Incorporation 101: The Second Amendment is no good here

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Okay, now I am going to throw a slider. Churches are tax-exempt, because taxes can be used to tax a church right out of existence. Is a Federal or State tax on firearms similar infringement??

It seems to me that the antis will try some tack to raise the price of firearms out of reach by taxation. I have previously said that one aspect of this "Obamacaare" BS is that "Public Option" premiums could contain an onerous surcharge for firearms owners on actuarial grounds. The "premiums" being - as with FDIC "premiums" nothing of the sort but (and what makes them Constitutional according to SCOTUS) rather just another damned income tax levied IAW the 16th Amendment.

We have GOT to replace this WackAMole game of a government with something that conforms to the Original Intent of the founders.

 

[since9]

imported post

The Second Amendment is a blanket statement, it does not specify to which government, Federal, State or Local, it is referring. The Tenth Amendment also implies that the Federal Constitution does have the power to regulate State governments. So my thesis, then, would state that by the wording of the Second and Tenth amendments any and all firearms laws are prohibited.

That's my take on it, as that's what "shall not be infringed" means to me, but as we're all aware, that doesn't jibe with the body of court precedence on the issue. I do agree with Scalia's take on the original intent of "bare" as that literally means to "openly hold/display/carry," as in how a cat will "bare its teeth." Therefore, in my book, the 2nd Amendment prohibits any local, state, or federal legislation from enacting any legislation which restricts the open carry of any weapon in any manner.

But hey, that's my very liberal interpretation, and I'm glad we do have some control measures in place to keep the lawbreakers and certifiables from owning/carrying firearms as well.

We have GOT to replace this WackAMole game of a government with something that conforms to the Original Intent of the founders.

I agree, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it doesn't take us several days to travel between states anymore. Issues like unrestricted and unharrassed open carry in all states would be nice, as would global reciprocity between states for concealed carry, providing the state into which one is traveling allows for concealed carry.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

since9 wrote:

The Second Amendment is a blanket statement, it does not specify to which government, Federal, State or Local, it is referring. The Tenth Amendment also implies that the Federal Constitution does have the power to regulate State governments. So my thesis, then, would state that by the wording of the Second and Tenth amendments any and all firearms laws are prohibited.

That's my take on it, as that's what "shall not be infringed" means to me, but as we're all aware, that doesn't jibe with the body of court precedence on the issue. I do agree with Scalia's take on the original intent of "bare" as that literally means to "openly hold/display/carry," as in how a cat will "bare its teeth." Therefore, in my book, the 2nd Amendment prohibits any local, state, or federal legislation from enacting any legislation which restricts the open carry of any weapon in any manner.

But hey, that's my very liberal interpretation, and I'm glad we do have some control measures in place to keep the lawbreakers and certifiables from owning/carrying firearms as well.

Your heart is in the right place, my brother, but "to B-E-A-R" means to carry about. "To B-A-R-E" on the other hand means to expose. When an animal "bares" its teeth it is a threat. When a citizen "bears" arms he is not expressing a willingness to attack but rather is simply being prepared against attack, with no threat to anyone implied.

There is a story about a candidate at officer's school to whom the instructor showed the words "Burro" and "Burrow" and asked the candidate to tell him what distinguished the one from the other. The cndidate said; "The "w".

WRONG! said the Instructor. "A B-U-R-R-O is an a$$. A B-U-R-R-O-W is a hole in the ground. And as an officer you will be expected to know the difference!"

Ah, the vagaries of English.....:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

 

[since9]

imported post

You're absolutely correct! My apologizes for not paying closer attention to the King's English! A quick trip to m-w.com would have fixed my error...

 

[thefirststrike]

imported post

jpierce wrote:

Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.opencarry.org/john/incorporation.html

I have to admit, I don't understand this. As I see it, from my reading of the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and many other historical documents, the Constitution of the United States applies to EVERYONE, in ALL CASES, against ALL government entities, whether they be federal, state or local. If it didn't, how then could aSTATE get in trouble for violating your 1st amendment right to free speech, or freedom of religion? How can there possibly be a Constitutional protection against self incrimination (ie Miranda) if it doesn't apply at the state level?

I think whatever judge made this ruling back in 1883or whenever it was, was a fool and obviously lacking inhistorical education and perspective.If the Constitution is no protection at the state level, then what good is it at all? If the state you live in can willfully violate your rights, even if the federal government can't, then there is no real protection.

What am I missing here?

