Does the 2A cover carry?

This is a discussion on Does the 2A cover carry? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Ram Rod Again....in my opinion....the 2nd amendment is not up to conjecture. It simply amazes me that we would even be having ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53

Thread: Does the 2A cover carry?

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Rod View Post
    Again....in my opinion....the 2nd amendment is not up to conjecture. It simply amazes me that we would even be having a debate over this on this forum. The reason we are in this boat is because our government, or powers that be decided to open up the given word to interpretation in the first place (complicate what's already set in stone). When will we accept the facts and move on? If you in any way question the 2nd amendment of the US constitution and what it does or does not cover, then you're a prime candidate for political office and what it has to offer IMO. Until the time you're up for election, I'd suggest reaching down into the deepest part of your soul as an American, and realizing that there's really no argument to be had here. Let's just keep it out of the hands of lawyers shall we? For some of us, the 2nd amendment is a deep moral value which we will not compromise in any way so long as we live. We truly have no right to question what our founding fathers did for this great nation.
    I offered my strongly held opinion based on what I believe is a sound interpretation of the words and with some understanding of original intent. I've accepted the fact but I can't move on while there are others that hold opinions just as strongly as I do that differ in their interpretation, individuals that hold significant power in defining and enforcing their opinion of what those words mean on the rest of us.

    This is the situation like it or not. I can live my life ignoring this fact and end up spending a good portion of the rest of my life in jail.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,789
    It says to keep and bear.

    Thats as clear as the English language allows IMO.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  4. #18
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    So I got into a pretty heated debate in another forum about if the 2A covers carry as well. More so if carry can be restricted by the government. I said it can't be restricted by the government, but he (a gun owner) thinks the government, namely state government can restrict the right to carry because it's not a federally protected right.

    This is his argument.



    What do you guys think?
    I think you all misunderstand one another. I get from the other guy that you think there's a 100% absolute right to carry(wherever,whenever, on your neighbor's lawn, in the Oval Office,exc.). He seems to point out there are exceptions, and the state can regulate(to a degree) how arms are carried. As far as carry goes, regulations that serve no logical purpose(like DC saying the whole city is "sensitive"), or extort huge fees to bear arms, or arbitrary permit issuance systems would be invalid under the 2A. That's stuff the state CAN'T do.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  5. #19
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    bear (verb) "to carry"

    By definition, bearing arms means carrying arms.

  6. #20
    Member Array imatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    311
    I fail to understand how "bear" in the 2nd Amendment could mean anything other than "carry."

  7. #21
    Member Array Wolf357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    I fail to understand how shall not be infringed can have so many different interpretations.
    And Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

    I am a peaceful man. But I am not a pacifist.

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,101
    That discussion is going on right now in this thread at:

    "There is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon" = BullSh!t - BayouShooter.com Forums

    Pretty interesting, I'm not a constitutional lawyer or scholar and I've only been skimming the thread, but IMHO it appears that concealing a firearm may not be exactly included in 2A. Don't get me wrong, I hope that's not the case, I'd like to think that it should be a right under 2A. However, in reading the thread, it may not be?
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    SCOTUS may decide it if this case doesn't stay local

    Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District - washingtonpost.com

    Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District
    Suit Seeks Right to Pack Heat in Public

    By Keith L. Alexander
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, August 8, 2009

    The lawyer who won the battle to allow District residents to keep handguns in their homes is now fighting to allow residents and visitors to carry their weapons in public.

    Alan Gura filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court on behalf of four people who want the right to carry and conceal weapons for self-defense.

    Gura filed the suit on behalf of three D.C. residents: Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey. D.C. police rejected the gun registration applications of all three when they informed police that they intended to carry their loaded guns outside of their homes. Palmer and Lyon were also plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit.

    The lawsuit seeks to afford the right to carry a gun to non-District residents who have gun permits issued elsewhere. The fourth person in the complaint, Edward Raymond, a law school student who lives in New Hampshire, was arrested in the District in 2007 for carrying a loaded handgun in his car when he was stopped for speeding. Raymond had a permit to carry the gun in Maryland and Florida. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor unregistered gun.

    "We're still fighting for the rights to bear arms," Gura said. "Right now, we're in a situation where people who want to carry a handgun can do it just about anywhere else in the country, but not in the nation's capital."

    Gura's lawsuit says that the District's "laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution.

    In an interview, Gura disputed concerns from anti-gun groups who worry that arming residents could increase violent crime in the District. "These are law-abiding citizens who do not commit crimes," Gura said of registered handgun owners. "This will not turn into the O.K. Corral."

    Also named as a plaintiff in the suit is the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit gun-advocacy organization based in Bellevue, Wash.

    Defense attorneys have long argued in D.C. Superior Court cases that many non-District residents who have gun permits from other jurisdictions aren't aware that they cannot bring guns into the District and often are arrested for minor violations and then jailed when officers discover a concealed weapon.

    D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said he was confident that Gura would not win the suit.

