Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: Constitutional Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129

    Constitutional Carry

    I've heard that GA is slowly moving toward Constitutional Carry. My question is this, when we indeed achieve Constitutional Carry, how will that affect an individual when he or she travels out of state? Would the GWL be valid under some sort of Grandfather clause? Or would we have to get non resident permits from maybe Utah or Florida? A hypothetical question, but a valid question I believe due to the progress that is being made on the legislative front.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Jeffersonville, Vermont, United States
    Posts
    55
    Alaska, Arizona and Vermont all have constitutional carry. Alaska and Arizona still issue CCW permits so as to give you the ability to carry in other states that have reciprocity with your state. Vermont does not have a carry permit at all. So unless we in Vermont get a non-res permit from another state (IE: UT, FL, NH.) then we can only carry in AK or AZ. But we still have to follow those state's laws for those carry conditions. (IE; no carrying in alcohol serving places and such.)

    When you do go for the constitutional carry law in GA make sure that you keep the CCW permit in place as part of your legislation so you keep that option open.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Most conversations I have seen have been advocate keeping the permit (and possibly with training added) as an option for reciprocity. Just like Alaska and Arizona.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    The Georgia Legislature has, for the Second time now, denied imposing any Training Requirements as against the Issuance of a Georgia Weapons Carry License, or a Georgia Weapons Carry Licensee.
    I highly doubt Training will ever be a prerequiste for the Issuance of a Georgia Weapons Carry License.

    Either way though, Georgia will most probably keep the License possibility open, and for good cause, for the following reasons: 1. 'Over-the-Counter' Brady, 2. 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) compliance, AND 3. No Gun Rationing Allocations.

    All of this, of course, pending a Firearms Freedom Enactment, and a Federal Constitutional States' Rights Challenege, under both The 9th Amendment and The 10th Amendment of The United States Constitution, in addition to State Sovereignity, which will, more likely than not, Transcend all the way to The United States Supreme Court.

  5. #5
    Regular Member zhangman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by M1911a1lvr View Post
    Alaska, Arizona and Vermont all have constitutional carry. Alaska and Arizona still issue CCW permits so as to give you the ability to carry in other states that have reciprocity with your state. Vermont does not have a carry permit at all. So unless we in Vermont get a non-res permit from another state (IE: UT, FL, NH.) then we can only carry in AK or AZ. But we still have to follow those state's laws for those carry conditions. (IE; no carrying in alcohol serving places and such.)

    When you do go for the constitutional carry law in GA make sure that you keep the CCW permit in place as part of your legislation so you keep that option open.
    Just a slight point in your quote. In Georgia it isn't considered a "CCW" permit but a "GFL" (Georgia Firearms License), at least mine and other weapons permit holders say. Moot, but just a point to consider. I know, I know, most other states have different acronyms as far as licensing goes. Finally, Georgia is one of the states that isn't very tough on weapons owners and carrying. They are however very firm about places they do not permit weapon carrying.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15

    Constitutional carry. in Georgia

    Well, near as I can tell, and the NRA has been strangely silent on it, is the Supreme Court has already made it clear we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Admittedly, I might have missed it, but I generally read my American Rifleman issues from cover to cover.

    We have a right to free speech, and we don't need a permit or 'training' to exercise this right. We have a right to privacy, also without need to get a "permit" to exercise this right, etc.

    As near as I can tell, States might be able to pick "one or the other" with regard to allowing concealed carry or open carry, but it's just that: They have to allow one type of carry and/or the other, and with no need of a permit, period.

    The majority opinion in Heller clearly spelled out the meaning and intent of the founding fathers and the words they used. Specifically . . .and it's truly pathetic that something so obvious had to be taken to the highest court . . . to "bear" means to "carry."

    So essentially, in 'modern' terminology and I'm not playing a semantic shell game here, the Constitution says, "The Right of U.S. Citizens to possess and carry arms shall not be impeded"
    And nothing in the Constitution mentions the government having the authority to make one of these rights contingent on getting a permit or license. Quite the contrary, it specifically states this right shall not be infringed. And no matter how it's sliced, making a free citizen submit to a permitting process in order to exercise this right or face arrest for not doing so is an infringement, by any reasonable definition.

