Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: I think I have it - a way to make open carry legal in every state at once!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    121

    I think I have it - a way to make open carry legal in every state at once!

    Police carry guns.

    Police carry guns off duty and can carry openly in most state off duty.

    In my state, Florida, police carry guns openly on or off duty.

    The law says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Police, off duty, have the RIGHT to protect themselves. They have the right to carry. They have the right to defend themselves.

    The Supreme Court said that basic rights like the 2nd, are fundamental. That would imply that Strict scrutiny applies, and that standards is this... "the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest."

    You could argue that allowing police to carry arms while disarming citizens is a narrowly tailored law, but that would fly in the face of the Heller/McDonald decisions because the same argument would apply within the home - and was rejected, not on point but strongly implied by the decisions. My reading in McDonald would imply near enough to on point to make little difference. Plus it was one of the founders greatest fears that the government would be better armed and have a standing army over civilians... both of which are visualized in the police departments and National Guard.

    So, I would ask, if there are any legal eagles in the group, do you think a lawsuit based on equal protection of the laws - on a police officer being allowed to arm himself openly while citizens cannot - violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Why would you presume....

    That your argument trumps "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? I like your reasoning, truely, but if Legal arguments regarding the 2A do not automatically win the issue, I doubt you will find success. "Shall not be infringed" really should be enough except for the most dense idiot but it is not enough for the courts with agendas, historically. The 2A was the compromise position and the Bill of Rights is meant to limit what the government can do to soverign citizens. It does not, in the case of the 2A, say Congress shall not, or the States shall not, or that Local governments shall not, or even that private property owners shall not. It says in the plainest possible language that The Right of the people shall not be infringed. Every interpretation since that, has been a loss of our rights.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    there have been several theories put out here by people, myself included, to recognize and de-criminalize the right to open carry arms. what we're forgetting though is we don't have very many courts in this nation that make their rulings according to the written constitution. We'd already have open carry in all 50 states with no permit, were that the case.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    As designated "peace officers" LEO's have a PRESUMED NEED to be armed . Couple this presumption with the "officer safety" trump card over "citizen safety" and you have the elitist model found in most jurisdictions.

    There is the general consensus found in the case law of most states that ANYONE has the right to bear any weapon available when confronted with an immediate threat of deadly force, or serious bodily harm. That may not be the case under NJ, Md, and a couple of other marxist utopian jurisdictions, but most states allow for preservation of one's life. Problem is of course how does one predict the advent of such a threat before hand.

    In this day and age when a citizen steps out of their residence they are a potential victim of any predatory criminal who happens to cross their path.

    Didn't Justice Clarence Thomas put forth essentially the same argument as GIdeon has presented in his concurring opinion in McDonald ?

  5. #5
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    As designated "peace officers" LEO's have a PRESUMED NEED to be armed . Couple this presumption with the "officer safety" trump card over "citizen safety" and you have the elitist model found in most jurisdictions.
    What is the 'presumed need' and why don't other citizens have it?


    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    In this day and age when a citizen steps out of their residence they are a potential victim of any predatory criminal who happens to cross their path.
    Don't forget home invasions. The horrific trauma of an attack with the convenience of home delivery!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    As designated "peace officers" LEO's have a PRESUMED NEED to be armed . Couple this presumption with the "officer safety" trump card over "citizen safety" and you have the elitist model found in most jurisdictions.

    There is the general consensus found in the case law of most states that ANYONE has the right to bear any weapon available when confronted with an immediate threat of deadly force, or serious bodily harm. That may not be the case under NJ, Md, and a couple of other marxist utopian jurisdictions, but most states allow for preservation of one's life. Problem is of course how does one predict the advent of such a threat before hand.

    In this day and age when a citizen steps out of their residence they are a potential victim of any predatory criminal who happens to cross their path.

    Didn't Justice Clarence Thomas put forth essentially the same argument as GIdeon has presented in his concurring opinion in McDonald ?
    With that reasoning i should be able to carry openly simply because i was deployed all over the world. Made enemies of Islamic Extremists groups all over the world because i was forced to wear a name tag by the army while on Missions in Iraq. So with that reasoning that because he is a cop and people may not like him because of it, so he is granted open carry because his job is oh so dangerous nonsense. It should apply to all Active and former military that were deployed in hot combat zones. There are records all over the place stating that i deployed. Why should I be any different than a cop. Of course i believe all Legal Lawful Citizens have a right to carry also. Also most active duty military infantry units are trained far more extensively than cops and covers much broader situations. Hell most of the active Army support units are trained better than most cops. Most cops do not even know the meaning of escalation of force. Just saying their reasoning is flawed.
    Last edited by 101st Airborne Combat Vet; 08-26-2011 at 03:19 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Just remember the reasoning.....