Dave R

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

thefirststrike wrote:

jpierce wrote:

Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.opencarry.org/john/incorporation.html

I have to admit, I don't understand this. As I see it, from my reading of the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and many other historical documents, the Constitution of the United States applies to EVERYONE, in ALL CASES, against ALL government entities, whether they be federal, state or local. If it didn't, how then could aSTATE get in trouble for violating your 1st amendment right to free speech, or freedom of religion? How can there possibly be a Constitutional protection against self incrimination (ie Miranda) if it doesn't apply at the state level?

I think whatever judge made this ruling back in 1883or whenever it was, was a fool and obviously lacking inhistorical education and perspective.If the Constitution is no protection at the state level, then what good is it at all? If the state you live in can willfully violate your rights, even if the federal government can't, then there is no real protection.

What am I missing here?

Dave R

What you are missing is that the original intent of the founders was that this Republic was/is a union of several independent nations, much like the European Union of today except we all spoke English (back in the day) and (again back in the day) all held the same basic values. All these nations agreed to have open borders for trade (hence the "interstate Commerce Clause"; intended to ensure that one State did not charge tariffs for moving goods through it, etc). The expression back then was "the United States are in agreement that (fill the blank) would be a good idea" The language of the Bill of Rights especially reflected this; "Congress" shall pass no law for example; but where it said "no person shall be deprived" it meant everybody, and the states better lay off, too.You could pretty much tell (if you spoke English) whether the restrictions were on the Fedral Government, the States, or both. And in all cases, the words "the People" meant individual people; and "shall not be infringed" pretty plainly meant (and means) everybody by anybody.

After the War between the States, certain people took this to mean that joining the United States was like joining the Mafia - once you are in, you are in; and the expression became "The United States agrees that (fill in the blank) would be a good idea. In addition to being a horrible butchery of English grammar, it is also an horrrible butchery of the original intent of the framers.

The post-Civil War amendments, well-intended though they were, helped solidify this perversion of the Union; and now instead of a straight-up reading of the original intent we have lawyers looking for loopholes and "interpreting" the document according to the mood of the day. Add this to people having indeed found and drunk deep of the poison called "voting themselves largess from the Public Treasury" and here we are in the United States of America in the year 2010.

Still, all things considered (and especially considering the comparison of the USA to the EU); I find that the :celebrateof being an American Citizen far outweighs the :banghead: Somehow we always manage to muddle through, and face it: NOBODY is EVER going to call Haiti for assistance if a twister hits. Throughout my life I have seen nation upon nation make a podium of boxes marked "Aid from the United States of America", and step onto that podium to denounce us.

Oh, pardon me. My Nationalism is showing....

 

[thefirststrike]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

thefirststrike wrote:

jpierce wrote:

Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.opencarry.org/john/incorporation.html

I have to admit, I don't understand this. As I see it, from my reading of the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and many other historical documents, the Constitution of the United States applies to EVERYONE, in ALL CASES, against ALL government entities, whether they be federal, state or local. If it didn't, how then could aSTATE get in trouble for violating your 1st amendment right to free speech, or freedom of religion? How can there possibly be a Constitutional protection against self incrimination (ie Miranda) if it doesn't apply at the state level?

I think whatever judge made this ruling back in 1883or whenever it was, was a fool and obviously lacking inhistorical education and perspective.If the Constitution is no protection at the state level, then what good is it at all? If the state you live in can willfully violate your rights, even if the federal government can't, then there is no real protection.

What am I missing here?

Dave R

What you are missing is that the original intent of the founders was that this Republic was/is a union of several independent nations, much like the European Union of today except we all spoke English (back in the day) and (again back in the day) all held the same basic values. All these nations agreed to have open borders for trade (hence the "interstate Commerce Clause"; intended to ensure that one State did not charge tariffs for moving goods through it, etc). The expression back then was "the United States are in agreement that (fill the blank) would be a good idea" The language of the Bill of Rights especially reflected this; "Congress" shall pass no law for example; but where it said "no person shall be deprived" it meant everybody, and the states better lay off, too.You could pretty much tell (if you spoke English) whether the restrictions were on the Fedral Government, the States, or both. And in all cases, the words "the People" meant individual people; and "shall not be infringed" pretty plainly meant (and means) everybody by anybody.

After the War between the States, certain people took this to mean that joining the United States was like joining the Mafia - once you are in, you are in; and the expression became "The United States agrees that (fill in the blank) would be a good idea. In addition to being a horrible butchery of English grammar, it is also an horrrible butchery of the original intent of the framers.

The post-Civil War amendments, well-intended though they were, helped solidify this perversion of the Union; and now instead of a straight-up reading of the original intent we have lawyers looking for loopholes and "interpreting" the document according to the mood of the day. Add this to people having indeed found and drunk deep of the poison called "voting themselves largess from the Public Treasury" and here we are in the United States of America in the year 2010.

