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.

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.

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.

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.

M1911a1lvr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is not borne out by the words in the applicable SCOTUS opinions; as much as many of us would like it to be.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

As much as we would like it to be such, it isn't that way right now.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nice "perfect imperfect world" splitting of the hairs, but, once again, not borne out by the words in the SCOTUS opinions.

Woodcutterron said:

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"

Click to expand...

No, it does not say that. It says "shall not be infringed."

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

aadvark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

wrightme said:

That is not borne out by the words in the applicable SCOTUS opinions; as much as many of us would like it to be.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

As much as we would like it to be such, it isn't that way right now.

Click to expand...

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

wrightme said:

Nice "perfect imperfect world" splitting of the hairs, but, once again, not borne out by the words in the SCOTUS opinions.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

No, it does not say that. It says "shall not be infringed."

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your opinion does not match with that expressed in DC v Heller, whether you realize it or not.

Woodcutterron said:

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

Click to expand...

That is nonsensical. It cannot be "that way now" if the government doesn't agree.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Paraphrase does not typically work, unless your chosen words are in agreement with legal opinion.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Which is all fine and good, but not relevant, as "keep and bear" was not applied to the states through incorporation at that time.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

Your opinion does not match with that expressed in DC v Heller, whether you realize it or not.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

That is nonsensical. It cannot be "that way now" if the government doesn't agree.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

Then your reference should be to that, not to Heller.

Click to expand...

In this context, they're intertwined. Again, not a difficult consept to uderstand, and certainly not "nonsensical".

wrightme said:

And do not forget, until McDonald, the 2nd Amendment was NOT applied to the states, whether we like it or not.

Click to expand...

Haven't forgotten anything. Well . . . I forgot to buy milk last night when I went to the store . . .but that's another topic.

wrightme said:

Paraphrase does not typically work, unless your chosen words are in agreement with legal opinion.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

Which is all fine and good, but not relevant, as "keep and bear" was not applied to the states through incorporation at that time.

Click to expand...

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.

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

Already covered that.

Woodcutterron said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

"Keep and bear" is a phrase. It was not incorporated against the states by Heller.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay, I misstated it.

Try this.

"legal definition."

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:

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

“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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

What does LE being denied a permit or not have to do with this?

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Without doubt. What does that have to do with your comments about "only need the Constitution?"

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

Huh? Where have I done so? [removed irrelevant content]

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Those are YOUR words, correct? That seems to have been a DIRECT reference to not needing a permit, right?

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.