Does the 2A cover carry? - Page 3

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 DaveH I'm with you on all the rest of your post. However, the "...1A does not give you the right...." type statement ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53
  1. #31
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    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.

    A fine legal point, and I agree with you. However, the larger point I was trying to make is that there is virtually zero probability that the Court will rule that you can have any kind of firearm, anywhere, at any time.

    Some folks believe there should be no "infringements" on the 2A, and that just will not pass judicial muster - just like some infringements on free speech are allowed.

    My personal opinion (which is worth zero, since I am not on the Court) is that the 2A applies to small arms that are of the same basic type as those used by the general infantryman of the day. When the 2A was written, there was no difference between the pistol, musket or rifle of the militiaman, and the firearms used by citizens (other than perhaps the provision for a bayonet).

    Thus, an argument could be made for pistols, rifles (including full auto), shotguns, and similar "common arms." Some folks want to argue that citizens should be allowed to own anything - like heavy machine guns (which are legal in some States if you get the tax stamp, etc). Personally, I don't think the 2A covers "heavy" or "crew-served" weapons...though I know others disagree. A topic for another day...
    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


  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    A fine legal point, and I agree with you. However, the larger point I was trying to make is that there is virtually zero probability that the Court will rule that you can have any kind of firearm, anywhere, at any time.

    Some folks believe there should be no "infringements" on the 2A, and that just will not pass judicial muster - just like some infringements on free speech are allowed.

    My personal opinion (which is worth zero, since I am not on the Court) is that the 2A applies to small arms that are of the same basic type as those used by the general infantryman of the day. When the 2A was written, there was no difference between the pistol, musket or rifle of the militiaman, and the firearms used by citizens (other than perhaps the provision for a bayonet).

    Thus, an argument could be made for pistols, rifles (including full auto), shotguns, and similar "common arms." Some folks want to argue that citizens should be allowed to own anything - like heavy machine guns (which are legal in some States if you get the tax stamp, etc). Personally, I don't think the 2A covers "heavy" or "crew-served" weapons...though I know others disagree. A topic for another day...


    Looks as if we agree on all the significant points, again!

    I wasn't intending to put you down on the "...1A does not give you the right...." point.

    []
    It just bothers me that that line is used so often that the difference between punishing everyone to stop something rather that significant punishment of only those who abuse a right after them abuse it has become so wide spread and that it extends beyond just the RKBAs.

    Nearly all the zero-tolerance laws/policies are rooted in that logic. All the restrictions on other weapons are. Much of the Rx mind set is. Etc.

    I want the politicians out of my life, until I have done something that actually hurts someone. The are all about control not fixing real problems!
    [/]
    Last edited by DaveH; October 27th, 2009 at 05:34 PM. Reason: Added last two sentences
    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

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,072
    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.
    The 2A says "to keep" and "to bear" arms. That's pretty darned clear, though no court in the land will stand by it, instead seeking to interpret it as applying only in its most-restrictive sense. I'm of the opinion that the foundation principles weren't worth stating unless they in fact applied to all, but I'm in the minority.

    The fact is, it does not cover the carrying of arms. You'll get jailed in practically every state if you simply rely on the 2A to cover that. So that's pretty much it, until sanity prevails.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ....
    The fact is, it does not cover the carrying of arms. You'll get jailed in practically every state if you simply rely on the 2A to cover that. So that's pretty much it, until sanity prevails.
    Not in Virginia.

    There is no law authorizing OC. It is a fundamental right, which is only taken away from an individual after adjudication.

    If you can legally possess a firearm, you can carry it, openly.

    Only CC and "yes, but not here" is regulated is regulated
    Last edited by DaveH; October 27th, 2009 at 08:01 PM. Reason: Added "and yes, but not here,"
    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

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,452
    Now I'm really starting to miss Hopyard and Self Defense....
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array rljohns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,042
    Where does any amenedment other than the 2nd Amendment mention "shall not be infringed" ? It actually does not even read "shall only be infringed by private property owners, or any other enity".

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    The 2nd amendment, like much of the Constitution, has been put through the legislative and political meat grinder for 200+ years to the point that ownership of handguns and/or the right to carry for personal protection in places like Washington D.C., NYC and Chicago has been totally usurped. Heller and the 9th circuit decision are baby steps in undoing that harm.

    The Bill of Rights wasn't written for an audience of legal scholars. It was written so that the common man would have some understanding that this newly formed government recognized the fundamental rights of the individuals that were to be governed. IMHO anyone reading the Bill of Rights with that view would come away understanding that the right to keep and bear arms meant the right to keep (own or have) and bear (carry on your person) those arms. It is only through the torturing of the language over the last 200 years that we arrive at a place where the restrictions and regulations that exist in many places is viewed as Constitutional. This is in the same fashion as the commerce clause being used by the federal government to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,072
    Quote Originally Posted by rljohns View Post
    Where does any amenedment other than the 2nd Amendment mention "shall not be infringed" ? It actually does not even read "shall only be infringed by private property owners, or any other enity".
    Let's be specific, on this quip: telling someone to leave is NOT infringement of a person's right to defend himself. As it's not an attempt to disarm, it also isn't disallowing a person to exercise the right to be armed.

    However, as a property owner, asking a person to leave is insisting that the owner's desires be adhered to in exchange for presence on that property. "House" rules, and all that. Both an nicely coexist. And, coexist they must. It would truly be a heinous society where property rights were universally nonexistent. Think it through.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #39
    Member Array Mountaineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    116
    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.
    +1

    I like the steadfastness of your argument.

    Why some rights were incorporated and some not is beyond me.

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,072
    the 2nd amendment is not up to conjecture.