    Of anyone looking to give permission to any portion of society, LEOs, Armed Forces, etc. is planning on restricting it for the public at large. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, damnit! Rant over.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes
    Don't forget home invasions. The horrific trauma of an attack with the convenience of home delivery!
    Is it wrong that I laughed at that?
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    How about if Law Enforcement can carry across the country, and I can't. Then that's a 14th Amendment violation for equal enforcement and protection under the laws. I have heard of people using that defense and getting speeding tickets dismissed.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  10. #10
    Regular Member MiaStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Raleigh-Durham, NC
    Posts
    23

    Thumbs up

    [QUOTE=MyWifeSaidYes;1597654]What is the 'presumed need' and why don't other citizens have it?



    Don't forget home invasions. The horrific trauma of an attack with the convenience of home delivery![/QUOTE]

    LOL I was thinking the SAME thing. It goes back to the "officers and reps of the gov't are superior to regular old people" attitude and thinking. As a result of that thinking, we continue to lose our fundamental gun rights. Home invasion is a very real threat, and yes we can't forget that; not only are we in danger when we leave our residences, but any willing burglar or criminal can kick down the door/get in through a window with enough force and try to harm you and/or your loved ones.

    Thankful the New Castle Doctrine will be in effect here (NC) Dec. 1, 2011. S/N: I ALWAYS thought it was foolish the law said the armed home owner had a "duty to retreat" should someone break in and try to harm them...WTF this is MY place! WHY should I be the one running?!! SMH.

    OP, that is a great argument, but as much as I read on the law and how much I see peoples "rights" infringed upon by officers and the courts (as well as municipalities, cities, and counties trying to disarm citizens), I doubt it would fly without substantial political backing. Afterall, politicians run the courts more so than unbiased jurists do. [rolls eyes] ;o/
    Last edited by MiaStar; 09-01-2011 at 03:02 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MiaStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Raleigh-Durham, NC
    Posts
    23

    Thumbs up

    [QUOTE=101st Airborne Combat Vet;1599944]With that reasoning i should be able to carry openly simply because i was deployed all over the world. Made enemies of Islamic Extremists groups all over the world because i was forced to wear a name tag by the army while on Missions in Iraq. So with that reasoning that because he is a cop and people may not like him because of it, so he is granted open carry because his job is oh so dangerous nonsense. It should apply to all Active and former military that were deployed in hot combat zones. There are records all over the place stating that i deployed. Why should I be any different than a cop. Of course i believe all Legal Lawful Citizens have a right to carry also. Also most active duty military infantry units are trained far more extensively than cops and covers much broader situations. Hell most of the active Army support units are trained better than most cops. Most cops do not even know the meaning of escalation of force. Just saying their reasoning is flawed.[/QUOTE]

    SO right on this one. I totally agree. I see some sloppy cops, but I guess because they have taken an "oath of office" and had a lil physical training, pamphlet education they are supposed to be better than the average LLC. Puhleese! I have more law under my belt with no formal law education than most of these cops on duty. Many of our Armed men and women who are active duty and retired Vets have much more knowledge, skill, and training than your average city or county cop.

    It is a shame that they are treated like infants and have to get permission to carry concealed, especially after ALL they have sacrificed for our country. Cops don't see and react to war in the trenches. Military personnel do and have. The law definitely needs to be changed in so many areas of gun rights, its ridiculous.

    I hate this elitist crap. We should be allowed to carry open AND concealed in every State (without having to get "permission" from some honky Sheriff or the Governor). If Vermont and Alaska weren't so cold, I'd consider moving JUST for the gun laws. SMH at this.
    Last edited by MiaStar; 09-01-2011 at 03:09 AM.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Something about infringing upon a right when the 2A says, "shall not be infringed."
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    73
    .
    Last edited by Keith Cromm; 05-24-2012 at 12:15 AM.

  14. #14
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    423
    Just keep in mind that if it CAN'T be taxed or city/government can't make money off it, most likely they will make it illegal. Everything these days is about how much money can we squeeze out of our own people. I served in the Air Force and I too had complaints on certain rights as far as me being a soldier of the US Government.
    Nothing better than a Glock.........except maybe another Glock!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by DWCook View Post
    Just keep in mind that if it CAN'T be taxed or city/government can't make money off it, most likely they will make it illegal. Everything these days is about how much money can we squeeze out of our own people. I served in the Air Force and I too had complaints on certain rights as far as me being a soldier of the US Government.
    AMEN! I remember when I was station at Beal AFB, CA...they wouldn't allow us to carry on base... meaning, even though I lived on base housing... we weren't allowed to have it in the house!!! If you have any firearms, you "must" store it in a storage building.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Firedawg314 View Post
    AMEN! I remember when I was station at Beal AFB, CA...they wouldn't allow us to carry on base... meaning, even though I lived on base housing... we weren't allowed to have it in the house!!! If you have any firearms, you "must" store it in a storage building.
    You would think that government... since they allow CCWs just taging with it OC is ok as long as you have a current CCW. OR just charge for a OC permit. Just make it with a speical color badge... say red or orange color that have to be pinned next to the firearm. Its really werid... I think its an easy fix.

    I think I finally get it about the 2nd admendment. The states... "allow" us to buy guns and keep them at home. But then each state/county/city make up their own rules about how you can carry them. As a "band-aid" they allow certain people to have a CCW. But even then... the CCW is limited to; churches, schools, private property with posting, etc. Kinda defeats the purpose of CC.

    I hate to say it... if more thugs use guns to show they will always have them regardless of the laws... theirs a 50% chances of allowing citizens to openly carry without the fear of going to jail.

    I guess our main focus is to get a nationwide acceptance of CCW with the option of OCing.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    I actually like the idea, doing a nexus lexus search for the 14th might be a little broad, but time well spent if your serious. A little off the topic but on the practice. I got several helmet tix in 2 years and got to the point i was heading into the State supreme court, I wanted a constitutional case, but the helmet law stood "on it's face" in all aspects that we thought of trying. We actualy were ready to give up when I realized that its not us, it is what the officer knows at the time of the helmet stop. (probable cause) They do not know specificly what makes my helmet not compliant. We now have a Class Action in Federal Court, and my two supreme court cases are done on the helmet law (not guilty) but we are still ongoing over the fees, about $45,000.00 So my point is look into the case law, find the wormhole and go for it. write your letters and get as much info on your side as you can. it is exhausting but rewarding.
    Last edited by DON`T TREAD ON ME; 01-14-2012 at 02:06 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    One should consider the rights of the States, right? What about the States being left to their autonomous selves?

    OC should be a Federal mandate. But the States are then stripped of what might be viewed as a State issue, not a Federal issue.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    One should consider the rights of the States, right? What about the States being left to their autonomous selves?

    OC should be a Federal mandate. But the States are then stripped of what might be viewed as a State issue, not a Federal issue.
    According to the 14th Amendment, OC IS a Federal mandate:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
    However, by the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states, under what is known as the incorporation doctrine.[37] The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.[38] While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v. Carey.[39] The Seventh Amendment has been held not to be applicable to the states.[38][40]
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    One should consider the rights of the States, right? What about the States being left to their autonomous selves?

    OC should be a Federal mandate. But the States are then stripped of what might be viewed as a State issue, not a Federal issue.
    I can see your point to a certain extent... the problem I am experincing here in Missouri...Since the federal allow "OC" but the state makes it rules about it. Our state allows "open carry" but how its written here, each and every city, county make their own rules and it can change by the day. For example, where I live is OC, but you go 15minutes south and its illegal and they will throw you in jail even with a CCW lisence. it becomes a pain because so many people are use to their laws in their little city and they expect their laws to transfer to the next city/county line. I could not tell you how many people think its illegal anywhere to OC because they grew up in ST. Louis City. Some even think that a gun store sells to anyone with money and there's no rules. Honestly, many people think that. Then you can be in our state, buy as much ammo you want as long you are 18 years and older. But as soon as you cross the borader to IL, you need a permit to buy ammo. GOD help you if you have your gun in your car. WHich must be locked away in the trunk, unloaded and the ammo stored- locked away in another place. Going to IL to by ammo and leave doesn't count as travling... you must be "passing through", not stopping to shop, visit, etc. And please don't go over there to shoot at their ranges... some people will call the cops on you because you are "illegally" bringing a gun into their state. But you are allow to rent their guns and buy their high priced ammo.

    But today, i stopped at the local store by my house, bought 500 rounds of 5.56 NATO rounds with ammo can... freedom is great when you are allow to use your freedom.

  21. #21
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    The rights exist

    The Rights exist whether we are free to excercise them or not. Self Defense is a basic human Right. The use of Arms is enumerated in the Second Ammendment. Yet we celebrate when such freedoms are not restricted because it is still not viewed as the norm. Much has been lost. No level of government has the authority to restrict your access to Arms. NONE! Any restriction is a usurpartion of our rights as enumerated. Name for me the location in this country that has not restriced your rights to Arms? All governmental levels are guilty and we move on in silence. I acknowedge that many places are better and many are worse in this regard but no place is truely free. SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

Posting Permissions

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