    Unfortunately, the language and narrow focus of Heller wasn't focused the 'carry' aspect realtive to "street carry", but focusing more of the definition of "Keep" as applied to a specific geographical area. But in doing so, the Court made it clear and in no uncertain terms what " to bear" means. I have considered pushing that issue a bit by openly carrying without a permit, but since I don't have unlimited funds for attorneys, and certainly the NRA can't be necessarily expected to jump on my individual defensive bandwagon . . . .all I can really do is whine about it, since I simply can't "pay the price" for doing . . .what I'm constitutionally entitled to do.

    I don't need a "right to your right permit", period. A permitted right is simply a privilege, and we U.S. citizens already screwed up byapathetically and naively going along with the "Driving is a privilege" myth. That has been used as a foot in the door to undermine other rights, already, incidentally. Unfortunately, the folks who disagree with me have jails, more guns, F-16's and tanks and such, heheh.

    And don't get me started on Alabamas ridiculous law against toting a handgun in my vehicle unless I also have a permit. (I live right on the AL/GA border)

    I do apologize if this has already been discussed in another thread I haven't seen, but frankly, the Heller decision was even more important than even the NRA seems to tout.
    Last edited by Woodcutterron; 12-03-2010 at 12:46 AM. Reason: I did a little editing to make my intent more clear, sorry!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    I spoke with Sean Jurguson AND Timothy Bearden over the Phone and they both Indicated to me that The State of Georgia DOES NOT have any Intentions to Implement, or even Consider the Implementation of, Constitutional Carry as of The Georgia General Assembly 2011 Session.

    However, Timothy Bearden HAS INDICATED that He WILL Support, but not nessecarily Sponser, a Open Carry of a Loaded Pistol Bill, without any need for a Georgia Weapons Carry License. He Indicated that this COULD be Accomplished by adding the term 'Concealed' in front of The Georgia Weapons Carry License, and Amend Georgia Code 16-11-126(c) to remove that a Pistol can be Carried only in a Case to: [A] Weapon can be Carried Openly, without a Georgia Concealed Weapons Carry License, provided; that The Weapon shall, whenever Loaded, be Carried only in an Open Manner Fully Exposed to View. Furthermore, Amend (i) to Read: That a Person Commits an Offense whenver He or She Carries a Concealed Weapon...

    I still have a Wish List though, notwithstanding these Developments, to include: 1. Open Carry in Non-Secure Public Buildings, 2. Open Carry in Churches, 3. Open Carry in Schools, for those that have such Gerogia Weapons Carry Licenses, in light of 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii), 4. Mandatory Lock-Boxes for Secure Facilities, Free of Charge, such as, i.e.: Jails, Prisons, and CourtHouses, 5. Cap on Costs of a Georgia Weapons Carry License, 6. Strenghten Preemption, by adding: 16-11-173(b)(1) ..., Gun Stores OR Gun Ranges,... AND 16-11-173(c) ..., provided; that such Restricitons or Regulations shall not apply to or effect Employees that have Georgia Weapons Carry Licenses OR who follow Georgia Code 16-11-135, AND 16-11-173(e) ..., provided; that such Discharge shall not apply to or affect The DisCharge occurs on Private Property greator than 5 Acres in Size, provided, further, that, such DisCharge is in Compliance with the Provisions of Georgia Code 16-11-103, AND [New Code Section Paragraph] 16-11-173(f) to provide: Court Costs, Attorney Fees, AND Reasonable Damages to Challenges against Preempted Ordinances when such Challenges are Succesful.

    I also would like to see: 1. 16-11-131 changed to Exclude Non-Violent Felons, unless such Non-Violent Felon has MANY Non-Violent Felony Convictions that show a Pattern of DisRespect for The LAW, 2. 16-11-133 REPEALED, 3. 16-11-160 REPEALED, 4. 16-11-106 CHANGED to EXCLUDE MARIJUANA PENALTY ENHANCER, and to EXCLUDE the term 'within arms reach' from that Law.

