Something I've noticed regarding CC vs OC supporters

[mdak06]

If concealed was a right there would be NO concealed carry permits. It would have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago, as well as concealed weapons laws. The intent of the 2A was and always has been deterrence, not stealth.

If you're suggesting that the US Supreme Court rules correctly on the constitutionality of all issues, I have to disagree.


The US Supreme Court has said, among other things:

* A farmer who is growing wheat on his own field to be used on his own farm is still "affecting interstate commerce" because if he instead bought wheat from someone else, that would affect the price of wheat across state lines, and therefore his decision to grow his own wheat affects interstate commerce. (Wickard v. Filburn)

* Higher tax revenue is a sufficient "public use" excuse for a government to confiscate a private property and give it to other private interests. (Kelo v. City of New London)

* An innocent property owner may have their property seized by the government if someone else committed a "crime" with it. (Bennis v. Michigan)

* Innocent people can be imprisoned in camps, as long as they're the "wrong race." (Korematsu v. U.S.)


The USSC has, at times, behaved horribly with regard to protecting constitutional rights. The fact that they haven't protected CC or OC very well most of the time is not a reliable indicator that CC should not be protected and is somehow not included in "the right to keep and bear arms."

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you're suggesting that the US Supreme Court rules correctly on the constitutionality of all issues, I have to disagree.


The US Supreme Court has said, among other things:

* A farmer who is growing wheat on his own field to be used on his own farm is still "affecting interstate commerce" because if he instead bought wheat from someone else, that would affect the price of wheat across state lines, and therefore his decision to grow his own wheat affects interstate commerce. (Wickard v. Filburn)

* Higher tax revenue is a sufficient "public use" excuse for a government to confiscate a private property and give it to other private interests. (Kelo v. City of New London)

* An innocent property owner may have their property seized by the government if someone else committed a "crime" with it. (Bennis v. Michigan)

* Innocent people can be imprisoned in camps, as long as they're the "wrong race." (Korematsu v. U.S.)


The USSC has, at times, behaved horribly with regard to protecting constitutional rights. The fact that they haven't protected CC or OC very well most of the time is not a reliable indicator that CC should not be protected and is somehow not included in "the right to keep and bear arms."

The use of the word "bear" in colonial times had nothing to do with hide, conceal, it had to do with display. Concealed weapon laws were written early in the history of our nation. And yet as the ink was still drying on the BOR the courts held up concealed weapons laws. There is plenty in history to show that concealed carry was the practice, of gamblers, sneaks, and criminals.

Again the purpose of 2A was never self defense, it was a deterrent to foreign and domestic tyrants. If there is a right to conceal carry it is embedded in other enumerated rights, not 2A. 2A is purely about protecting the people from government. If we wish for the constitution to be interpreted as it is written and not as progressive judges and politicians wish it to be, we have to stop doing it ourselves.

If anyone truly believes that concealed carry is a right, then tear up your permission slip and throw it away. Because if you use one you do not believe it yourself.

 

[eye95]

Belief is thinking that the daredevil pushing a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a high-wire will make it to the other side.

Faith is climbing in the barrow.

Just a random thought recalled because of the above post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[RandomGS]

Carry is a right that has constitutional protection. Concealment is not so protected and is, therefore, subject to regulation by the State (or protection by its constitution), making it a privilege in most States.

They are two separate acts. Thinking of them that way gives amazing clarity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I am new here, and for many years - back to the 80's, CC'd only. I could count the times I have open carried on one hand. (I will get better...) But let me challenge your statement a small bit. The Keeping and bearing of arms is a right, the basis of which precedes the forming of our government. Concealment is not mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, or the Anti-Federalist Papers. Bearing is the right. Visibility, yes or no, is not mentioned, and setting a requirement there is a significant limit on our rights, whichever way your local government, state, or Supreme Court rules.

Just my $0.02. Open Carry, Concealed Carry, or No Carry, by the citizen's choice and decision, are all perfectly good options, and should be supported.

 

[eye95]

Neither is brandishing mentioned in any of those documents. Shall we argue that that is a valid means of carry, and that, therefore, bars on brandishing are limits on the right? Of course not.

At the time of the founding (and until amazingly recently), concealment was considered an evil act and was not at all thought of as part of the protected right.

Thinking of concealment as part of the right is a trick played on us by the government and the NRA, the trick that brought us licensed carry.

The right is to carry. Fight for that, not for the separate act of concealment--at least not until we have reclaimed the actual right.

