Concealed Carry as Part of the RKBA???
This is a discussion on Concealed Carry as Part of the RKBA??? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have oft-times been surprised by the number of otherwise staunch supporters of the RKBA and concealed carriers who readily concede that concealed carry is ...
View Poll Results: Does the RKBA include the right to carry concealed?
- 198. You may not vote on this poll
April 9th, 2009 08:04 PM
Concealed Carry as Part of the RKBA???
I have oft-times been surprised by the number of otherwise staunch supporters of the RKBA and concealed carriers who readily concede that concealed carry is not part of the RKBA, but only a privilege to be granted by the government.
Now, I am not talking about the practical fact that to "legally" carry concealed in most states, you must have a permit/license from the state. I am talking about whether you believe that the RKBA--that right which preexists and is not dependent upon the 2A, by the way--applies only to "openly" carrying arms, or also applies to the concealed carrying of arms.
In my view, the RKBA is a basic, God-given, human right that derives from the equally basic, God-given, human rights of life and self-defense. As such, I do not see how that right is in any way limited in terms of the manner in which one carries his/her weapon. If I want to put it in my pocket, tuck it in my pants, stick it in my sock, or strap on an oversized, bright yellow, drop-leg, kydex and velcro holster, that's my business.
Yet many RKBA supporters--indeed, many concealed-carriers themselves--seem to concede without argument that the government (whether federal or state) has the authority to regulate concealed carry. Why is that??? What do you think?
April 9th, 2009 08:29 PM
I have to agree with you. The Right-To-Bear-Arms is at it's core what is known as a "natural right". This means it is a God-given right to all human beings, along with a host of other "natural rights". The framers of the Constitution struggled quite a bit with whether or not there should even BE a Bill-of-Rights set of amendments. One of the strongest arguments against having any Bill-of-Rights was that in the future the government would not understand these rights as natural rights, but would understand them only as government-granted and regulated rights. And what can be granted by the government, can be either taken away or restricted by the government.
It is my God-given right to defend myself, my family, and my property. And anyone who would restrict the manner in which I do that (concealed or not-concealed / handgun or AR-15 / location-specific) can also restrict or infringe upon any of my other God-given rights. Such as my right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.
But most of the products of our modern education don't even read the constitution and/or the Bill of Rights -- much less study the philosophy, history, and moral debates that surrounded the founding of our nation.
....a politically incorrect right-wing fiscally-conservative libertarian NRA card-carrying gun-toting self-sufficient gainfully-employed Bible-believing church-going fundamentalist evangelical Christian. Perhaps you should avoid my company. I might contaminate you.
April 9th, 2009 08:35 PM
Well, without getting into such topics which are not pertinent to the topic of this forum, I am of the belief that anything which an individual human being does that does not harm others or limit other individuals' rights to do the same ought not to be regulated or controlled in any way.
That implies peaceably owning and carrying arms, whatever be their type or manner in which they are carried. Whether or not the Bill of Rights says so is in fact irrelevant (although it is nice that it does), it is acknowledged in the 9th and 10th amendment and in writings by the founding fathers that the Bill of Rights merely acknowledges but a few of the rights that people have solely by existing as sovereign individuals.
Hence the 9th.
Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton
April 9th, 2009 08:38 PM
I have always said to people that support the 'beg and grovel' position of getting a permit from the government: The 2nd Amendment says ...and Bear; since it doesn't detail the method then all methods are protected therefore making the simple action of requiring a permit completely unconstitutional.
April 9th, 2009 08:46 PM
I think it is stupid to restrict how we decide to carry when legally owning a gun. The part that drives me nuts is the hassle of going through the process and giving the government money to give me a stupid card. I'll still do it though, just because I'm a law abiding citizen and wish to conceal carry. Right now I open carry with no issues.
April 9th, 2009 08:59 PM
April 9th, 2009 09:02 PM
"The 2nd amendment is my carry permit."
Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
April 9th, 2009 11:14 PM
From a legal standpoint, it really does not matter where the right came from. What matters is what the law says. The 2nd Amendment, which is part of the Constitution giving it precedence over any other laws, says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It does not say” the right of the people to keep and bear arms openly”.
Since the Supreme Court has now declared that it is indeed an individual right, I fail to understand why there is still any argument over what it means to “infringe” on that right.
With that being said, Yes, I do have a permit simply because I am a realist and do not want to spend any time behind bars.
April 9th, 2009 11:29 PM
The fact is that the phrase 'to bear arms' is strictly military in nature. The basis of the Second Amendment is to prevent the Federal government from infringing on the rights of the individuals in the many states to form a militia.
Despite the hope of some that the Second Amendment restricts the states, Court opinions and precedent conclusively demonstrate otherwise. It is the states that determine how firearms may be carried and what restrictions and prohibitions may be employed. Thus open carry is allowed in some states and not in others. Concealed carry is allowed in some states and not in others. Some states prohibit carrying firearms entirely and some require scrutiny by local officials. All of it perfectly within the Federal government guidelines, if not the spirit, of the Constitution.
It is strictly naivete, ignorance or lack of proper education to believe that Court opinions, never overturned, are somehow invalid because of some statist mindset.