    ..., [A]gain though, this is just a Wish-List..., and I will probably add to it.
    Last edited by aadvark; 12-04-2010 at 01:47 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Well, near as I can tell, and the NRA has been strangely silent on it, is the Supreme Court has already made it clear we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Admittedly, I might have missed it, but I generally read my American Rifleman issues from cover to cover.
    That is not borne out by the words in the applicable SCOTUS opinions; as much as many of us would like it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    We have a right to free speech, and we don't need a permit or 'training' to exercise this right. We have a right to privacy, also without need to get a "permit" to exercise this right, etc.
    As much as we would like it to be such, it isn't that way right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    As near as I can tell, States might be able to pick "one or the other" with regard to allowing concealed carry or open carry, but it's just that: They have to allow one type of carry and/or the other, and with no need of a permit, period.
    Nice "perfect imperfect world" splitting of the hairs, but, once again, not borne out by the words in the SCOTUS opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    The majority opinion in Heller clearly spelled out the meaning and intent of the founding fathers and the words they used. Specifically . . .and it's truly pathetic that something so obvious had to be taken to the highest court . . . to "bear" means to "carry."

    So essentially, in 'modern' terminology and I'm not playing a semantic shell game here, the Constitution says, "The Right of U.S. Citizens to possess and carry arms shall not be impeded"
    No, it does not say that. It says "shall not be infringed."
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    And nothing in the Constitution mentions the government having the authority to make one of these rights contingent on getting a permit or license. Quite the contrary, it specifically states this right shall not be infringed. And no matter how it's sliced, making a free citizen submit to a permitting process in order to exercise this right or face arrest for not doing so is an infringement, by any reasonable definition.

    Unfortunately, the language and narrow focus of Heller wasn't focused the 'carry' aspect realtive to "street carry", but focusing more of the definition of "Keep" as applied to a specific geographical area. But in doing so, the Court made it clear and in no uncertain terms what " to bear" means. I have considered pushing that issue a bit by openly carrying without a permit, but since I don't have unlimited funds for attorneys, and certainly the NRA can't be necessarily expected to jump on my individual defensive bandwagon . . . .all I can really do is whine about it, since I simply can't "pay the price" for doing . . .what I'm constitutionally entitled to do.

    I don't need a "right to your right permit", period. A permitted right is simply a privilege, and we U.S. citizens already screwed up byapathetically and naively going along with the "Driving is a privilege" myth. That has been used as a foot in the door to undermine other rights, already, incidentally. Unfortunately, the folks who disagree with me have jails, more guns, F-16's and tanks and such, heheh.

    And don't get me started on Alabamas ridiculous law against toting a handgun in my vehicle unless I also have a permit. (I live right on the AL/GA border)

    I do apologize if this has already been discussed in another thread I haven't seen, but frankly, the Heller decision was even more important than even the NRA seems to tout.
    While I would love to be able to agree with you that "the Heller decision was even more important," it was only one step in a long uphill battle. In fact, it was ONLY relevant in Washington DC at that point, and NOT relevant in the States. I don't like it being that way, but it IS the reality.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    I spoke with Sean Jurguson AND Timothy Bearden over the Phone and they both Indicated to me that The State of Georgia DOES NOT have any Intentions to Implement, or even Consider the Implementation of, Constitutional Carry as of The Georgia General Assembly 2011 Session.

    However, Timothy Bearden HAS INDICATED that He WILL Support, but not nessecarily Sponser, a Open CArry of a Loaded Pistol Bill, without any need for a Georgia Weapons Carry License. He Indicated that this COULD be Accomplished by adding the term 'Concealed' in front of The Georgia Weapons Carry License, and Amend Georgia Code 16-11-126(c) to remove that a Pistol can be Carried only in a Case to: [A] Weapon can be Carried Openly, without a Georgia Concealed Weapons Carry License, provided, that The Weapon shall, whenever Loaded, be Carried only in an Open Manner Fully Exposed ot View. Furhtermore, Amend (i) to Read: That a Person Commitis an Offense whenver He or She Carries a Concealed Weapon...

