Constitutional Carry

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...

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....

wrightme said:

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....

Click to expand...

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.

I DID read it from that perspective.

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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...

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.

wrightme said:

I DID read it from that perspective.
At the time of Heller's infraction, he was wrong.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Woodcutterron said:

Key words:
VIOLATED THAT RIGHT. Not 'Will violate that right if it happens again." VIOLATE-ED . . . past tense.

Click to expand...

Woodcutterron said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, you have just NOW correctly pointed this out.
Whether it was "right" or not, he followed the law. It WAS that way in DC at the time. There are still places in the states where it is that way. Heller did not change that. Heller DID open the door for change. But, there was nothing in Heller that changed it to "can carry a firearm with only the Constitution to light the way." (to paraphrase)


And, while the law DID violate the Right, it was not a 'given' that DC was held to that standard; until DC v Heller left SCOTUS.

Just to make sure we're clear here, let's remember this rule

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Right now, Georgia requires a weapons license to OC or CC. If Georgia goes licensing for concealed carry only and puts in extended domain for vehicles, I would be perfectly happy with that while we push for more places off-limits being removed among other things.

wrightme said:

No, you have just NOW correctly pointed this out.
Whether it was "right" or not, he followed the law. It WAS that way in DC at the time. There are still places in the states where it is that way. Heller did not change that. Heller DID open the door for change. But, there was nothing in Heller that changed it to "can carry a firearm with only the Constitution to light the way." (to paraphrase)


And, while the law DID violate the Right, it was not a 'given' that DC was held to that standard; until DC v Heller left SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. :banghead:

I've grown bored with your contextual hocus-pocus and semantic shell games. I suggest you go back and re-read my very first post in this thread, drop the semantic crap and take it in the glaringly obvious context it was stated in.

Gray Peterson said:

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Right now, Georgia requires a weapons license to OC or CC. If Georgia goes licensing for concealed carry only and puts in extended domain for vehicles, I would be perfectly happy with that while we push for more places off-limits being removed among other things.

Click to expand...

Please note the part of my statement about tanks and lawyers and F-16's and stuff . . . that was "rhetorical humor", not advocacy for anything illegal, constitutional or otherwise. And it was plainly obvious, even if Jay Leno isn't beating a path to my door for jokes.

Is there a thread here where people aren't humorlessly up tight and actually discuss this issue rationally, instead of focusing on picking apart inconsequential rhetorical blurbs and taking everything absolutely literally? I'll point out I raised numerous valid and interesting issues that were pretty much ignored to focus exclusively on . . .well . . . silly things.


Some of ya'll have an interesting way of making "newbies" feel at home. I suppose I should have groveled a bit before bringing an opinion out. Disappointing.

Woodcutterron said:

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. :banghead:

I've grown bored with your contextual hocus-pocus and semantic shell games. I suggest you go back and re-read my very first post in this thread, drop the semantic crap and take it in the glaringly obvious context it was stated in.

Click to expand...

It isn't "contextual hocus-pocus." It is "ensuring that you are stating what you actually mean."

Woodcutterron said:

Please note the part of my statement about tanks and lawyers and F-16's and stuff . . . that was "rhetorical humor", not advocacy for anything illegal, constitutional or otherwise. And it was plainly obvious, even if Jay Leno isn't beating a path to my door for jokes.

Is there a thread here where people aren't humorlessly up tight and actually discuss this issue rationally, instead of focusing on picking apart inconsequential rhetorical blurbs and taking everything absolutely literally? I'll point out I raised numerous valid and interesting issues that were pretty much ignored to focus exclusively on . . .well . . . silly things.


Some of ya'll have an interesting way of making "newbies" feel at home. I suppose I should have groveled a bit before bringing an opinion out. Disappointing.

Click to expand...

It would have cleared up quite a bit if you simply identify the opinions as such, as opposed to trying to state them as fact.

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.

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...

That statement simply is not supported by the text of the relevant cases. While you may hold that as an opinion, you stated it as if it were fact.

wrightme said:

It would have cleared up quite a bit if you simply identify the opinions as such, as opposed to trying to state them as fact.

That statement simply is not supported by the text of the relevant cases. While you may hold that as an opinion, you stated it as if it were fact.

Click to expand...

Eh . . . . never mind.:banghead:

This was on Channel 2 Action News Last Night:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/26027342/detail.html

Georgia Carry wants to Enact Constitutional Carry in Georgia, BUT I Think that it is a Little-too-Much, too-Fast.
It would Probably be BETTER to Start with Open Carry of a Loaded Pistol, and Work from there, in a 'Piece-Meal' Style of Legislation, instead of one BIG JUMP Straight to Constitutional Carry.

We STILL Need: 1. Carry in Public Buildings, 2. Carry in Voting Precinents, AND 3. Carry into Colleges/Universitites.

Also, we Need: 1. Strenghtend Preemption, AND 2. REPEAL of Multi-Use, Multi-Purpose, 'Double Peanlty' Statutes, i.e.: 16-11-133, AND 16-11-160.

I live in Texas but im from the great state of Georgia. Unlike Georgia, Texas doesnt allow open carry at all. " Were Working on it though"!!
Were going after Constitutional Open Carry that allow a person who can legally purchase and own firearms to carry them. Texas law makers have had our right to carry laws screwed up for the past 140+ years and counting. The day has come that the citizens of Texas are protesting these infringements because were tired of Eliitist law!

