Why do we still call it "RIGHT to carry?"

[mzmtg]

There are only two states, VT and AK, that have a right to carry. A right, by definition, is something that you may do without asking permission.

If you have to apply, pay a fee, get a background check, get training, get letters of reference from your neighbors, have politcal connections or ANY of that, it is NOT a right.

So why do we call it "right" to carry again?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Tubby45]

We have a right to carry, but politics converted it to a privilige. [Steps on high horse] I don't use the term "right to carry state". [Steps off high horse]

These are my terms that I prefer to describe:

Free states (Alaska, Vermont)
Shall Issue states
Commie states (Commiefornia, MA, IA, NY, other 'discretionary' states)
Nazi states (IL and WI)

I think it is either GA or AL that is techinically a discretionary state, but is realistically shall issue in practice. That is a "Confusing State".

[peacefuljeffrey]

Of course, you are correct. But we have what we have, for the time being. Maybe with more work and more time and effort, another state, and then another will do what Alaska did and recognize our real right to carry.

I think, in the meantime, that what we have is far better than what we had just five or ten years ago. And the reason they call it "right to carry" in states like Florida, Texas, etc. is probably that we get the license to carry because of meeting objective criteria, and if we do that, we can't be denied the license.

[Mojoski]

For the record, Georgia is officially a "shall issue" state..

[pogo2]

A right, by definition, is something that you may do without asking permission.

If you have to apply, pay a fee, get a background check, get training, get letters of reference from your neighbors, have politcal connections or ANY of that, it is NOT a right.

So why do we call it "right" to carry again?

Let's start with the exact wording of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This essentially says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right existed before the Constitution was written. The Constitution says that the government can't infringe on that right, but it clearly does not "grant" the right.

So if I use the term "right to keep and bear arms" (and bear is the same as carry), I am referring to a pre-existing human right that our Founding Fathers simply recognized.

I think that any licensing or regulation of this right is the "infringement" that the Amendment prohibits. I wish we could somehow enforce the Amendment and eliminate all the infringement.

[gimpy]

Let's start with the exact wording of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This essentially says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right existed before the Constitution was written. The Constitution says that the government can't infringe on that right, but it clearly does not "grant" the right.

So if I use the term "right to keep and bear arms" (and bear is the same as carry), I am referring to a pre-existing human right that our Founding Fathers simply recognized.

I think that any licensing or regulation of this right is the "infringement" that the Amendment prohibits. I wish we could somehow enforce the Amendment and eliminate all the infringement.

+1
pogo2 has summed it up very eloquently.

[mzmtg]

I think that any licensing or regulation of this right is the "infringement" that the Amendment prohibits. I wish we could somehow enforce the Amendment and eliminate all the infringement.

If requiring a state issued ID to vote is an infringement akin to a poll tax, then requiring a state issued license to bear arms is clearly an infringement.

It's that simple.

Yes, I think people should be able to buy RPGs at the local hardware store if they want to. However, regulations regarding what you can shoot it at are totally appropriate.

[madmax2976]

So if I use the term "right to keep and bear arms" (and bear is the same as carry), I am referring to a pre-existing human right that our Founding Fathers simply recognized.

Which reflects a particular philosophy, even if it's the case that there's little or no evidence that such actually exists. In other words, it really sounds good, even if we can't show that it's true.

Personally, I look at "rights" as being those things we think we ought to be able to do without any interference. This way I'm not in the rather difficult position of having to show that there was this "right" of being able to own and carry a gun before guns even existed. And since it comes out the same in end - we have a "right" to bear firearms, it works out better mentally for me.

As for the government infringing on that "right", they will do so as long as the people being governed let them - which is what has happened. We can either fight it, or live with it.

[gimpy]

To quote from the book, "Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership", by Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq.


[Quote]

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS:

"First, you should know that the primary argument regarding this particular Constitutional provision at the Constitutional Convention was not whether the People had the right to keep and bear arms--but that this particular right was so fundamental that it was almost tantamount to an insult to have to put it in writing, and include it. It was an "inalienable" right. A "natural" right. A "personal" right. Something about which there could be no reasonable debate.

The natural or inalienable portion of the right was tied to the right of self-defense, a right which was believed to be so inherent to the individual that no government could legitimately curtail it. The mere thought that government could infringe upon this right was anathema.

Thus, the right to keep and bear arms was just that -- that every freeman had the right to have weapons, and use them in his own defense. It was not tied to a "well regulated militia." In fact, a clause to add a phrase that the right was "for the common defense" -- was soundly rejected by the Constitutional Convention, just for that reason."