    I still have a Wish List though, notweithstanding thes Developments, to include: 1. Open Carry in Non-Secure Public Buildings, 2. Open Carry in Churches, 3. Open Carry in Schools, for those that have such Gerogai WEapons Carry Licenses, in light of 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii), 4. Mandatory Lock-Boxes for Secure Facilities, Free of Charge, such as, i.e.: Jails, Prisons, and CourtHouses, 5. Cap on Costs of a Georgia Weapons Carry License, 6. Strenghten Preemption, by adding: 16-11-173(b)(1) ..., Gun Stores OR Gun Ranges,... AND 16-11-173(c) ..., provided; that such Restricitons or Regulations shall not apply to or effect Employees that have Georgia Weapons Carry Licenses OR who follow Georgia Code 16-11-135, AND 16-11-173(e) ..., provided; that such Discharge shall not apply to or affect The DisCharge occurs on Private Property greator than 5 Acres in Size, provided, further, that, such DisCharge is in Compliance with the Provisions of Georgia Code 16-11-103, AND [New Code Section Paragraph] 16-11-173(f) to provide: Court Costs, Attorney Fees, AND Reasonable Damages to Challenges against Preempted Ordinances when such Challenges are Succesful.

    I also would like to see: 1. 16-11-131 changed to Exclude Non-Violent Felons,unless suhc Non-Violent Felon has MANY Non-Violent Felony Convictions that show a Pattern of DisRespect for The LAW, 2. 16-11-133 REPEALED, 3. 16-11-160 REPEALED, 4. 16-11-106 CHANGED to EXCLUDE MARIJUANA PENALTY ENHANCER, and to EXCLUDE the term 'within arms reach' from that Law.

    ..., [A]gain though, this is just a Wish-List..., and I will probably add to it.
    The ONLY way to perform OC within that suggested statute would be on a lanyard dangling between your legs.


    Try for at a minimum "holstered, discernable by normal observation as a ......"

    Better to simply delete a reference to it as a violation. Look to NV statute for guidance if you need.


    In other words, do not work towards an "Open Carry Statute," work towards rescinding any reference to "OC is unlawful."
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-03-2010 at 12:09 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    That is not borne out by the words in the applicable SCOTUS opinions; as much as many of us would like it to be.
    Actually, yes it is. It is perfectly reasonable, and quite common in litigation at all levels, to take inferences from other areas of law as well as other court opinions. The Heller opinion clearly defined "bear" as in "to bear arms" to mean a right to carry them on our persons. This finding in Heller simply does not try to narrowly frame this definition only within the confines of the specific situation dealt with in Heller. It actually points out that the broader meaning encompasses the situation described in Heller, not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    As much as we would like it to be such, it isn't that way right now.
    Well on practical 'everyday life' level this is true. But in actuality, it is that way right now, it's just that our own government generally doesn't recognize it. And when the government doesn't agree with me . . . I lose, right or wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Nice "perfect imperfect world" splitting of the hairs, but, once again, not borne out by the words in the SCOTUS opinions.
    I'm not splitting hairs at all. Again, quite the opposite. And no it isn't borne out of the words of the SCOTUS opinions, it's borne out of the the language of the second amendment. I have simply pointed out that the Heller decision supports exactly what the 2nd Amendment actually says. The same line of reason you just used, incidentally, is part of why the rather clear second amendment is constantly attacked by hair splitting liberals.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    No, it does not say that. It says "shall not be infringed."
    Who is splitting hairs now? I stand by my paraphrase, and I had made it clear that is what it was, for illustrative purposes, and that was obvious. I did not alter context one iota.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    While I would love to be able to agree with you that "the Heller decision was even more important," it was only one step in a long uphill battle. In fact, it was ONLY relevant in Washington DC at that point, and NOT relevant in the States. I don't like it being that way, but it IS the reality.
    Actually, the content I'm referring to is highly relevant to the entire U.S. In reviewing the Heller case, the Justices clarified certain terms and language and how they are to be viewed and defined specifically. These definitions and views reverberate across the entire U.S. Unless you feel that "bear arms" has different meanings from state to state or "bear" has a different meaning specific to Washington D.C. than it means in the actual 50 states (and territories) my observations are relevant to every state and every citizen in the Union.