I have a uncle in Georgia that I want to go visit, so yall get your Constitutional Open Carry bills in this Georgia Legislative session soon. Repersentatives who claim they will support the bill, but not sponsor it need to be voted out because their CRAP!!
Anyone who is too chicken sh$@ to put their name on a bill that enforces Constitutional Rights does not Represent the American People!
Criminals carry guns in their pants, honest men carry them on the outside!

wrightme said:

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."

Click to expand...

Timothy Bearden will push what he knows he can get accomplished. Last year, he tried for gold star open carry but when he knew the votes were not there, he dropped that portion of the bill. He originally made it where open carry was not referenced, his new idea is different but it doesn't really matter as it would accomplish the same.

As far as referencing Nevada, that would just be silly. Nevada makes a felon out of most people who carry a knife or other weapons. Georgia law was specifically amended to allow for concealed switchblades and the like. Bearden realizes that arms in the 2nd amendment does not mean "firearms" as some folks seem to think and would probably reference Nevada law as often as he would reference Mass law. Nevada law is very much like California and Michigan. The law in general is poorly worded, has too many references, and is vague in some areas... and anti-RKBA.

The real argument for the OP is how much of dicta can be taken for granted. The holdings we know are law. Dicta is supportive to the decision but does not always permit a straight answer. If everything in the Heller decision can be taken as gospel then we'd be carrying without a license already.

As for Georgia's hopes for constitutional carry, I feel we'll be there in about 4-6 years after the SAF gets another SCOTUS win. Georgia's lawmakers are very cognizant that GCO is seeking constitutional carry. The recent freedoms won in the legislature and the judiciary further support the future is license-free.

Jared said:

Timothy Bearden will push what he knows he can get accomplished. Last year, he tried for gold star open carry but when he knew the votes were not there, he dropped that portion of the bill. He originally made it where open carry was not referenced, his new idea is different but it doesn't really matter as it would accomplish the same.

As far as referencing Nevada, that would just be silly. Nevada makes a felon out of most people who carry a knife or other weapons. Georgia law was specifically amended to allow for concealed switchblades and the like. Bearden realizes that arms in the 2nd amendment does not mean "firearms" as some folks seem to think and would probably reference Nevada law as often as he would reference Mass law. Nevada law is very much like California and Michigan. The law in general is poorly worded, has too many references, and is vague in some areas... and anti-RKBA.

Click to expand...

Strawman argument.

Nevada law on OC is very clear. OC is not illegal. THAT is the argument. It has nothing to do with the other irrelevant junk you try to bring in to the discussion.

Nevada law on OC is NOT "poorly worded." It is simply not existent, and THAT is what any OC "law" should be. Non-existent.

Jared said:

Bearden realizes that arms in the 2nd amendment does not mean "firearms" as some folks seem to think . . .

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The second amendment did in fact intend firearms as the primary meaning of "arms" as used in the phrasing of the second amendment. This isn't even in dispute by most anti-gun types. Even if one wants to try to split hairs with convoluted legalisms, "arms" as used in the drafting of the Constitution would be all inclusive, including firearms, edged weapons, clubs, etc.

If Bearden doesn't believe that . . . he's not real bright, and didn't pay attention in history class. For the record, the "line of reason" is actually covered in the Heller decision.

wrightme said:

. . . and THAT is what any OC "law" should be. Non-existent.

Click to expand...

Agreed, 100% The second Amendment IS the Open Carry Law, or even the concealed carry law, for that matter. We're allowed to keep them, we're allowed to bear them, period. Any American citizen who has not squandered their rights via their own misconduct may do so without infringement. Problem is, various government entities act illegally by infringing on rights the Constitution specifically mandated not be infringed . . . go figure.

wrightme said:

Strawman argument.

Nevada law on OC is very clear. OC is not illegal. THAT is the argument. It has nothing to do with the other irrelevant junk you try to bring in to the discussion.

Nevada law on OC is NOT "poorly worded." It is simply not existent, and THAT is what any OC "law" should be. Non-existent.

Click to expand...

It's not "very clear". It's been a project in Vegas getting them to understand that you can OC in public buildings. The NRA filed suit against north las vegas because NLV has trouble understanding the preemption law.

The switchblade part is not "irrelevant junk", you just don't like them. Bearden in Georgia specifically amended Georgia code to allow for concealed weapons. Go tell him it was irrelevant junk, you just don't like certain aspects of the second amendment. So why in the world would Bearden want to reference a state law where they clearly have preemption issues and other issues? He moved Georgia away from a Firearms Permit to a Weapons permit to be MORE IN LINE with the second amendment. Nevada moved from a weapons permit to a firearm permit in 1995, so that would be backwards.

He also wants to reference that OC is legal without a "Weapons License" to preempt many predicted maneuvers that Atlanta and other places would try to attempt.


If your pants are all twisted over it then too bad. Nevada isn't as friendly as you think. You can open carry a pistol quite liberally, I'll clearly give you that. Too often when someone is hassled in Clark County over open carry and they get "terry frisked", they are likely threatened to be charged with a felony over some stupid knife law or something else.

NLV is a great example and so is Clark County when people try to OC in public buildings. The "authorities" don't seem to care too much about your silent open carry law. They think that since CCW is banned, then OC must be as well.... so much for silence working, this is why Tim and others have to run around with cameras and videotapes, because the silence in the law wasn't enough to get the point across.