Y2K
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I sincerely apologize for the blue icon. I didn't mean to tip anyone off. Thanks.
I sincerely apologize for the blue icon. I didn't mean to tip anyone off. Thanks.
I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?Max wrote:The story goes that conceal carry was banned in Wisconsin 135 years ago because it was thought that carrying a concealed weapon was dubious behavior and it gave a conceal carrier an unknown advantage over an unarmed person. If you carried a weapon, you should let everyone know you are armed, was the philosophy of the time.
Not sure when CC became 'legal' in AZ... but it was for the exact same reason. A person openly bearing arms was obviously 'heeled' to the awareness of all. Carrying concealed was considered'sneaky'. Of course the weather (here) is still the driving dictator of open carry, whereas Wisconson wouldbe the near opposite for the same reason for a good percentage of the year.
Concealed carry is not Constitutionally protected... therefore 'permit' under 10A is issued by individualstates. AK and VT being exceptions, but again... it's a 10A thing.
I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?
Notso wrote:I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?
Maybe my thinking isn't correct but I guess one could argue that the constitution requires that you are allowed to carry. Allowing you to legally open carry means that restricting the right to concealed carry (albeit a bitsuspect) could be construed as constitutional.
[snip]
So, in this way you could probably define Open carry as the right and Concealed Carry as a privilege.
Trigger Dr wrote:Then all hunters will be in violation? Not gonna happen.Be careful that if and when legislation is passed, that OC is prohibited in the law.
The excellent essay by Clayton Cramer entitled "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" provides insights into this. It can be read at several on line sources including <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html>.In the old days, CCW laws were passed to FORCE people to carry onpenly!
Can you provide more information (sources) about this? I would like to read up on this.
Thanks.
Actually I am DEAD RIGHT! what if SCOTUS had 9 crooked judges and they decided that you have no free speech or freedom of religion and no right to defend your self (no guns) for example then following your logic we don't have RIGHTS becuase a bunch of men can tell you what RIGHTS you have or not and that is FALSE, RIGHTS are inalienable, we don't get granted rights from government or courts of law. RIGHTS are inseperable from us as individuals! We always have and have had RIGHTS and the Bill of RIGHTS were only established to acknowledge that we have RIGHTS and to protect them, Would anyone else in the forum care to explain perhaps more eloquently than I have to HarryCari what RIGHTS really are???NewZealandAmerican wrote:
Now just remember, because a court or the supreme court rules that a Right is "this or that" does not necessarily make it so.
You are 100% dead wrong. If the SCOTUS sez something is a right then that's what it is. If the SCOTUS sez something is NOT a right, then it ain't a right. The SCOTUS sez what the constitution is and we can wail against that untill the cows come home but that is NOT going to change.
Actually I am DEAD RIGHT! what if SCOTUS had 9 crooked judges and they decided that you have no free speech or freedom of religion and no right to defend your self (no guns) for example then following your logic we don't have RIGHTS becuase a bunch of men can tell you what RIGHTS you have or not and that is FALSE, RIGHTS are inalienable, we don't get granted rights from government or courts of law. RIGHTS are inseperable from us as individuals! We always have and have had RIGHTS and the Bill of RIGHTS were only established to acknowledge that we have RIGHTS and to protect them, Would anyone else in the forum care to explain perhaps more eloquently than I have to HarryCari what RIGHTS really are???NewZealandAmerican wrote:
Now just remember, because a court or the supreme court rules that a Right is "this or that" does not necessarily make it so.
You are 100% dead wrong. If the SCOTUS sez something is a right then that's what it is. If the SCOTUS sez something is NOT a right, then it ain't a right. The SCOTUS sez what the constitution is and we can wail against that untill the cows come home but that is NOT going to change.
You are 100% dead wrong. If the SCOTUS sez something is a right then that's what it is. If the SCOTUS sez something is NOT a right, then it ain't a right. The SCOTUS sez what the constitution is and we can wail against that untill the cows come home but that is NOT going to change.
AMEN Hugh! Very well put. I should hope that this clarification on what RIGHTS are for ALL human beings has hopefully schooled HariCarry!Our founding fathers recognized that we as human beings have rights. We don't have rights as citizens of this country. We don't have rights because our government says we do. Being a human being affords us these rights.
It has always been that way. What? Do you think rights didn't exist before our country was formed? Hogwash. Rights have always existed.
Rights are not "given" by any government. HOWEVER many governments DENY our rights.
People in China have THE SAME RIGHTS WE DO. Theirs are just being denied by their government.
This is the philosophy of our founding fathers. And it is correct. Governments exist among men, deriving their powers BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
WE THE PEOPLE!
I recognize that our government (among many others) have brainwashed, usurped, and stolen many of ourrights away from us. So much so that many people now believe that rights are 'given' by government. Nothing could be further from the truth. And our founding fathers are shedding tears from the grave at how much a once free nation has discarded its principles at the hands of a few thousand individuals over the years who, through government, have stolen the rights away from MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of their fellow men in THEIR personal quest for power and control and desire to force their personal desires on other people.
You are 100% dead wrong. If the SCOTUS sez something is a right then that's what it is. If the SCOTUS sez something is NOT a right, then it ain't a right. The SCOTUS sez what the constitution is and we can wail against that untill the cows come home but that is NOT going to change.
Our founding fathers recognized that we as human beings have rights. We don't have rights as citizens of this country. We don't have rights because our government says we do. Being a human being affords us these rights.
It has always been that way. What? Do you think rights didn't exist before our country was formed? Hogwash. Rights have always existed.
Rights are not "given" by any government. HOWEVER many governments DENY our rights.
People in China have THE SAME RIGHTS WE DO. Theirs are just being denied by their government.
This is the philosophy of our founding fathers. And it is correct. Governments exist among men, deriving their powers BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
WE THE PEOPLE!
I recognize that our government (among many others) have brainwashed, usurped, and stolen many of ourrights away from us. So much so that many people now believe that rights are 'given' by government. Nothing could be further from the truth. And our founding fathers are shedding tears from the grave at how much a once free nation has discarded its principles at the hands of a few thousand individuals over the years who, through government, have stolen the rights away from MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of their fellow men in THEIR personal quest for power and control and desire to force their personal desires on other people.
Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from
bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it
is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.
Alabama has a pretty good supreme court decision describing how CC is a privilege and OC is a right:
http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open%20Carry/1_Ala._612,_1840_Ala._LEXIS_335,_.PDF
Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from
bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it
is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.
Basically. Alabama only has a right to bear arms for defense, and the only defensive way to carry is OC. CC is considered an offensive method since you 'surprise' your opponent.