    Again, simply because my government doesn't recognize what the Constitution actually says, and it isn't ambiguous, doesn't make me wrong . . . it makes me a victim of a wrong.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Actually, yes it is. It is perfectly reasonable, and quite common in litigation at all levels, to take inferences from other areas of law as well as other court opinions. The Heller opinion clearly defined "bear" as in "to bear arms" to mean a right to carry them on our persons. This finding in Heller simply does not try to narrowly frame this definition only within the confines of the specific situation dealt with in Heller. It actually points out that the broader meaning encompasses the situation described in Heller, not the other way around.
    Your opinion does not match with that expressed in DC v Heller, whether you realize it or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    Well on practical 'everyday life' level this is true. But in actuality, it is that way right now, it's just that our own government generally doesn't recognize it. And when the government doesn't agree with me . . . I lose, right or wrong
    That is nonsensical. It cannot be "that way now" if the government doesn't agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    I'm not splitting hairs at all. Again, quite the opposite. And no it isn't borne out of the words of the SCOTUS opinions, it's borne out of the the language of the second amendment. I have simply pointed out that the Heller decision supports exactly what the 2nd Amendment actually says. The same line of reason you just used, incidentally, is part of why the rather clear second amendment is constantly attacked by hair splitting liberals.
    Then your reference should be to that, not to Heller. And do not forget, until McDonald, the 2nd Amendment was NOT applied to the states, whether we like it or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    Who is splitting hairs now? I stand by my paraphrase, and I had made it clear that is what it was, for illustrative purposes, and that was obvious. I did not alter context one iota.
    Paraphrase does not typically work, unless your chosen words are in agreement with legal opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    Actually, the content I'm referring to is highly relevant to the entire U.S. In reviewing the Heller case, the Justices clarified certain terms and language and how they are to be viewed and defined specifically. These definitions and views reverberate across the entire U.S. Unless you feel that "bear arms" has different meanings from state to state or "bear" has a different meaning specific to Washington D.C. than it means in the actual 50 states (and territories) my observations are relevant to every state and every citizen in the Union.
    Which is all fine and good, but not relevant, as "keep and bear" was not applied to the states through incorporation at that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    Again, simply because my government doesn't recognize what the Constitution actually says, and it isn't ambiguous, doesn't make me wrong . . . it makes me a victim of a wrong.
    Of course. And to "right" the wrong, either the court systems need to do their part of the three legs to our satisfaction, or our government needs to change. Barring either occurrence, we ARE still bound by it. Whether we like it or not.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Your opinion does not match with that expressed in DC v Heller, whether you realize it or not.
    Actually, it isn't me who isn't realizing something. Have you even read the Heller decision? I have, all 140-something pages of it, numerous times, actually. I'm also a paralegal, so I do in fact understand quite well what I'm reading. Further, I have already addressed the relevant principles of stare decisis as they apply here. The definitions established in the Heller decision can be and are relevant to the right to carry generally, irregardless of the narrow focus of the specific incident the Heller decision was addressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    That is nonsensical. It cannot be "that way now" if the government doesn't agree.
    Yes it can. If for example, the Government just declares that people can't talk bad about President Obama and starts jailing folks for it, that doesn't make it right, nor does it take away from the reality the government would be ignoring the fact we still have a first amendment. This isn't really that difficult a concept to understand. You're playing a semantic shell game, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Then your reference should be to that, not to Heller.
    In this context, they're intertwined. Again, not a difficult consept to uderstand, and certainly not "nonsensical".