    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.
    Yup.

    If in doubt, ask yourself this: In a new land of free men living in free states, the vast majority of whom subscribed to the idea of a few founding principles that were the causes worth fighting the world's greatest army and empire at the time, what is it that justifies twisting and eviscerating the meaning of the simple phrase (paraphrased) "thou shalt not infringe a man's right to bear arms"?

    Amazing, that we as a society cannot accept that the founding principles ALL applied to EVERYONE.

    Amazing, that we as a society can maintain a straight face while admitting we have a system of people hired for posts of judgment who get to dictate to the People that the founding principles are NOT what they clearly are ... that they're something else, that they don't apply to everyone, that they can be misinterpreted (read: twisted to within an inch of their lives) and yet still be considered the "law" of the land.

    It's so sadly absurd and preposterous, else it would be the single most laughable thing I know of.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    Lets see here... Seems to me we are all over the board here. For the OP, how does the other party define "bear"?

    Also, IIRC the U.S. Constitution when it was written, put restrictions on the federal government. State governments are restricted by their own respective Constitutions. So the big question in my mind is how are the various sections of U.S. code that may be in conflict with Heller going to be resolved? Heller is pretty much irrelevant to me here outside Houston, but it could be a very big deal to friends of mine that live on Fort Hood.

    So really, for the vast majority of us, until SCOTUS incorporates 2A against the states, it really isn't relevant! Except when we go to the post office.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #42
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,192
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    Well, let's see...is it RKBAOAH (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only At HOME) or is it just RKBA?



    The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights obviously bore arms. They were engaged in inventing federal government and wanted to make sure this new entity couldn't cancel any pre-existing right. After the 14th was passed, SCOTUS engaged in "incorporating" certain parts of the Bill of Rights in the 14th, meaning states, commonwealths, counties, cities, or other local governments could not violate the item just as the federal government was already prevented from doing so.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pro2A
    Yes, but is that constitutional?

    As of right now, the answer to your question is "yes" for those states or commonwealths whose own constitutions do not contain an analogue of 2A because 2A has not been so incorporated. But I expect SCOTUS case 08-1521 McDonald v Chicago to change this. Once 2A is incorporated, eventually restrictions against bearing arms outside your property will be invalidated.

    The best book I've read on the subject, if you want to know a lot more, is "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen P Halbrook, probably available in your local library.
    __________________
    "If you got to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!" -Tuco Ramirez-

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Good God Almighty,

    Hail to these two posts,

    Words mean something, especially when its pertaining to the LAW.

    Have you ever read the fine print on any document.



    "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,072

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    The best book I've read on the subject, if you want to know a lot more, is "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen P Halbrook, probably available in your local library.
    Ditto. This is an exceptional book with great coverage of the material. Halbrook is well-versed and knows his research. It's absolutely must-read for anyone who cares about the 2A.

    <edit>

    Halbrook has another exceptional book, as well. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen Halbrook, 2008, The Independent Institute.

    There are a number of other books and materials listed in this thread, too: U.S. Constitution 101.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; November 1st, 2009 at 12:48 AM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #44
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    We keep screaming that we don't want SCOTUS or State court decisions to detract from the simple language of the USC. Well let us follow that:

    All land owning free (not everybody is free by the USC) white men may bear arms.

    And that was the intention of our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution.

    So I guess it does say that you can carry, if you are white and own land (not a renter, they are indentured servants or sharecroppers.)

    I am white and I own my own home, so I guess the 2d A takes care of me. Using this logic, there are a lot of people on this forum who should leave now and shut up because it was never intended, by the forefathers, for you to carry guns or mix with us quality, landowners .

    All of these other "trash laws and decisions" came about because it was realized that the Constitution as written (bare bones) did not cover most of the population.

    I am a Constitutionalist but I do realize that going to the original words can cause a lot of trouble.

    This is akin to "Let's get back to the Ten Commandments"movement, we forget they were given to the Hebrews and to the Hebrews alone, as expressed in GOD's own words. We also forget that it became necessary to expand the ten into 613 commandments through Leviticus and Deuteronomy, because GOD realized that the poor Hebrews couldn't figure out how to make the first ten work!

    Murder or Kill in the Ten Commandments means just that, you can't kill anybody, for any reason! That was later explained in the 613 (Mitsvoh) commandments as having mitigations. If we go to the original wording in the original Ten Commandments, we shut all of the gun forums down, bring the boys home from overseas and melt our guns down.

    Basing 2dA rights on the simplistic wording in the original Constitution, binding only on the Federal Government, (actually at the time of writing it was binding only on the Congress!) is smoke in the air, the substance of it is hidden in the context of where it was written, when it was written, for who it was written and by whom it was written.

    I am and will remain a staunch supporter of the Individual RTKBA, but I will also remain realistic and knowledgable of the context of where those rights spring from and who controls them (or whether anybody should control them!)
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    We keep screaming that we don't want SCOTUS or State court decisions to detract from the simple language of the USC. Well let us follow that:

    All land owning free (not everybody is free by the USC) white men may bear arms.

    And that was the intention of our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution.

    So I guess it does say that you can carry, if you are white and own land (not a renter, they are indentured servants or sharecroppers.)
    Your argument ignors the essence of the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    A fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is the recognition and protection of individual rights and freedoms. The thrust of these documents is the maximizing of those rights and freedoms. The amendments to the Constitution to include women, African-Americans and non-landowners coincides with that fundamental principle. The twisted interpretations of these documents that seek to oppress and restrict these rights and freedoms are fundamentally contrary to the values and principles expressed in the DOC and BOR.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

Page 3 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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors