• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An interesting perspective: Open Carry actually IS legal in all states

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Now let me preface this post by saying that I believe in States' Rights, and I do not necessarily agree with this perspective as of the time of the writing of this post. I guess I am just entertaining ideas. I would love to hear others' thoughts on the following post I copy+pasted from a comment section on another site, especially that of practicing lawyers/judges.

"Supreme Court Ruling –
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed.”

Ruling –
The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons. To do so would be a violation of the Second Amendment right to carry weapons for self-defense. As there was no proof that Nunn had been carrying his pistol concealed, the conviction was overturned.

Conclusion –
No matter what State you live in they can’t stop you from carrying your gun openly!! They can only make you get a permit to have a CCW permit. Cops hate open carry but love CCW. Why!?!? If I was a cop and coming up to someone I’d sure like to see and know he is armed before I interact with him. That way I know right away that I could get shot. If they CCW I have no idea that they do have a gun and can shoot me anytime! I also wouldn’t know they had a gun before I start interacting with the person. Is it better to KNOW someone has a grenade and has pulled the pin or is it better for me to NOT KNOW someone has a grenade and has pulled the pin?"

Source: http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/03/19/fourth-circuit-gets-it-right-on-open-carry/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Some blocking out with quotes and other hints as to who is writing what would make it easier to figure out what you are commenting about, other than Nunn v State. For example, I'm pretty sure what follows the heading "Conclusion" is not from the court ruling but because it is not set off and attribution noted it looks like it is.

stay safe.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Seems pretty clear to me.

While I appreciate the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does specifically protect open carry, I disagree that it does not protect concealed carry. Additionally, I believe that even if the Second Amendment does not protect concealed carry, it's still a right and there would still be an obligation to respect that right.

As to whether or not it's legal... well, even if it technically is (such as if the prohibitions were invalid, being unconstitutional), I know that if I OC in Texas right now I will have a long and expensive road of proceedings ahead of me :D
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
States' don't have rights, they have limited authorities.

The people (human being type thus far) have rights.

Get that straight first.

states' rights

The rights belonging to the various states, especially with reference to the strict interpretation of the constitution, by which all rights not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/states+rights

States' Rights
A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States'+Rights
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
State can also refer to the people in the state, Madison used 3 different variation of the word state. When they talked about state rights it referred to the people who make up the state if I remember correctly.

Wasn't this a state supreme court decision. So only really applies to that state.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
states' rights

A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States'+Rights

This is my interpretation of the term. You all will find it is my strong belief that States do indeed have Rights, Rights that may not be infringed upon by the Federal Government for any reason other than Unconstitutionality.

Freedom1Man said:
States' don't have rights, they have limited authorities.

The people (human being type thus far) have rights.

Get that straight first.

Would you care to oblige as to how you came to such a conclusion?
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
This is my interpretation of the term. You all will find it is my strong belief that States do indeed have Rights, Rights that may not be infringed upon by the Federal Government for any reason other than Unconstitutionality.



Would you care to oblige as to how you came to such a conclusion?

States are not living, they have no intelligences, you cannot make a state bleed.

I will agree that the the federal government has no authority to generally interfere with the smaller governments.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
States are not living, they have no intelligences, you cannot make a state bleed.

I will agree that the the federal government has no authority to generally interfere with the smaller governments.

Each state represents the people through the election process - the state is a legal entity.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Each state represents the people through the election process - the state is a legal entity.

As long as we agree that states are not humans, I will concede that states have rights. I will however not agree that state rights trump human rights.

If you're going to use the legal entity argument then corporates should be receiving ballots in the mail for voting.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
As long as we agree that states are not humans, I will concede that states have rights. I will however not agree that state rights trump human rights.

If you're going to use the legal entity argument then corporates should be receiving ballots in the mail for voting.

I agree 100%:dude:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--

If you're going to use the legal entity argument then corporates should be receiving ballots in the mail for voting.

Corporate entities depend upon their structure - if one holds preferred stock v. common stock there is ample opportunity for input via shareholders meetings. Although I am not familiar with any that vote through USPS.

We are going to far astray from the OP I fear.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Well I'll take this moment to address part of my own post...

"and not such as are used by the militia,"

I'm wondering what exactly this means. 'Tis a quite broad statement...
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
states' rights

The rights belonging to the various states, especially with reference to the strict interpretation of the constitution, by which all rights not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/states+rights

States' Rights
A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States'+Rights

I do believe the ACTUAL Constitutional phrase on this is very similar to this.... "reserved to the various States or the people." Personally, I strongly believe it is of UTMOST importance to include "the People" on this phrase EVERY TIME it is quoted otherwise the PEOPLE, State or Federal Government will be misled!
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
In spite of that ruling, Illinois still makes it illegal to OC anywhere except on your own property (home or business).

I think the point of the OP is to say they actually can't rightfully make it illegal and I would agree. Article six of the Constitution states clear as a bell

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

By this we see the states are bound by the federal Constitution and where we get the idea that anything not legislated by the federal Constitution can be legislated by the state/city etc. However the Constitution has already legislated the bearing of arms and limited all government at every level and prohibited them from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the ruling quoted as well as the one i've quoted several times affirms the unquestioning right to bear arms whether concealed or openly.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

To sum up, no law limiting the bearing of arms has any genuine power and those that enforce such laws are in violation of the Constitution as well as the people who are foolish enough to submit to it are submitting to something that Constitutionally has no force whatsoever. This also goes to show just how low law enforcement as well as the justice system has sunk if it's assumed they have the right to make such rulings and thus makes it foolish to try to fight these rulings through the courts as they do not honor nor respect the Constitution. Therefore it is up to us, the People to enforce the Constitution, insisting and demanding the rights we already have.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I think the point of the OP is to say they actually can't rightfully make it illegal and I would agree. Article six of the Constitution states clear as a bell



By this we see the states are bound by the federal Constitution and where we get the idea that anything not legislated by the federal Constitution can be legislated by the state/city etc. However the Constitution has already legislated the bearing of arms and limited all government at every level and prohibited them from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the ruling quoted as well as the one i've quoted several times affirms the unquestioning right to bear arms whether concealed or openly.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

To sum up, no law limiting the bearing of arms has any genuine power and those that enforce such laws are in violation of the Constitution as well as the people who are foolish enough to submit to it are submitting to something that Constitutionally has no force whatsoever. This also goes to show just how low law enforcement as well as the justice system has sunk if it's assumed they have the right to make such rulings and thus makes it foolish to try to fight these rulings through the courts as they do not honor nor respect the Constitution. Therefore it is up to us, the People to enforce the Constitution, insisting and demanding the rights we already have.

Here, here!
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I think the point of the OP is to say they actually can't rightfully make it illegal and I would agree. Article six of the Constitution states clear as a bell



By this we see the states are bound by the federal Constitution and where we get the idea that anything not legislated by the federal Constitution can be legislated by the state/city etc. However the Constitution has already legislated the bearing of arms and limited all government at every level and prohibited them from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the ruling quoted as well as the one i've quoted several times affirms the unquestioning right to bear arms whether concealed or openly.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

To sum up, no law limiting the bearing of arms has any genuine power and those that enforce such laws are in violation of the Constitution as well as the people who are foolish enough to submit to it are submitting to something that Constitutionally has no force whatsoever. This also goes to show just how low law enforcement as well as the justice system has sunk if it's assumed they have the right to make such rulings and thus makes it foolish to try to fight these rulings through the courts as they do not honor nor respect the Constitution. Therefore it is up to us, the People to enforce the Constitution, insisting and demanding the rights we already have.

Good luck.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Good luck.

The lack of any real, meaningful response is very telling. This seems to be the catch-all phrase used when a person disagrees but isn't willing to explain themselves. That or 'stay safe'. So tell me, what exactly is wrong with the the ideas of the OP and myself? Why can't you simply agree with the Constitution as it's written, plain as day? For that matter why doesn't anyone who isn't a raving liberal?
 
Top