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    And do not forget, until McDonald, the 2nd Amendment was NOT applied to the states, whether we like it or not.
    Haven't forgotten anything. Well . . . I forgot to buy milk last night when I went to the store . . .but that's another topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Paraphrase does not typically work, unless your chosen words are in agreement with legal opinion.
    Now that was nonsensical. I'm not writing a legal opinion here, I'm posting on a forum. And as such when I paraphrase something to demonstrate a point, it isn't even a matter of "typically" or not typically" working. Now if you care to dissect my paraphrase unnecessarily to split hairs and play semantic shell games . . .which seems to an ongoing theme in your replies . . . have at it. Like I said, I stand by my paraphrase within the context of this topic. My paraphrase: It works.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Which is all fine and good, but not relevant, as "keep and bear" was not applied to the states through incorporation at that time.
    That is incorrect. The Supreme court has defined specifically what "to keep" and "To bear" means. So any lawyer who tries to claim, even on a state level, that "to keep" or "to bear" is somehow defined differently on a state level than it's defined in D.C., well . . . they'll have a tough row to hoe there.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Of course. And to "right" the wrong, either the court systems need to do their part of the three legs to our satisfaction, or our government needs to change. Barring either occurrence, we ARE still bound by it. Whether we like it or not.
    Already covered that.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    I'm also a paralegal, so I do in fact understand quite well what I'm reading. Further, I have already addressed the relevant principles of stare decisis . . .bla, bla, bla

    Just to clarify: I am no longer working as a paralegal, I should have said I have my degree, I suppose. I'm a cabinetmaker by trade. Less crap from snooty lawyers that way, and definitely more satisfying.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Actually, it isn't me who isn't realizing something. Have you even read the Heller decision? I have, all 140-something pages of it, numerous times, actually. I'm also a paralegal, so I do in fact understand quite well what I'm reading. Further, I have already addressed the relevant principles of stare decisis as they apply here. The definitions established in the Heller decision can be and are relevant to the right to carry generally, irregardless of the narrow focus of the specific incident the Heller decision was addressing.
    Yes, I read it. Within the first few days after it came out, and reviews now and then.

    I have not debated definitions. I have simply correctly stated that Heller does NOT affirm those existing rules. Heller "does not cast doubt" upon them. Had SCOTUS intended to "affirm," I have NO DOUBT they would have chosen words to that effect.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    That is incorrect. The Supreme court has defined specifically what "to keep" and "To bear" means. So any lawyer who tries to claim, even on a state level, that "to keep" or "to bear" is somehow defined differently on a state level than it's defined in D.C., well . . . they'll have a tough row to hoe there.
    "Keep and bear" is a phrase. It was not incorporated against the states by Heller.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Now that was nonsensical. I'm not writing a legal opinion here, I'm posting on a forum. And as such when I paraphrase something to demonstrate a point, it isn't even a matter of "typically" or not typically" working. Now if you care to dissect my paraphrase unnecessarily to split hairs and play semantic shell games . . .which seems to an ongoing theme in your replies . . . have at it. Like I said, I stand by my paraphrase within the context of this topic. My paraphrase: It works.
    Okay, I misstated it.

    Try this.

    "legal definition."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    As for the rest of your snipes, they are simply that; snipes.

    Heller did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states.

    [removed irrelevant content about assurances and three areas]
    So, to revisit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Well, near as I can tell, and the NRA has been strangely silent on it, is the Supreme Court has already made it clear we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Admittedly, I might have missed it, but I generally read my American Rifleman issues from cover to cover.
    SCOTUS has NOT "made it clear we don't need a permit." Conversely, they also have NOT "made it clear that we need a permit."
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-04-2010 at 07:13 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    Snipes . . .hmmm. Kinda "nonsensical" . . . your choice of words, not mine, originally.

    A tip: Look at the footnotes and citations used in Heller. Note that many, even most of the citations are not cases involving police officers being denied a permit.

    Make no mistake . . .or do, whatever . . . but Justice Scalias description of what "keep" "bear" and yes, "Keep and bear" taken together will factor heavily if or when constitutional carry comes before the Supreme court.

    You are also right, the Supreme Court did not say CC or OC was okay. I never said they did, and I've explained my position more than adequately on that front. Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your case.

    As I've said . . . about a half dozen times now . . . in defining what the verbiage of what the second amendment actually says relative to Officer Heller, he defined it, period. I will come up again. And for the record, The Supreme court couldn't really say anything about CC or OC, because that isn't the way the Supreme Court works.