Still, all things considered (and especially considering the comparison of the USA to the EU); I find that the :celebrateof being an American Citizen far outweighs the :banghead: Somehow we always manage to muddle through, and face it: NOBODY is EVER going to call Haiti for assistance if a twister hits. Throughout my life I have seen nation upon nation make a podium of boxes marked "Aid from the United States of America", and step onto that podium to denounce us.

Oh, pardon me. My Nationalism is showing....

Well, it seems to me that when a person a reads the Constitution, it is very clear what it says and what it means. The United States Constitution refers to the rights a person has which are being protected against governmentinfringement by the governmentof of the country we live in. Since the various individual states are all part of a bigger country known as the United States, then the various rights protected by the Constitution would be rights no matter what state you live in, because they are being protected by a national document.

In other words, the power and borders of the COUNTRY trump the power and borders of the individual states. Besides, when the tenth amendment states that "all other powers...are reserved for the people or the states..." then that to me would clearly indicate that the first ten were national in scope and could not be "overridden" by the states.

(I am probably agreeing with you, and pardon me if it seems like I am not by using your post, I am just building on what you have said).

Dave R

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

thefirststrike wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

thefirststrike wrote:

jpierce wrote:

Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.opencarry.org/john/incorporation.html

I have to admit, I don't understand this. As I see it, from my reading of the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and many other historical documents, the Constitution of the United States applies to EVERYONE, in ALL CASES, against ALL government entities, whether they be federal, state or local. If it didn't, how then could aSTATE get in trouble for violating your 1st amendment right to free speech, or freedom of religion? How can there possibly be a Constitutional protection against self incrimination (ie Miranda) if it doesn't apply at the state level?

I think whatever judge made this ruling back in 1883or whenever it was, was a fool and obviously lacking inhistorical education and perspective.If the Constitution is no protection at the state level, then what good is it at all? If the state you live in can willfully violate your rights, even if the federal government can't, then there is no real protection.

What am I missing here?

Dave R

What you are missing is that the original intent of the founders was that this Republic was/is a union of several independent nations, much like the European Union of today except we all spoke English (back in the day) and (again back in the day) all held the same basic values. All these nations agreed to have open borders for trade (hence the "interstate Commerce Clause"; intended to ensure that one State did not charge tariffs for moving goods through it, etc). The expression back then was "the United States are in agreement that (fill the blank) would be a good idea" The language of the Bill of Rights especially reflected this; "Congress" shall pass no law for example; but where it said "no person shall be deprived" it meant everybody, and the states better lay off, too.You could pretty much tell (if you spoke English) whether the restrictions were on the Fedral Government, the States, or both. And in all cases, the words "the People" meant individual people; and "shall not be infringed" pretty plainly meant (and means) everybody by anybody.

After the War between the States, certain people took this to mean that joining the United States was like joining the Mafia - once you are in, you are in; and the expression became "The United States agrees that (fill in the blank) would be a good idea. In addition to being a horrible butchery of English grammar, it is also an horrrible butchery of the original intent of the framers.

The post-Civil War amendments, well-intended though they were, helped solidify this perversion of the Union; and now instead of a straight-up reading of the original intent we have lawyers looking for loopholes and "interpreting" the document according to the mood of the day. Add this to people having indeed found and drunk deep of the poison called "voting themselves largess from the Public Treasury" and here we are in the United States of America in the year 2010.

Still, all things considered (and especially considering the comparison of the USA to the EU); I find that the :celebrateof being an American Citizen far outweighs the :banghead: Somehow we always manage to muddle through, and face it: NOBODY is EVER going to call Haiti for assistance if a twister hits. Throughout my life I have seen nation upon nation make a podium of boxes marked "Aid from the United States of America", and step onto that podium to denounce us.

Oh, pardon me. My Nationalism is showing....

Well, it seems to me that when a person a reads the Constitution, it is very clear what it says and what it means. The United States Constitution refers to the rights a person has which are being protected against governmentinfringement by the governmentof of the country we live in. Since the various individual states are all part of a bigger country known as the United States, then the various rights protected by the Constitution would be rights no matter what state you live in, because they are being protected by a national document.

In other words, the power and borders of the COUNTRY trump the power and borders of the individual states. Besides, when the tenth amendment states that "all other powers...are reserved for the people or the states..." then that to me would clearly indicate that the first ten were national in scope and could not be "overridden" by the states.

(I am probably agreeing with you, and pardon me if it seems like I am not by using your post, I am just building on what you have said).

