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 mcp1810 Also, IIRC the U.S. Constitution when it was written, put restrictions on the federal government. State governments are restricted by their ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 53 of 53

Thread: Does the 2A cover carry?

  1. #46
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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.
    Heller means nothing to any of us living outside the District of Columbia, unless we live on federally owned property (property of the United States of America, Inc.). Let's not forget what the case was about, what it did, what it didn't do, and its limitations.

    • US Constitution clearly describes the inferior authority of the District.
    • D.C., which is federal property, was found to have laws in conflict with higher federal laws.
    • Supreme Court confirmed a lower court's opinion that D.C. laws were unjust and unconstitutional.
    • Nothing changes at all in the wake of the Heller ruling.
    • Congress was called upon to create law to rectify the situation, as is their constitutionally-described duty, since the Supreme Court has no power to do so on its own.


    2edgesword, the "spirit" of the US Constitution will not save you in court if you use it in your defense. We should consider why this is, and learn the lesson carefully. We are a nation of laws, not the opinions or whims of men.


    -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.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    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.
    Without meaning to you have have acceeded to my point. It was necessary to amend the Constitution to include those that the BOR forgot. The fundamental principal alluded to in the BOR did not recognize individuals of all callings and races. We later (not very much later though) amended the principals expressed to include everybody. My point was that the original 10 Amendments later had to be expressed in other terms to prove effective. We to many times give our forefathers Saintly status. The truth is (with some notable exceptions) they were for the most part landed aristocracy and gentry who did not even think about the rights of all. The BOR is a magnificent work, but it wasn't originally supported by the majority of the signers of the Constitution. Only a vigorous fight by a small minority of people (Jefferson, Franklin and Washington were leaders) got it accepted as part of the constitution and then it had to be separate amendments. To project that the founders intended the second amendment to mean all of us should be armed is to disregard history. I believe the right to defend ones self is a GOD-given right, one of the inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I am not fixated on the legal arguments of the 2dA because it is so limited in its scope. I sincerely feel that it is my right as a free man, period. Luckily, for me, my state, Tennessee, agrees to that principle at least to the extent that I can carry a weapon to defend myself. If you live in a state that does not allow you to carry a weapon for self-defense, there is a controlling "aristocracy" keeping you disarmed and in my opinion you are not a free man.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  4. #48
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Very well said, wjh2657.


    -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.

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,728
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    It was necessary to amend the Constitution to include those that the BOR forgot. The fundamental principal alluded to in the BOR did not recognize individuals of all callings and races.
    Yeah, well, the wee little bit of time you're referring to is only the period from 1787 to 1791. The 2A didn't come into play until 1791. The point is, since 1791 the Constitution-with-2A has been pretty darned clear about protecting the right of the People to be armed, and to bear those arms. No real restrictions were indicated, despite what might have been discussion points in any preceding congressional debates or gatherings, and despite what might have been written in the Federalist Papers or any other document of substance around that time.

    The twisted interpretations of power-bent lawyers is what has turned it into the morass it has become, IMO.

    I, too, am not all-fired enamored of the "saintly" Founders. Whenever I refer to the founding principles or people involved, though, I really mean to invoke the whole work of the Constitution and the entire lot of folks who were part of its early years. Those founders put much into play and, since 1791, it (the 2A) has been the same wording and same, basically unrestricted meaning of the words. Yet, it's been twisted to Hell and gone to instead apply in a fairly restrictive sense, sadly. The powerful fearing the People, as has occurred in most of history.

    Thankfully, nobody in 150yrs of futzing with the law at the federal level has anyone dared take on the several states to suggest the states didn't have the right to call their own shots. Trouble is, for the Constitution of core principles to have any meaning at all, those basic principles have to apply to the People. They either do or they don't. Since some of them do, it's simply beyond all logic that all of them don't. At least, it seems so to me.

    But, there it is. The Constitution and 2A is what it is. It'll be wrangled over again, too, given the pipeline of legal actions coming. I hope one or more of them will put this puppy to rest, once and for all. All this terrible conniving on the part of anti-Constitutionalists (anti-gunners) is hard to stomach, since it tears at the heart of one of the founding, core principles. I'd like to see the axes buried on the issue, finally. We'll see, in the next several years, hopefully.
    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.

  6. #50
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Thankfully, nobody in 150yrs of futzing with the law at the federal level has anyone dared take on the several states to suggest the states didn't have the right to call their own shots. Trouble is, for the Constitution of core principles to have any meaning at all, those basic principles have to apply to the People. They either do or they don't. Since some of them do, it's simply beyond all logic that all of them don't. At least, it seems so to me.
    False dichotomy. There is nothing at all preventing the United States Constitution from applying only to the United States (except where it explicitly states otherwise), and the individual state constitutions from applying to their respective states, and the whole thing working fine. The US Constitution doesn't apply principles to anyone, anywhere. It's a binding legal document outlining the limitations of government(s).

    I, for one, look forward to the responses to the Supreme Court decision more than I do the decision itself.


    -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.

  7. #51
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    Without meaning to you have have acceeded to my point. It was necessary to amend the Constitution to include those that the BOR forgot. The fundamental principal alluded to in the BOR did not recognize individuals of all callings and races. We later (not very much later though) amended the principals expressed to include everybody. My point was that the original 10 Amendments later had to be expressed in other terms to prove effective. We to many times give our forefathers Saintly status. The truth is (with some notable exceptions) they were for the most part landed aristocracy and gentry who did not even think about the rights of all. The BOR is a magnificent work, but it wasn't originally supported by the majority of the signers of the Constitution. Only a vigorous fight by a small minority of people (Jefferson, Franklin and Washington were leaders) got it accepted as part of the constitution and then it had to be separate amendments. To project that the founders intended the second amendment to mean all of us should be armed is to disregard history. I believe the right to defend ones self is a GOD-given right, one of the inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I am not fixated on the legal arguments of the 2dA because it is so limited in its scope. I sincerely feel that it is my right as a free man, period. Luckily, for me, my state, Tennessee, agrees to that principle at least to the extent that I can carry a weapon to defend myself. If you live in a state that does not allow you to carry a weapon for self-defense, there is a controlling "aristocracy" keeping you disarmed and in my opinion you are not a free man.
    Actually I think you missed my point.

    The point was that the if the Founders got it wrong they got in wrong on the side of too narrowly defining who the freedoms and liberties expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights applied to. The more recent attempt to more narrowly define those rights and freedoms are contrary to the fundament principles expressed in our founding documents. The fact a relative few (central figures during time) understood the shortcoming doesn't diminish the importance of those principles and the idea that they should be most liberally applied.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  8. #52
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,728
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    The US Constitution doesn't apply principles to anyone, anywhere. It's a binding legal document outlining the limitations of government(s).
    Semantics, and not what I said or implied.

    I understand the rights exist, and that the Constitution's purpose was to put into writing the structure of and limitations on government. So did the founders.

    I meant my words to be inferred in this way, since exactitude is required: the original Constitutional 2A wording acknowledged the preexisting right of all people to own and carry arms, and to specifically limit government's futzing via the "shall not be infringed" phrase.
    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. #53
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849

    Rights given to us by the Almighty.....

    Given by the Creator, written down for all to see.....but....we had to go and screw that up too.

    Constitution states the limitations of Government....I wish someone would mail a copy to Washington, the original that's on display has faded a bit....But I got a good picture of it...(see photo left)
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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.