No Right to Concealed Carry

[BogWalker]

Well if we've got the right to bear arms, and it is not to be infringed, I think that would mean any method of carrying is acceptable.

 

[traderdan]

Slow your roll, friends. We're nowhere near that.

I hope you are right...I believe we should probably have refused to tolerate the idea of being fined for not buying Obamacare. We all are hoping for the best in this nation, while being enslaved.

 

[actaeon277]

8News Daily Poll: Should Americans be able to carry concealed weapons in public? | WRIC

Poll
So far 94% say you should be able to carry concealed.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Apples and oranges. No one (I think) is saying the right to keep and bear arms includes assault, man slaughter, armed robbery, murder, etc. Sure that right (like speech...or any other right) is not absolute---when you use it to cause real harm to others.

Right. I don't think anyone would argue that a prisoner has the right to a handgun in his cell, and yet the 2nd doesn't say "unless imprisoned" and prisoners don't give up all of their rights (cruel/unusual punishment comes to mind). That's an infringement. The point is the same, no right is absolute.

So, how many Trump haters are going to stay home NOW on Election Day on principle (or vote for someone else)???

Wake up, people! Get off of your asses and vote to protect your rights! Hillary WILL nominate Supreme Court justices who WILL gut the Second Amendment.

Have you read the case? What's changed? This is not the first time a court has said the 2nd doesn't stop a state from restricting concealed carry. Yet somehow concealed carry has continued to expand. And, yes, I'm still not voting for Trump. You guys talk about chipping away at rights, but the 2nd isn't the only right being chipped away at. I don't trust Trump to hold to the Constitution, either.

I love the talk and hinting of armed insurrection when a post here not long ago about civil war was dismissed as "liberal thinking". I'm supposed to vote away my other rights so I can keep my right to violently revolt against a loss of rights that I voted away. Or something. Pass. The ballot box is still where these decisions are being made, despite the Internet blustering to the contrary.

Basically what I'm saying is the sky is not falling. This represents status quo, not some radical departure from current case law. While it would obviously have been better for gun rights had they decided that the 2nd does cover concealed carry this is not some massive death blow to gun rights any more than it was when federal courts in West Virginia or Nebraska came to the same conclusion.

 

[Libertarian01]

Slow your roll, friends. We're nowhere near that.

What roll, my good man? I simply asked a question. I/we neither proposed anything NOR advocated in any direction. I object to the presumption that a question equals suggesting a course of action.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

I came to accept a while ago that in a society where people have to live near one another and not alone on an island that no right is 100%, period!

We have freedom of speech, but not on a bullhorn at 2AM shouting about the need to worship Blibdoolpoop. We have a right to private property but IF a car knocks a person onto our property while making that person unable to move the EMS has the authority to come onto our property and give care to that person. We have the right to worship our religion but we don't have the ability to perform human sacrifices, even IF the sacrifice is voluntary.

We have the right to keep and bear arms, but there are reasonable limits to this. My argument is very liberal but still limiting. IF you cannot control the damage from the weapon (eg. nuclear, biological, chemical) then you cannot have the weapon. Beyond that, I am pretty well good to go.

I would argue that even convicted criminal still have rights, albeit severely limited. A prisoner has the right to self defense when his/her cellmate wants a piece of action. He/she may not use a firearm but his/her right to self defense still exists. A prisoner has the right to freedom of speech by writing letters proclaiming his/her innocence. They may not demand to go on the local TV station but their right to continue to argue their case does not disappear.

My problem with this case has multiple issues. First, the burden to carry open is onerous on the carrier. Consider someone on a cool day has a light windbreaker. If you can see the firearm then it is legal, but if someone cannot see it you instantly break the law? California can get chilly in the evenings or early mornings, at least compared to the 80's in the afternoon. Second, a lack of uniformity for American citizens. One county may be lenient, one may be strict. Our rights may be regulated by one degree on another, but they should be uniform within a state. Imagine the townships changing the laws, or even neighborhoods? Each may have rules BUT they should not be allowed to conflict with State laws. Does this law restriction really impact a problem? Sure, we could say you need a permit to wear neon green clothing, but it would serve no significant purpose. The same with concealed v/s open carry. We also need to look at a really important need for a restriction, especially IF it impacts a citizens rights. As I do not see this limitation serving any relevant need, it should not exist.