    "The last place you want to conceal is in the District, with all of these federal buildings," Nickles said. "It makes the job of law enforcement damned difficult."

    In Gura's previous suit, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the city's ban was unconstitutional and that residents should be allowed to keep guns in their homes for personal protection.

    In that ruling, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Nickles cited Scalia's ruling.

    "This is a frontal assault on the District's regulations under the Second Amendment. I don't think that's what Justice Scalia had in mind when he talked about self-defense."

    The District has until Aug. 26 to respond to the lawsuit.
    Also see:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...mplaint_09.pdf
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  10. #24
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Short answer: no. It's the responsibility of the many States to determine how arms are to be borne and carried within their area of authority.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Short answer: no. It's the responsibility of the many States to determine how arms are to be borne and carried within their area of authority.


    -B
    This is my take on it also. I am not an educated person but using common sense its hard to believe that if the founders believed that the Constitution applied to the individual States that they would have insisted on adding the 9th and 10th amendments.

    Michael

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    I 100% agree that bear arms means to carry on your person in public and my hope is the SC will drive home this interpretation next year. Having said this various courts, even in states that have liberal carry laws, have repeatedly found that the 2nd amendment does not totally prevent the government (federal, state or local) from regulating the conditions for public carry.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  13. #27
    Member Array farmerbyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I agree, only I don't believe it had anything to do with putting meat on the table. It was for "the people" to be able to revolt against tyranny and that no tyranny can rule over an armed citizenship.

    I agree with you 100%. I was just trying to convey the point that firearms were a normal part of life back then. It was no big deal for someone to carry their rifle around with them, it was normal.
    The Second Amendment ...... Because crime SHOULD be a hazardous occupation.

    If you want to piss off a conservative, lie to him.
    If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,982
    As of now, the SCOTUS Heller decision basically says you have a right to have a firearm in your home, including handguns and other "common" firearms.

    SCOTUS would likely take a dim view of "uncommon" arms, like machine guns...never mind that the reason they are uncommon is Federal law.

    Upcoming SCOTUS cases will likely incorporate the 2A to the States and local governments, just like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. This will mean that outright bans on handguns will go away.

    The devil is in the details, though. Some regulations will likely be allowed. For example, the 1A does not give you the right to slander someone, commit libel, publish child porn, or yell "fire" in a crowded public place. The court will try to strike a balance.

    "Keep" is clear - to own. "Bear" is clear - to carry, to use. I would expect, however, that the court would find "reasonable" regulations prohibiting carrying in court, in a jail, etc. Outright bans on carrying a handgun, or regulations that make it almost impossible or arbitrary (hello...NY, NJ, CA...) would be nullified (yea!).

    The ultimate irony would be if the court found that "open" carry was a protected right, while "concealed" carry was not!

    It will be an interesting 2010, that's for sure.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Marlin 336 .30-30; Mossberg 500
    CT Lasers

  15. #29
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    For example, the 1A does not give you the right to slander someone, commit libel, publish child porn, or yell "fire" in a crowded public place.
    I'm with you on all the rest of your post.

    However, the "...1A does not give you the right...." type statement is a common Anti-RKBA semantic error/logic error of the 'Imperfect or False Analogy" type.

    The restraints to 1A are not prior-restraints. They don't tape your mouth shut as a condition of entering into crowded public place, because you might yell "fire." The restraints on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil.

    There are already many similar post-violation restraints/penalties, either criminal or civil, laws on the books, on which this issue/question has no direct bearing -- e.g., murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc.

    What we need to focus on is removing the prior-restraints on the RKBA, IMHO.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  16. #30
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    As of now, the SCOTUS Heller decision basically says you have a right to have a firearm in your home, including handguns and other "common" firearms.
    Heller was about a lower federal law (District of Columbia) in conflict with a higher federal law (United States). No rights were gained or lost. Ironically, the aftermath of this ruling demonstrates how little a Supreme Court ruling can mean if Congress doesn't step up to enforce their ruling with legislation and the President doesn't step up and execute the laws of the nation.

    I submit that this case will have little to do with Heller, as challenging a city law on the basis of the 2nd Amendment is an entirely different matter than challenging a D.C. law on the basis of the 2nd Amendment.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Duck and Cover (NRA article about concealed carry on campus)
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 12th, 2010, 12:13 PM
  2. from fitted firm trigger cover vs. soft vs. no specific trigger cover
    By jimtem in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 27th, 2009, 10:38 PM
  3. Differential Cover test - The Great Diff Cover Shootout
    By Janq in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 6th, 2009, 01:51 PM
  4. Defining "Concealed Carry" or How deep to cover
    By gundealer in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: April 11th, 2009, 12:35 PM
  5. Cover of Concealed Carry Magazine
    By gimpy in forum Defensive Books, Video & References
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: September 21st, 2007, 10:33 AM

Search tags for this page

2a carry

,

rkbaoah

Click on a term to search for related topics.