Dave R

yes yes blah blah we all know what the constitution says. It doesn't help make things how they should be. We need to work within the system we have if we wish to affect change.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

yes yes blah blah we all know what the constitution says. It doesn't help make things how they should be. We need to work within the system we have if we wish to affect change.

True... but to what end?

We need to work within the system we have to change things one thing at a time, but the eventual goal should be the original intent, lest we allow too much compromise and become the NRA.

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

thefirststrike wrote:

jpierce wrote:

Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.opencarry.org/john/incorporation.html

I have to admit, I don't understand this. As I see it, from my reading of the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and many other historical documents, the Constitution of the United States applies to EVERYONE, in ALL CASES, against ALL government entities, whether they be federal, state or local. If it didn't, how then could aSTATE get in trouble for violating your 1st amendment right to free speech, or freedom of religion? How can there possibly be a Constitutional protection against self incrimination (ie Miranda) if it doesn't apply at the state level?

I think whatever judge made this ruling back in 1883or whenever it was, was a fool and obviously lacking inhistorical education and perspective.If the Constitution is no protection at the state level, then what good is it at all? If the state you live in can willfully violate your rights, even if the federal government can't, then there is no real protection.

What am I missing here?

Dave R

What you are missing is that the original intent of the founders was that this Republic was/is a union of several independent nations, much like the European Union of today except we all spoke English (back in the day) and (again back in the day) all held the same basic values. All these nations agreed to have open borders for trade (hence the "interstate Commerce Clause"; intended to ensure that one State did not charge tariffs for moving goods through it, etc). The expression back then was "the United States are in agreement that (fill the blank) would be a good idea" The language of the Bill of Rights especially reflected this; "Congress" shall pass no law for example; but where it said "no person shall be deprived" it meant everybody, and the states better lay off, too.You could pretty much tell (if you spoke English) whether the restrictions were on the Fedral Government, the States, or both. And in all cases, the words "the People" meant individual people; and "shall not be infringed" pretty plainly meant (and means) everybody by anybody.

What you're describing in the first part of your statement was the pre-Constitution days, under the Articles of Confederation. As you may recall from the history books, that didn't work out so well.

The Constitution was originally designed primarily as a check on the powers of the Feds. That's the whole reason for the 9th & 10th amendments. There wouldn't be any point otherwise. The statement, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" would be contradictory if the Constitution had been intended to refer to all levels of government.

Here's Article I, Section 10. Do you see anything in there that would prohibit states from implementing modern gun control? And by the way, please notice the last paragraph, where it says, "No state shall, without the consent of Congress. . . ." That right there blows your theory of "a union of several independent nations" right out of the water.

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

yes yes blah blah we all know what the constitution says. It doesn't help make things how they should be. We need to work within the system we have if we wish to affect change.

True... but to what end?

We need to work within the system we have to change things one thing at a time, but the eventual goal should be the original intent, lest we allow too much compromise and become the NRA.

Yes +1

 

[LeagueOf1291]

imported post

The Constitution of the United States regulates the authority of the federal government in its relation to the states. In general, the basic framework sees the states and the individual citizens of the states as the repository of all rights, and grants the federal government 18 specifically enumerated powers that were deemed necessary for it to function as a federation of the states.

In practice we've strayed a long way from this framework. The federal government now exercises all kinds of powers it was not granted, but we're so used to it we don't even notice.

Often we argue over the goodness of a law without first asking whether it should be a law of the state as opposed to the federal government. So we might say a law regulating food quality is good, but never address whether it is good for the federal government to regulate it. That's a terrible mistake, and one that has deprived us of many liberties.

 

[Superlite27]

imported post

WRONG! said the Instructor. "A B-U-R-R-O is an a$$. A B-U-R-R-O-W is a hole in the ground.

I live in a burrough. It's like a hole in the ground.

If there's a bunch of @$$es living in holes in the ground in places like where I live........would this be burros in burrows in burroughs?

If these @$$es work for the FBI, what would that make them?

If they died, where would you bury these burros in bureaus in burrows in burroughs?

In barrows?

What if these barrows were loaned to them?

I've gotta quit. Must......stop.....thinking.......

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

WRONG! said the Instructor. "A B-U-R-R-O is an a$$. A B-U-R-R-O-W is a hole in the ground.

I live in a burrough. It's like a hole in the ground.

If there's a bunch of @$$es living in holes in the ground in places like where I live........would this be burros in burrows in burroughs?

If these @$$es work for the FBI, what would that make them?

If they died, where would you bury these burros in bureaus in burrows in burroughs?