 

[MackTheKnife]

Neither is brandishing mentioned in any of those documents. Shall we argue that that is a valid means of carry, and that, therefore, bars on brandishing are limits on the right? Of course not.

At the time of the founding (and until amazingly recently), concealment was considered an evil act and was not at all thought of as part of the protected right.

Thinking of concealment as part of the right is a trick played on us by the government and the NRA, the trick that brought us licensed carry.

The right is to carry. Fight for that, not for the separate act of concealment--at least not until we have reclaimed the actual right.

You are starting to remind me of Beretta92Lady-not a good thing. You seem to think that OC is the only thing supported by the Constitution. You talk about what was commonplace during colonial Times and have made somewhat myopic remarks about CC since it wasn't "cool" during those times. We are in different times. There was no Internet back then but we have it now and the 1st Amendment still applies and is just as relevant to this discussion. OC and CC are two EQUAL forms of applying the right to bear arms. If you want to live in the past, as to what was done back then, buy a conflict, powder, and ball and OC that.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[MackTheKnife]

OOPS! Autocorrect sucks! Flintlock, not conflict.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[WalkingWolf]

You are starting to remind me of Beretta92Lady-not a good thing. You seem to think that OC is the only thing supported by the Constitution. You talk about what was commonplace during colonial Times and have made somewhat myopic remarks about CC since it wasn't "cool" during those times. We are in different times. There was no Internet back then but we have it now and the 1st Amendment still applies and is just as relevant to this discussion. OC and CC are two EQUAL forms of applying the right to bear arms. If you want to live in the past, as to what was done back then, buy a conflict, powder, and ball and OC that.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

Do you have a concealed carry license or permit?

 

[MackTheKnife]

Do you have a concealed carry license or permit?

Yes. I live in Florida where OC is illegal. Why do you ask?

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[WalkingWolf]

Yes. I live in Florida where OC is illegal. Why do you ask?

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

Because if you conceal with a permit or license you do not believe that concealed carry is a right. Or you would not ask for permission.

 

[MKEgal]

Because if you conceal with a permit or license you do not believe that concealed carry is a right. Or you would not ask for permission.

I do believe it's a right, but my government does not.
And since they can use unlimited force & punishment to make people conform to their ideas, I need to either have unlimited money (to pay attorneys to fight the unconstitutional arrests) or have a rights permit while I work toward getting my legislators (at various levels) to get the gov't out of my rights.

Heck, I've even been arrested for doing things which are perfectly legal. Nothing bad happened to the officers who made the false arrests & lied in reports & under oath.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I do believe it's a right, but my government does not.
And since they can use unlimited force & punishment to make people conform to their ideas, I need to either have unlimited money (to pay attorneys to fight the unconstitutional arrests) or have a rights permit while I work toward getting my legislators (at various levels) to get the gov't out of my rights.

Heck, I've even been arrested for doing things which are perfectly legal. Nothing bad happened to the officers who made the false arrests & lied in reports & under oath.

Black was arrested for unlicensed concealed carry as well as being a felon, the arrest was rule unconstitutional. The 4th amendment gives the person to be secure in their person, the 5th protects the person from self incrimination. There can be no arrest unless police have RAS. Either concealed carry is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a right there is no need for permission.

It's simple if a person feels it is right, petition the court. So far the only suits have been for the right to a privilege indicating that people do not really believe CC is a right.

 

[MackTheKnife]

Because if you conceal with a permit or license you do not believe that concealed carry is a right. Or you would not ask for permission.

You are an idiot. Of course I believe it's a right. But I also obey the law. I am not going to break the law to exercise my right where a permit is required. Do you OC where the law says you can't? If not, by your logic, then you don't believe in your right to OC. Do you OC in a police station or courthouse, if in your state that's not allowed?

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[eye95]

You are starting to remind me of Beretta92Lady-not a good thing. You seem to think that OC is the only thing supported by the Constitution. You talk about what was commonplace during colonial Times and have made somewhat myopic remarks about CC since it wasn't "cool" during those times. We are in different times. There was no Internet back then but we have it now and the 1st Amendment still applies and is just as relevant to this discussion. OC and CC are two EQUAL forms of applying the right to bear arms. If you want to live in the past, as to what was done back then, buy a conflict, powder, and ball and OC that.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

I have been very clear. I don't accept the OC/CC paradigm that implies that both are simply carry. There is carry and there is concealment, two separate and separable acts.