[End of Quote]

Over the years the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been debated and tested in the highest courts of our country. So far, the fact that it is an "inalienable" right has withstood all arguments to the contrary. So why do we have to put up with all the laws regarding owning, purchasing, registering, carrying, etc? My guess is that government will always attempt to circumvent the very laws it is sworn to protect so long as it sees advantage in doing so, and more importantly what we "the people" will allow them to do.

[nn]

Of course, you are correct. But we have what we have, for the time being. Maybe with more work and more time and effort, another state, and then another will do what Alaska did and recognize our real right to carry.

I think, in the meantime, that what we have is far better than what we had just five or ten years ago. And the reason they call it "right to carry" in states like Florida, Texas, etc. is probably that we get the license to carry because of meeting objective criteria, and if we do that, we can't be denied the license.

Bears probably had something to do with Alaska's rules.

[AKsrule]

Technically , my state (PA.) does NOT restrict my right to
POSSESS a firearm , or to carry one openly(except under limited
circumstances)

It does however enforce Federal regulations such as the Background
check , and requires paperwork to carry concealed.

[TN_Mike]

I agree with you 100%.

As I have said on here before, and will say many times again, as I grow older, my carry permit becomes less a source of pride and more a source of irritation. I should not need the governments permission to excercise a God given right!

[madmax2976]

I should not need the governments permission to excercise a God given right!

I'm not sure how anyone would go about proving that God has given anyone the right to carry a gun, but I think we have to be careful when it comes to these issues, as I know how the other side would respond.

For instance, free speech is a "right" yet we aren't allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, threaten the President with death, or use profanity on the radio or TV. People have a right to worship as they please, yet there's no right to smoke weed or have human sacrifices as part of that worship. There's a right to "speedy" trial yet no definition of what "speedy" is.

The point being that no right is absolute - and I don't think we'd want any of them to be so. I have no problem with preventing ex-cons, kids or those with a history of mental problems from possessing firearms. Having said all that, if I had my way, there'd still be less restrictions for carrying than there are - and it sure wouldn't take anywhere near as long get a permit to carry as it does.

[TN_Mike]

Madmax.....I can see your point, but I do not agree with you completely.

The 2nd Amendment states in part, "The RIGHT to keep and BEAR Arms, shall not be infringed.

The definition of the would bear, according to Webters online dictionary, reads in part as "Have on one's person".
And may I point out that the bill of rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is one of and in fact the one that insures the others, is a list of rights bestowed upon us by our Creator. In other words, God Himself.

So you see, it is in fact a God given right no matter what the defeatist, give-in-to-the-criminal, wishy washy, whining, idiotic, hippy Liberals may want to "interpret" it as otherwise.

I believe it is quite simple. It is listed in the Constitution. It is my right. It will not be taken away from me with out a hell of a fight and my death happening first.

[mzmtg]

I'm not sure how anyone would go about proving that God has given anyone the right to carry a gun, but I think we have to be careful when it comes to these issues, as I know how the other side would respond.

We have a natural right to self defense. The logical extension of this right is the right to bear arms.

For instance, free speech is a "right" yet we aren't allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, threaten the President with death, or use profanity on the radio or TV. People have a right to worship as they please, yet there's no right to smoke weed or have human sacrifices as part of that worship.

Yelling "fire" directly infringes on the rights of others, therefore it is NOT an individual's right to do so. Using profanity or using drugs (alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, take your pick) does not infringe on the rights of others, therefore I believe we do have a natural right to those activities.

The point being that no right is absolute - and I don't think we'd want any of them to be so. I have no problem with preventing ex-cons, kids or those with a history of mental problems from possessing firearms. Having said all that, if I had my way, there'd still be less restrictions for carrying than there are - and it sure wouldn't take anywhere near as long get a permit to carry as it does.

I believe that some rights are definitely absolute.

I don't think that possession of anything should be illegal. It is the subsequent actions that should be subject to regulation. If an ex-con is deemed fit to rejoin society, then we should not deny him his natural right to self defense. A "child" has not done anything wrong by simply possessing a firearm. If that child (or ex-con) acts irresponsibly with that firearm, then restrictions iof those actions would be appropriate.

It's insulting that the gov't assumes that I will have no choice but to commit a crime against my fellow man if I carry a firearm into the post office, or a school, or a "public gathering" etc... I clearly do have a choice of what actions I will or will not take.