April 10th, 2009 01:53 AM
When I was growing up, we would just grab a gun and walk down the road out into the hills to hunt and no one ever said anything, It was common to see rifles in the back windows. Now in some states you would be arrested for brandishing if you did either.
Where I live I carry open and concealed around home, most of the time concealed around town. Should I want to go hunting I still grab a rifle and walk out to the hills, but I won't be surprised if a Police officer stops me and ask what I am doing. I don't load my rifle untill I am in the hills, When I was growing up it was always loaded.
Different times and different views on public carrying. I can wish it was like the 1940's and 50's but I am a realist and recognize that things have changed.
My time is passing but I hope that things will sometime change back for my grandchildren or for theirs. Before it does, there will be some really hard times.
I lived in a time when the second amendment really meant that a person could keep and bear arms however they wanted. Hopefully it will get back to that.
April 10th, 2009 05:15 AM
My permit is just that, a permit. It shows the government functionaries (police, courts, EMS) that I'm one of the good guys. It's there so that I'm not mistaken for one of the "bad" guys.Some states give you the option and some just would rather figure you're a bad guy if you're carrying.
That doesn't effect the intent of the second amendment, to allow the rapid deployment of trained men, to prevent government from becoming oppressive or allow for the ability to legally own and carry firearms.
It does effect the interpretation of it in a post industrial (9/11, Katrina and Obama too) world. California is the only state that doesn't make a provision in it's constitution for the right to bear arms, as responsible law abiding adult's who vote and own firearms it's our job to make sure that each of our state's representatives and lawmakers know how important our 2 (two) second amendments are to us as Free American Citizens.
I have the second amendment to the US constitution and Article 2 section 26 of the Arizona state Constitution
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
"Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."
April 10th, 2009 12:25 PM
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
You never cease to amuse me, SD. To paraphrase yourself, it is strictly naivete, ignorance, or lack of proper education to believe that 130-year-old Court opinions, which have been thoroughly repudiated in dozens of subsequent cases on the issue of the 14th Amendment's reach, continue to be good law. But you go right on hankerin' away for your beloved Cruikshank. It won't change reality, or the fact that that particular case is destined for the dustheap of history.
Also, the argument that the phrase 'to bear arms' is strictly military in nature was completely rejected in Heller and is also completely unsupportable--indeed, thoroughly refuted--based on the history, precedent, and legislative intent surrounding the 2A.
Maybe those who post-up their uninformed, disengenuous, misleading, and thoroughly wrong opinions on legal matters should be required to post a caveat on such posts, something like:
"I am not a real lawyer, nor do I have any legal training or credentials, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!"
SD--you really should leave the constitutional and legal analysis to those of us who actually have the professional training, credentials, and experience to do so without looking ignorant and silly. I certainly would never challenge your opinion on some engineering issue, because I acknowledge my ignorance and lack of competence in that area. You really should follow suit...
Edited to add this: Even Wikipedia--a source that I would never recommend as reliable for legal advice--at least provides a more cogent and correct analysis of Cruikshank's continuing validity than SD promotes, stating:
"Although significant portions of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in other portions. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois, which reaffirmed it in 1886, are the only significant Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment until the murky United States v. Miller in 1939, but both preceded the court's general acceptance of the incorporation doctrine and have been questioned for that reason. However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, slip opinion 07-290, 51 fn 23, clearly suggested that Cruikshank and the chain of cases flowing from it would no longer be considered good law as a result of the radically changed view of the Fourteenth Amendment when that issue eventually comes before the courts:
'With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.'"
April 10th, 2009 12:31 PM
Technically the second amendment covers carrying a gun. No certain way just carrying. BUT it would take one hell of a fight to prove to the court that CC is part of the second amendment. It is just not thought about like that.
Just my opinion.
April 10th, 2009 01:17 PM
I recently applied for my CWP and am awaiting for it in the mail; I actually like having to take a class and get a license for it...I think it prevents all of the punks from carrying concealed. (Notice I said punks and not criminals, criminals will not care, a punk might).
Some things are rights and some things are privileges and sometimes the lines get blurred. In my opinion, driving should be a right, yet it is a privilege. I own and will carry a gun because I don't trust people, and that distrust includes them owning and carrying a gun; hopefully having to take a class and get a license will either educate stupid people farther than they would have gotten on their own, or weed them out altogether.
April 10th, 2009 01:35 PM
You don't trust people. You are people. Should we trust you? That so called class is a joke and can never truly teach what is needed to meet what seems to be your needs and requirements to carry a gun. Will you be doing lots of training for rest of your life or have your training needs and requirements been met already. I am not trying to be a jerk here but who are you to judge people. Who is people by the way. I would be willing to bet I have way more training then you since you just applied for your license so in my eyes should I trust you to carry a gun? Should it matter if I trust you? Would you really base the second amendment off your beliefs?
Think about it. :)
By maximumrob in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 29th, 2010, 10:28 PM
By JCook5003 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: January 29th, 2009, 06:42 AM
By kashton in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: January 14th, 2009, 07:53 PM
By Joshua M. Smith in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: March 7th, 2007, 11:38 AM