In barrows?

What if these barrows were loaned to them?

I've gotta quit. Must......stop.....thinking.......

burros, from bureaus in burrows, in borrowed barrows in burroughs? :celebrate

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

burros, from bureaus in burrows, in borrowed barrows in burroughs? :celebrate

Standagainst incorporation into bureau - burrow - borrowed barrow - burroughs.

Sincerely,

The Burro

 

[buster81]

imported post

Is this guy on something, or onto something?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/GUNSGAT16_20100216-131601/324647/

Posted by wpanak on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 am


Here is what I think has happened and will happen:

Scalia wrote Heller to make his life easy. He has been planning for this for many years, as long as there has been a “shall issue” movement across the states that was making more work for him than was needed.

He now can state that self-protection in the home through the use of a functional handgun is constitutionally protected, and cite Heller to show that he says so, so it is so.

He can, and will, incorporate the 2nd amendment upon the states when the timing (eg., the test case) is right. This may really upset people in New York, but Vermonters will be happy. That could happen as soon as this year, depending on the Illinois case. One thing for sure—it certainly won’t happen until Scalia sees that he will get an un-opposed hat trick slam dunk.

And at that time Scalia will simply reference that there is no tradition for broad sanctioning of CCW, but rather a prohibition that predates the US Constitution, and just as yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater is not constitutionally protected, CCW has no basis in law under the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia will indicate that open carry must be protected. Thus, he will be consistent in his citation of Nunn within the Heller ruling.

Thus the hodgepodge of state laws on CCW that have created a true hassle for the courts will be wiped away. Obliterated by a uniform federal prohibition on CCW. Vermonters who carry concealed will then be angry, but in general a lot of people will be pleased that the mess of state-level CCW laws were invalidated in one fast act of Scalia’s pen.

Then, if people want a concealed weapons law, they will have to develop one uniform law at the federal level where reciprocity across states and municipalities is not longer relevant, because it is a federal law, and the application process can be aligned with the federal background check database so that background checks are uniform and meaningful.

In order to pass constitutional review, it will have to be stronger than “shall issue” because “shall issue” does not yield a traditional use of firearms, but rather facilitates gunbearing that resembles a spy or assassin.

And then Scalia will enjoy his next vacation, knowing he has made life a lot easier for himself and the rest of the courts all the way down to local municipalities that struggle with the hodgepodge of CCW laws.

The End.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

I think Mr. Justice Scalia is a much more complex personality than you think he is. I don't think he would rule in such a manner as to make CCW illegal nationwide, but he might be okay with letting states set their own standards for CCW. I am pretty sure he would be in favor of national open carry as part of the "to ...bear" part of the 2A.

What has to be remembered is that a large segment of the left would like to hold a Constitutional Convention to try and re-write the National Charter. OMG the mess that would result from that! Imagine a yammering mob of fools from every fringe group from Greenpeace to the National Stormfront mixed in with milquetoast middle-roaders trying to draft a new Constitution with all kinds of stuff like the "right to a house" and "the right to food" written in. The preamble would have to say: "Dear Ben: As it turns out we couldn't keep the Republic after all..."

Imagine if the Supremes had voted to protect kiddie porn. Imagine the convulsion that would have followed that ruling. Every parent in the country would have been suceptible to being led mooing and lowing all the way to a Constitutional Convention, ostensibly to change the document to (what else?) "protect our children"; not knowing that once started a Constitutional Convention is impossible to stop no matter what fruitcake turn it may take. (and the way this society is going, the "new Constitution" could concievably wind up explicitly protecting kiddie-diddlers).

That is why the Supremes are so darn careful on hot-button issues. And it is why using the courts should be a last resort. And why we all need to think very seriously before we vote for the officials who appoint and confirm the judges.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Washington State's supreme court ruled the 2a does apply to our state. !!!!!

 

[Rush Creek]

imported post

Hopefullya favorable ruling by the Supreme Court on the Chicago case willexpand the opinionin Heller that the inherent right to defend one's self from criminal threat with a handgun may be exercised inside the home - to include anywhere that a person may be confronted bycriminal threat. That having been said, Scalia clearly left the door open to public OC in Heller even though that wasn't at issue in the case.

Heller shredded the Texasnotion [TPC 46.02] that a handgun is not protected under the Second Amendment.The standard now needs to be extended past the threshold of the home.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

I'm in Tennessee and would be pleased if I didn't have to pay and jump through hoops for the privilege to open carry a loaded handgun. Unfortunately until the 2nd Amendment is incorporated the Tennessee Constitution allows the TN Legislature to regulate the carry of arms.