Does the 2A cover carry? - Page 2

chiefjason · October 25th, 2009, 07:15 PM

As of 1921, NC thought it covered carry. Sometimes I wonder though. Seems we are slipping away from it. At least we have a NC Supreme Court case to stand on.

State v Kerner

"The usual method when a country is overborne by force is to
"disarm" the people. It is to prevent the above and similar
exercises of arbitrary power that the people in creating this
Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people,"
reserved to themselves the right to "bear arms" that accustomed to
their use they might be ready to meet illegal force with legal force by adequate and just defense of their persons, their property, and their liberties, whenever necessary. We should be slow, indeed, to construe such-guarantee into a mere academic expression which has become obsolete."

And...

"ALLEN, J., concurring: The right to bear arms, which is
protected and safeguarded by the Federal and State constitutions,
is subject to the authority of the General Assembly, in the
exercise of the police power, to regulate, but the regulation must
be reasonable and not prohibitive, and must bear a fair relation to
the preservation of the public peace and safety.

This is, I think, the correct principle, and it appears to me
the constitutional privilege is infringed by the act, under which
the defendant is indicted, as it makes one guilty of a violation of
law, who carries a pistol off his own premises openly and for a
lawful purpose without a permit and he is required to pay $5 and to
give a bond in the sum of $500 before the permit can issue.

No provision is made for an emergency, and no exception in
favor of one who carries a pistol off his premises openly, in the
necessary defense of his person or property, when he has had no
opportunity to secure a permit."

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...e_v_kerner.txt

NC does allow the legislature to regulate CC, but this established OC as a lawful means of carry with the support of the NC Supreme Court and Sec 30 of the NC Constitution.

2edgesword · October 25th, 2009, 09:58 PM

In my opinion you are right in your argument that bearing arms means carry on your person outside your home. The trend is toward incorporation of the 2nd amendment which strengthens the argument that states cannot outright forbid carry.

2010 will be an interesting year given the Chicago case to be argued before the SC. If it goes in favor of incorporation it will open the door to challenge numerous state and local laws that restrict or ban handgun ownership and/or carry by law abiding citizens.

Ram Rod · October 25th, 2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2edgesword

In my opinion you are right in your argument that bearing arms means carry on your person outside your home. The trend is toward incorporation of the 2nd amendment which strengthens the argument that states cannot outright forbid carry.

2010 will be an interesting year given the Chicago case to be argued before the SC. If it goes in favor of incorporation it will open the door to challenge numerous state and local laws that restrict or ban handgun ownership and/or carry by law abiding citizens.

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.

Eagleks · October 25th, 2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerbyron

I would argue to "bear" arms would cover carry. Otherwise they would have written it to say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep arms shall not be infringed." When the constitution was written firearms were a part of everyday life. You had to put meat on the table for yourself.

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.

P7fanatic · October 25th, 2009, 11:43 PM

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." -Thomas Jefferson

I thought this intersting when I read it...

"The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

2edgesword · October 26th, 2009, 12:42 AM

Quote:

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 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.

SIXTO · October 26th, 2009, 02:29 AM

It says to keep and bear.

Thats as clear as the English language allows IMO.

press1280 · October 26th, 2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pro2A

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.

Random · October 26th, 2009, 12:37 PM

bear (verb) "to carry"

By definition, bearing arms means carrying arms.

imatt · October 26th, 2009, 01:03 PM

I fail to understand how "bear" in the 2nd Amendment could mean anything other than "carry."

October 25th, 2009, 09:58 PM	#12
2edgesword Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: New York Posts: 395	In my opinion you are right in your argument that bearing arms means carry on your person outside your home. The trend is toward incorporation of the 2nd amendment which strengthens the argument that states cannot outright forbid carry. 2010 will be an interesting year given the Chicago case to be argued before the SC. If it goes in favor of incorporation it will open the door to challenge numerous state and local laws that restrict or ban handgun ownership and/or carry by law abiding citizens. __________________ Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF

October 25th, 2009, 11:43 PM	#15
P7fanatic Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Texan in NWFlorida Posts: 1,462	"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." -Thomas Jefferson I thought this intersting when I read it... "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992 __________________ "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

October 26th, 2009, 02:29 AM	#17
SIXTO VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 12,243	It says to keep and bear. Thats as clear as the English language allows IMO. __________________ _________________ \|^^^^^^^^^^^^^\| \|___ \| SIXTO EXPRESS---\| \|\|'\|";,__. \|_..._...___________\| \|\|_\|_\|...,] "(@)'(@)""""\|(@)(@)*****(@)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 25th, 2009, 07:15 PM	#11
chiefjason Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Hickory, NC Posts: 228	As of 1921, NC thought it covered carry. Sometimes I wonder though. Seems we are slipping away from it. At least we have a NC Supreme Court case to stand on. State v Kerner "The usual method when a country is overborne by force is to "disarm" the people. It is to prevent the above and similar exercises of arbitrary power that the people in creating this Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," reserved to themselves the right to "bear arms" that accustomed to their use they might be ready to meet illegal force with legal force by adequate and just defense of their persons, their property, and their liberties, whenever necessary. We should be slow, indeed, to construe such-guarantee into a mere academic expression which has become obsolete." And... "ALLEN, J., concurring: The right to bear arms, which is protected and safeguarded by the Federal and State constitutions, is subject to the authority of the General Assembly, in the exercise of the police power, to regulate, but the regulation must be reasonable and not prohibitive, and must bear a fair relation to the preservation of the public peace and safety. This is, I think, the correct principle, and it appears to me the constitutional privilege is infringed by the act, under which the defendant is indicted, as it makes one guilty of a violation of law, who carries a pistol off his own premises openly and for a lawful purpose without a permit and he is required to pay $5 and to give a bond in the sum of $500 before the permit can issue. No provision is made for an emergency, and no exception in favor of one who carries a pistol off his premises openly, in the necessary defense of his person or property, when he has had no opportunity to secure a permit." http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...e_v_kerner.txt NC does allow the legislature to regulate CC, but this established OC as a lawful means of carry with the support of the NC Supreme Court and Sec 30 of the NC Constitution.

October 26th, 2009, 12:37 PM	#19
Random Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Clayton NC Posts: 267	bear (verb) "to carry" By definition, bearing arms means carrying arms.

October 26th, 2009, 01:03 PM	#20
imatt Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: NC Posts: 308	I fail to understand how "bear" in the 2nd Amendment could mean anything other than "carry."