    They're an Appellate Court, and since CC nor OC was a material issue in the Heller case, they can't really address it, even if they wanted to. BUT . . .again . . . in dealing with the Heller case, they DID define exactly what the second Amendment says. It is perfectly legit to apply the Second Amendment as defined in . . .dang, I just keep repeating myself. It seems like you are under the mistaken impression that all Supreme Court decisions are only relevant to the specific set of circumstances appealed. And also again, that is incorrect, and is most easily demonstrated by simply reading the citations referenced in Heller itself. Note they aren't all cases of Washington D.C. police officers who were denied permits.

    And a friendly suggestion: If you don't like getting sniped at, A) Don't rudely dismiss out-of-hand someone elses opinion, like you did originally, and B) Try to keep words like "Nonsensical" in check . . . particularly when they aren't nonsensical at all.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    “Keep arms” simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for
    militiamen and everyone else. At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
    “carry.” Pretty simple, really. Not supposed to infringe on it, either.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Snipes . . .hmmm. Kinda "nonsensical" . . . your choice of words, not mine, originally.

    A tip: Look at the footnotes and citations used in Heller. Note that many, even most of the citations are not cases involving police officers being denied a permit.
    What does LE being denied a permit or not have to do with this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    Make no mistake . . .or do, whatever . . . but Justice Scalias description of what "keep" "bear" and yes, "Keep and bear" taken together will factor heavily if or when constitutional carry comes before the Supreme court.
    Without doubt. What does that have to do with your comments about "only need the Constitution?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    You are also right, the Supreme Court did not say CC or OC was okay. I never said they did, and I've explained my position more than adequately on that front. Putting words in my mouth isn't helping your case.
    Huh? Where have I done so? [removed irrelevant content]
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    As I've said . . . about a half dozen times now . . . in defining what the verbiage of what the second amendment actually says relative to Officer Heller, he defined it, period. I will come up again. And for the record, The Supreme court couldn't really say anything about CC or OC, because that isn't the way the Supreme Court works.
    Exactly. So, can you conceal by carrying the Constitution with you, as you alleged in your earlier post? For reference, here it is again.
    Well, near as I can tell, and the NRA has been strangely silent on it, is the Supreme Court has already made it clear we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Well, near as I can tell, and the NRA has been strangely silent on it, is the Supreme Court has already made it clear we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
    Those are YOUR words, correct? That seems to have been a DIRECT reference to not needing a permit, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    They're an Appellate Court, and since CC nor OC was a material issue in the Heller case, they can't really address it, even if they wanted to.
    Exactly. BUT . . .again . . . in dealing with the Heller case, they DID define exactly what the second Amendment says. It is perfectly legit to apply the Second Amendment as defined in . . .dang, I just keep repeating myself. It seems like you are under the mistaken impression that all Supreme Court decisions are only relevant to the specific set of circumstances appealed. And also again, that is incorrect, and is most easily demonstrated by simply reading the citations referenced in Heller itself. Note they aren't all cases of Washington D.C. police officers who were denied permits.[/quote]Why, no, I am not under some mistaken impression. But, in this specific instance, the Heller opinion did NOT incorporate the 2a against the states. You seemed to imply that it did. Are definitions from this opinion likely to be seen in similar cases? Heck yes! That should NEVER be presented in a way (like you did) to infer that no one needs carry anything except a pistol and a copy of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    And a friendly suggestion: If you don't like getting sniped at, A) Don't rudely dismiss out-of-hand someone elses opinion, like you did originally, and B) Try to keep words like "Nonsensical" in check . . . particularly when they aren't nonsensical at all.
    When someone makes an inference that is nonsensical, what word do you prefer?

    How would you rather approach a response to something as nonsensical as "SCOTUS ruled that we only need a piece of paper and not a permit?" While it makes a nice homily, it isn't true at this point. And, while (as I have stated earlier) the Heller opinion was a good start, it was limited in scope, and the subsequent McDonald case (IMHO) has much more far-reaching validity for the states.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-04-2010 at 07:13 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Well on practical 'everyday life' level this is true. But in actuality, it is that way right now, it's just that our own government generally doesn't recognize it. And when the government doesn't agree with me . . . I lose, right or wrong
    This IS nonsensical.

