I should be able to Open Carry because...

If our borders are open, then so should be our gun laws.

My Reply..

Because the law says I can. And it is my right.

carrying an object does not intrude upon others fundamental rights, even if the object is a firearm.

Keithmj said:

Because the law says I can. And it is my right.

Click to expand...

I don't carry because the law says I can. It does not say so, not in Alabama. The law is a list of things you may not do, not a list of things you are allowed to do.

I should be able to openly carry because the law in Alabama is silent on open carry, and, even if it weren't, such a prohibition would violate the Alabama Constitution. The Alabama Supreme Court validated this POV in the 19th century in State v. Reid. That ruling stands today, as it should.

I believe the Constitution is a list of negative right, what the law says the government cannot do. One of these is it cannot tell you you cannot carry a firearm.

KansasMustang said:

I believe the Constitution is a list of negative right, what the law says the government cannot do. One of these is it cannot tell you you cannot carry a firearm.

Click to expand...

That pesky 'Shall not be infringed' part... that's ignored... interpreted (I love that line) and infringed, impaired 'n denied anyway. Seriously... if the founders of the government implicitly stated that the right shall not be infringed... how does 'government' ignore the very thing it was prohibited from doing? Why do I need guys in black robes to 'interpret' that which is obvious? I don't... and YOU don't.

Politicians and their LEA's took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and they don't. They don't even understand what they're actually swearing to. For them... it's all about authority. But... that authority is derived from the people... not them. What's been created is a two-tiered culture of 'them' and 'us'. It's tyranny. People will accept tyranny having known no other culture. They will accept tyranny if they have no clear understanding of, nor appreciation for their own rights. Then there are those who will lick whatever hand pays them. In that they are only mercenaries for the political tyranny which hired them under color of law.

Some... far too many think that the government gives them whatever rights they have. I've read as much on this forum from time to time. That's the way it's taught and percieved. It's a deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.

KansasMustang said:

I believe the Constitution is a list of negative right, what the law says the government cannot do. One of these is it cannot tell you you cannot carry a firearm.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) specically states that pretty much anything to do with a firearm (possessing, CC, OC, using it for any purpose) is prohibited under state law. Not only that, but this 2A issue appears in the section entitled "Criminal Code." Once it makes that clear, only then does it bother to add, "Except..." and detail what those exceptions are, most of which eliminate the first part. So long as one colors inside the exceptions border, they're ok.

Sonora Rebel said:

That pesky 'Shall not be infringed' part... that's ignored... interpreted (I love that line) and infringed, impaired 'n denied anyway. Seriously... if the founders of the government implicitly stated that the right shall not be infringed... how does 'government' ignore the very thing it was prohibited from doing? Why do I need guys in black robes to 'interpret' that which is obvious? I don't... and YOU don't.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right - we don't. The Constitution wasn't written in legalese. It was written in common language, so that the average American could understand it in its entirety. Have you ever read any legal briefs written around that era? Good grief! They read more like 14th-Century Old English! Not our Constitution.

Consider this, however: Some lawyers understand and do their best to uphold their duties as an "officer of the court." Their loyalty is to the law and justice, and they will not cross the line. Unfortunately, not all lawyers adhere to these standards. Having known several lawyers personally, most of whom held to these standards, but a few who did not, I observed the difference between the two is largely night and day. Those on the other side of the fence will do anything and everything they can to win, so long as they're not caught. A large part of their success depends on remaining in the good graces of the court (judges), so they'll protect that very well while maintaining that upstanding facade in court, yet drop it in a heartbeat to intimidate opponent's lawyers and their client's adversaries. I've witnessed lawyers spinning bald-faced lies in court, only to claim they made and error and step right back out of that cow-pattie when admissible and credible evidence was presented contesting their lies. How? "May it please the court, it appears counsel for the Plaintiff (them) has made an error. I'd like to request a 15-minute recess to reassess the facts." (or something about 90% like this)

One of my neighbors was a lawyer, and a darned good one, while at the same time being one of the good ones. He worked his way through the civilian ranks, mainly as a public defender, until he was chosen to join the state prosecution's team. He said he was lucky, as the guy who ran the department didn't tolerate skanks, and one's career wasn't dependant on the number of wins, but on the achievement of justice, in the original sense meant by our Founding Fathers. If someone appeared to actually be innocent, they did what they could to ensure that the innocent person received true justice from the system and was acquitted or dismissed, if at all possible. If the individual was clearly guilty, they'd go after him/her with everything they had, but even then, they'd still color inside the lines, preferring to err on the side that it's better to let a guilty person go free than to send an innocent one to jail.

He also related that he'd trust about one out of seven of the others in his graduating class from law school, because that 14.29% had integrity. The rest, however, did not.

Shortly after 9/11, he joined the service as he was proud of our Country, and wanted to serve it in the best capacity in which he was capable. About half way through his committment, being on the inside of the system, he surmised that the 1:7 ratio he'd encountered in the civilian world was much worse in the service, and was simply riding out his last few years until he could rejoin the ranks of those in the justice system who're actually making a positive difference by continuing to adhere to such archaic principles of justice and integrity.

Politicians and their LEA's took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and they don't. They don't even understand what they're actually swearing to.

Click to expand...

Some do! Some don't.

For them... it's all about authority. But... that authority is derived from the people... not them. What's been created is a two-tiered culture of 'them' and 'us'. It's tyranny.

Click to expand...

Years ago, The People of the United States of America would never elect someone like Obama, not because he's black, but because he's arrogant. The problem is, arrogant people don't recognize when others are being arrogant. It takes a humble person to recognize that, and humility doesn't come easy. It's rarely without a price, although that price can be the genuine humility exhibited by a good parent.

You're absolutely correct in that authority is derived from the people. The problem is, most people no longer know what to look for in a President or Congressman, because they, themselves, have lost their way. As a result, instead of electing someone who is eminently capable, they elect an arrogant, misguided, and errantly-educated individual and his team who wind up doing far more harm than good before turning around and demanding answers as to why things are going to pot when they themselves were the cause. Cover up? Or is it that they simply don't get it?

People will accept tyranny having known no other culture. They will accept tyranny if they have no clear understanding of, nor appreciation for their own rights.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth!

Then there are those who will lick whatever hand pays them. In that they are only mercenaries for the political tyranny which hired them under color of law.

Click to expand...

And often beyond the color of law. However, as I mentioned earlier, if they can get away with it...

Some... far too many think that the government gives them whatever rights they have. I've read as much on this forum from time to time. That's the way it's taught and percieved. It's a deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.

Click to expand...

There are precisely three classes of people who perpetuate this lie:

1. Government officials who are more concerned about garnering power and advancing their agenda than they are adhering to their oaths of office and serving the needs of the people.

2. People who are more concerned about garnering a larger slice of the public pie regardless of the expense to others.

3. Enemies of the state who would like nothing better than to see this "Great Experiment" come tumbling down.

I'd love to mention categories and names for these three groups, but that would incite a riot. Instead, let me just say this: Examine yourself! If you're not one of them, you're one of us, We the People.

If you read 1, 2, and 3, and feel a peace in your heart that, "yeah, I'm doing the right thing," then you probably are indeed doing the right thing, and are part of the solution rather than the problem.

On the other hand, if you're incensed at either 1, 2, or 3, then you may just be a member of 1, 2, or 3, and have been contributing to the problem instead of helping solve it.

Remember, I never mentioned either names or categories. Only principles, and those principles happen to be some of which upon our beloved United States of America was founded.