for concealed carry. Either we are serious about our rights or we can negotiate rights away like the rest of the putative "shooting enthusiasts" in this country.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

ManInBlack wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.

This is a dangerous line of reasoning. "Shall not be infringed" does not make an exception for concealed carry. Either we are serious about our rights or we can negotiate rights away like the rest of the putative "shooting enthusiasts" in this country.
Correct. All methods of carry are a right pre existing the Constitution. The Constitution only recognizes that pre existing right.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
ManInBlack wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.

This is a dangerous line of reasoning. "Shall not be infringed" does not make an exception for concealed carry. Either we are serious about our rights or we can negotiate rights away like the rest of the putative "shooting enthusiasts" in this country.
Correct. All methods of carry are a right pre existing the Constitution. The Constitution only recognizes that pre existing right.
But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does.

What gives you the idea that the federal constitution does not apply to the states? State constitutions and laws (as well as those of the federal government, obviously) must be compatible with the federal constitution; the function of the US Supreme Court is to determine whether laws or rulings are compatible with the federal constitution. In fact, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington constitution explicitly declares that, "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

Furthermore, what about the Washington constitution gives you the idea that it authorizes the regulation of concealed carry? Article I, Section 24:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
It contains nothing whatsoever relating specifically to CC, or to modes of carry generally.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
imported post

ManInBlack wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does.

What gives you the idea that the federal constitution does not apply to the states? State constitutions and laws (as well as those of the federal government, obviously) must be compatible with the federal constitution; the function of the US Supreme Court is to determine whether laws or rulings are compatible with the federal constitution. In fact, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington constitution explicitly declares that, "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

Furthermore, what about the Washington constitution gives you the idea that it authorizes the regulation of concealed carry? Article I, Section 24:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
It contains nothing whatsoever relating specifically to CC, or to modes of carry generally.
Those lines are nice and pretty but not reality. Many amendments in the Bill of Rights have been routed through the 14th to apply to the states but the 2nd amendment is not one of them.



You're kidding about the WA constitution right? You must have a CPL to CC in WA or have a loaded weapon in or ona motor vehicle, period.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
imported post

kito109654 wrote:
Those lines are nice and pretty but not reality. Many amendments in the Bill of Rights have been routed through the 14th to apply to the states but the 2nd amendment is not one of them.
[The 14th Amendment is (in addition to being a complete fraud, although that is a topic for another day) completely unnecessary with respect to the federal constitution being applicable to the states. To follow your convoluted logic, that would mean that nothing in the US Constitution applied to the states until after the Civil War. That is clearly absurd, and US Supreme Court rulings prior to the Civil War demonstrate that was not the case.] -EDIT: I now realize that this paragraph is in error. Thanks to Tawnos for pointing that out.-

Even if your argument regarding the 14th Amendment were correct, which it is not, the state constitution itself states, in no uncertain terms, that the "right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." The only authorized exception, allowing government regulation, is the employment of an armed body of men by a private individual, organization, or corporation. Compare this to the Louisiana constitution's RKBA section, which reads, "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." In Louisiana, the state regulation of concealed carry is explicitly authorized by the constitution. This is not the case in Washington, where both the federal and state constitutions authorize the individual right to bear arms with no exceptions for mode of carry.

In light of all of this, please explain the relevance of your original comment, to wit:
"But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does."



kito109654 wrote:
You're kidding about the WA constitution right? You must have a CPL to CC in WA or have a loaded weapon in or ona motor vehicle, period.
Just because something is law does not mean that it is constitutional. I would hope that, like mine, your goals include the eventual repeal of all unconstitutional laws regarding the exercise of natural rights. The recent passage of "constitutional carry" in Arizona (no permit required for open or concealed carry, in accordance with the federal and state constitutions) shows that it is possible.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

ManInBlack wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
Those lines are nice and pretty but not reality. Many amendments in the Bill of Rights have been routed through the 14th to apply to the states but the 2nd amendment is not one of them.
The 14th Amendment is (in addition to being a complete fraud, although that is a topic for another day) completely unnecessary with respect to the federal constitution being applicable to the states. To follow your convoluted logic, that would mean that nothing in the US Constitution applied to the states until after the Civil War. That is clearly absurd, and US Supreme Court rulings prior to the Civil War demonstrate that was not the case.

Even if your argument regarding the 14th Amendment were correct, which it is not, the state constitution itself states, in no uncertain terms, that the "right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." The only authorized exception, allowing government regulation, is the employment of an armed body of men by a private individual, organization, or corporation. Compare this to the Louisiana constitution's RKBA section, which reads, "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." In Louisiana, the state regulation of concealed carry is explicitly authorized by the constitution. This is not the case in Washington, where both the federal and state constitutions authorize the individual right to bear arms with no exceptions for mode of carry.

In light of all of this, please explain the relevance of your original comment, to wit:
"But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does."



kito109654 wrote:
You're kidding about the WA constitution right? You must have a CPL to CC in WA or have a loaded weapon in or ona motor vehicle, period.
Just because something is law does not mean that it is constitutional. I would hope that, like mine, your goals include the eventual repeal of all unconstitutional laws regarding the exercise of natural rights. The recent passage of "constitutional carry" in Arizona (no permit required for open or concealed carry, in accordance with the federal and state constitutions) shows that it is possible.
Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

*edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

*edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?
Upon review, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that paragraph about the 14th Amendment. Scratch that.

I still maintain that nothing in the Washington state constitution authorizes the regulation of concealed carry, and, in fact, prohibits it through the phrase, "shall not be impaired," which, to my interpretation, is even more restrictive than "shall not be infringed." This is opposed to the constitutions of several other states, Louisiana being the example I used, in which the state government is specifically authorized to regulate concealed carry.

Thanks for the correction. Curious to hear your thoughts on the state constitutionality of concealed weapons laws.
 
Top