    You claim that "on practical everyday life level this is true" then you refute yourself with "but in actuality, it is that way right now."

    You contradicted yourself. That IS nonsensical.




    And I withdraw my reference to "three areas," that was from another thread....
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-04-2010 at 07:06 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    This IS nonsensical.

    You claim that "on practical everyday life level this is true" then you refute yourself with "but in actuality, it is that way right now."

    You contradicted yourself. That IS nonsensical.




    And I withdraw my reference to "three areas," that was from another thread....
    Quoting myself: "On practical everyday life, this is true"


    I was partially agreeing with your statement, as follows: "As much as we would like it to be such, it isn't that way right now."
    Read that post again (#10) from the perspective of someone not being snidely sanctimonious. And since you brought it back up, the Heller Case itself is actually another good example of what I meant. The reality is that Officer Heller was right, though in "practical everyday life" he was considered wrong by the law at the time . . .despite being 'actually right' even at the time of the incident.

    As for the "Three areas" being from another thread, that is a perfectly good reason it seemed nonsensical.
    Last edited by Woodcutterron; 12-04-2010 at 08:00 PM. Reason: to add post number

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    I DID read it from that perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron View Post
    Quoting myself: "On practical everyday life, this is true"


    I was partially agreeing with your statement, as follows: "As much as we would like it to be such, it isn't that way right now."
    Read that post again (#10) from the perspective of someone not being snidely sanctimonious. And since you brought it back up, the Heller Case itself is actually another good example of what I meant. The reality is that Officer Heller was right, though in "practical everyday life" he was considered wrong by the law at the time . . .despite being 'actually right' even at the time of the incident.

    As for the "Three areas" being from another thread, that is a perfectly good reason it seemed nonsensical.
    Now, I WILL present that my response to the specific about "permits" and 1st Amendment was specifically with regards to the Second Amendment. As much as we would like it to be the same as exercising our First Amendment Rights, it isn't.
    At the time of Heller's infraction, he was wrong. He attempted to follow law, and was denied his Right. He asked for his permission, and was denied. That got the ball rolling.
    At that point, according to the statutes of DC, had he exercised his Right, he would have been breaking the law. Until the case was resolved in the Supreme Court, actions to arm himself would have violated existing law, until the point where SCOTUS ruled against the statute in DC.

    That really didn't change a thing outside of DC. It sure made it likely that things would change outside of DC, but the SCOTUS opinion itself didn't have immediate effect. Very few municipalities that I am aware of actually changed statutes to come into step with DC v Heller. Several lawsuits did start outside of DC, most notably, McDonald v Chicago.

    The main point is this. DC v Heller did NOT make it lawful to carry as you indicate, with "no permit except for the US Constitution." I really see no way for your opening statement to be valid.
    Constitutional carry. in Georgia

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodcutterron
    Well, near as I can tell, and the NRA has been strangely silent on it, is the Supreme Court has already made it clear we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Admittedly, I might have missed it, but I generally read my American Rifleman issues from cover to cover.
    No, it just didn't do that. SCOTUS did not make it clear that we don't need a permit, aside from a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
    I see that as a possible outcome someday, but I do NOT see it as a likely outcome someday.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-04-2010 at 08:39 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I DID read it from that perspective.
    At the time of Heller's infraction, he was wrong.
    Wrong.
    It was held that the Second Amendment protects
    an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s
    total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
    firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when
    necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Point Ga.
    Posts
    15
    Key words:
    VIOLATED THAT RIGHT. Not 'Will violate that right if it happens again." VIOLATE-ED . . . past tense. Heller was correct at the time of the incident, "the law" was not. Hence . . ."The Heller Decision" Again, I've already correctly pointed this out numerous times.
    Last edited by Woodcutterron; 12-04-2010 at 09:46 PM. Reason: to clarify a vague point

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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