I hope that the Supreme Court overturns this decision expeditiously.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Bill of Rights]

Your final conclusion is correct. One error in your premise, however, is that the 2A does not "give" any rights at all. In the DoI, our Founders specifically articulated that our rights are granted by our Creator. In Cruikshank, the SCOTUS affirmed that truth. The RKBA would exist even if the Constitution itself had never been written, as would all of our rights.

Blessings,
Bill

Well, it is true that the 2nd doesn't give you a right to carry concealed. "Concealed" is not mentioned anywhere. It gives you a right to bear (carry) arms. It doesn't specifically articulate a particular method that is guaranteed for that bearing. One could argue that it doesn't specifically give you the right to carry open either, simply because it doesn't mention the method. So, in that sense the court is right in that concealed isn't a specific constitutional right. That is not to say it implies restriction of a certain method, either, however.


The problem gets more complicated in CA. As I understand it, there is no open carry permitted in CA. So, that method is already illegal and not available. Meaning, if you have the right to bear arms under the 2nd (which you do), you must have the right (by default) to carry it concealed. If that is not a guaranteed right, then you don't have a right to bear arms in CA, which of course, infringes on the 2nd. I can see this being overturned, but not for the reasons most are saying.

To me, the real villains in this case are not the courts, but the local LEO population who has set such a high standard on what "good cause". CA law seems to allow the sheriffs to determine standards of good cause for issuing a permit. Nothing other than "2A right exercise" should be needed. That's good cause enough. Heck, that's BEST cause.

This should have never gone to the courts.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Slow your roll, friends. We're nowhere near that.

This, folks.
We all know what the various boxes were, and to what the last one refers.

We won't be going there on this board.

Please do carry on with the rest of the discussion, however.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DoggyDaddy]

We live in interesting times ladies and gentlemen.

I believe that's a Chinese curse. "May you live in interesting times."

 

[actaeon277]

I believe that's a Chinese curse. "May you live in interesting times."

Sure it's not Vulcan?

 

[Kaneda13]

Sure it's not Vulcan?

Interesting times, not prosperous ones.

 

[actaeon277]

Interesting times, not prosperous ones.

Pretty sure Spock at one time brought up the expression "may you live in interesting times"

 

[foszoe]

Spock was a character repeating what a scriptwriter gave him to say.

 

[Kaneda13]

Pretty sure Spock at one time brought up the expression "may you live in interesting times"

Found a quote from Star Trek:Voyager by the character Harry Kim, but nothing from Spock.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708978/quotes

 

[actaeon277]

Spock was a character repeating what a scriptwriter gave him to say.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Found a quote from Star Trek:Voyager by the character Harry Kim, but nothing from Spock.

"Star Trek: Voyager" The Cloud (TV Episode 1995) - Quotes - IMDb

I liked Harry Kim, until he turned down 7 of 9 after she asked him to "copulate." I would've been naked as soon as she said "would you like to..." and if she finished the sentence with "...help in astrometerics," I would have played it off and said "do you think in should concerned about this mole?"

 

[foszoe]

However String fellow Hawke was a real person

 

[actaeon277]

I liked Harry Kim, until he turned down 7 of 9 after she asked him to "copulate." I would've been naked as soon as she said "would you like to..." and if she finished the sentence with "...help in astrometerics," I would have played it off and said "do you think in should concerned about this mole?"

Yup.

 

[Cygnus]

I liked Harry Kim, until he turned down 7 of 9 after she asked him to "copulate." I would've been naked as soon as she said "would you like to..." and if she finished the sentence with "...help in astrometerics," I would have played it off and said "do you think in should concerned about this mole?"

Yup, but I'd asked about ED and how she could efficiently cure it.....

 

[actaeon277]

I liked Harry Kim, until he turned down 7 of 9 after she asked him to "copulate." I would've been naked as soon as she said "would you like to..." and if she finished the sentence with "...help in astrometerics," I would have played it off and said "do you think in should concerned about this mole?"

In Star Trek TNG "The Naked Now" Dr. Crusher told the Captain she needed a man.
He decided instead to save the ship.
I guess that's why he's the pretend captain.