If you carry and do not conceal, we tend to call it OC. If you carry and, as a separate act, cover the firearm up, we tend to call it CC (as though it were a single, unified act).

The 2A protects the carry, not the concealment. Historically, concealment (other than by criminals) was extremely rare. For some reason (my guess is to make carry a licensed activity), laws were passed allowing the law abiding to conceal if licensed to conceal. This behavior by carriers became so prevalent as to be confused with the simple unadorned act of carry. As I say, I suspect this was the plan all along: to get carry to be routinely licensed. In the process, they also made the license for concealment required (depending on the State) for carry in a car, for carry in or near a school, for carry in a bar--because the constitutional licensing of concealment was becoming the unconstitutional licensing of carry.

This mindset that concealment is an integral part of carry, and therefore, covered by the 2A is killing us. It is a loser argument. The winning argument is to demand that licenses for unadorned carry be eliminated. Once that constitutional battle is won, the policy battle of not requiring a license to conceal will be a much easier fight.

Get the right back. Then fight to expand privileges. Fighting for privileges is damaging the cause of fighting for rights.

 

[eye95]

You are an idiot...

You may disagree with the man, but he is far from an idiot.

Calling someone an idiot is an idiotic thing to do. Yet, I will not call you an idiot. I'll just stop trying to conduct rational discussion with you.

Moving on to discussion with others.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You are an idiot. Of course I believe it's a right. But I also obey the law. I am not going to break the law to exercise my right where a permit is required. Do you OC where the law says you can't? If not, by your logic, then you don't believe in your right to OC. Do you OC in a police station or courthouse, if in your state that's not allowed?

Razor Max Tapatalk.

Seems pretty stupid to not know that a unconstitutional law is void. So says the law revue journal and SCOTUS. Courthouse, police stations, and such are secure areas. I open carry wherever I can that is not a secure area, those places that are not a secure area I exercise my 4th and 5th amendment rights. It would also seem you do not believe in the right to be secure in your person, or property. Or maybe you oooze RAS.

Honest law abiding citizens have been concealing in States that outlaw OC, and CC for decades. Before the popularity of privilege cards without getting arrested. Most people I know have NEVER been searched by a LEO, or their vehicle. If I want to conceal a handgun, I will do it well, and not bother with a silly piece of paper. YMMV

 

[MackTheKnife]

Walkingwolf and Eye95
I don't usually resort to the pejorative but when I used the phrase idiot, I was nor being pejorative. However. I am beginning to believe that the pejorative might be correct in both of your cases. However one carries, depends on the law where you reside. I don't pick the laws, I just abide by them. You both seem to post not in fact, both in wishful thinking or postulating civil disobedience. You two are implying it's OK to open carry and if I carry CC, and believe in the 2nd Amendment, I don't really believe in the right. Sorry guys or gals, I don't have a choice but to obey the laws. Why don't you tell those in NY or MD who can't carry at all that they don't believe in the right?

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[MackTheKnife]

Seems pretty stupid to not know that a unconstitutional law is void. So says the law revue journal and SCOTUS. Courthouse, police stations, and such are secure areas. I open carry wherever I can that is not a secure area, those places that are not a secure area I exercise my 4th and 5th amendment rights. It would also seem you do not believe in the right to be secure in your person, or property. Or maybe you oooze RAS.

Honest law abiding citizens have been concealing in States that outlaw OC, and CC for decades. Before the popularity of privilege cards without getting arrested. Most people I know have NEVER been searched by a LEO, or their vehicle. If I want to conceal a handgun, I will do it well, and not bother with a silly piece of paper. YMMV

If you carry CC without a permit, where one is required, you are breaking the law. And that would potentially affect all gun owners.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You claim to be abiding by a law YOU claim is unconstitutional which makes it void. I have no problem with you and your permission slip. What I have a problem with is your claims that the permission you so willingly accept is a right. It is either a right or it is a privilege, if it is a right the law is void.

There is nothing in the US constitution that would make one believe concealed carry is a right. And much to indicate in the 2nd amendment that it is not. What is a right is to be secure in one's person and property, and the right to not self incriminate. The 4th circuit federal court got it right in Black V US.

I find extremely ironic that a person who says one thing, but does another would call others "idiot".

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you carry CC without a permit, where one is required, you are breaking the law. And that would potentially affect all gun owners.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

Not according to Black V US.

BTW if you believe that a person is breaking the law then you do not believe concealed carry is a right. Who is the idiot here?

And keep in mind that most of the rulings we have that protects our civil rights have come from people breaking the law.