Does the 2A cover carry? - Page 3

Wolf357 · October 26th, 2009, 02:22 PM

I fail to understand how shall not be infringed can have so many different interpretations.

ppkheat · October 26th, 2009, 02:56 PM

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?

DaveH · October 26th, 2009, 03:35 PM

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

Quote:

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

BAC · October 26th, 2009, 04:03 PM

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

mlr1m · October 26th, 2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAC

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

2edgesword · October 26th, 2009, 09:06 PM

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.

farmerbyron · October 26th, 2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagleks

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.

10thmtn · October 26th, 2009, 10:08 PM

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.

DaveH · October 26th, 2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

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.

BAC · October 27th, 2009, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

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

October 26th, 2009, 02:22 PM	#21
Wolf357 Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 183	I fail to understand how shall not be infringed can have so many different interpretations. __________________ A modern firearm is just an inanimate tool that is incapable of discharging until a human finger pulls the trigger.

October 26th, 2009, 02:56 PM	#22
ppkheat Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Louisiana Posts: 1,628	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? __________________ Whatever hits the fan will not be distributed evenly.

October 26th, 2009, 04:03 PM	#24
BAC Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 1,992	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.

October 26th, 2009, 09:06 PM	#26
2edgesword Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: New York Posts: 395	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

October 26th, 2009, 10:08 PM	#28
10thmtn Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Posts: 658	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 People ARE the Militia, and have a DUTY (not just a right) to be both armed and proficient in the use of said arms. Ex-Army officer; Hurricane Andrew Relief, FL, 1992; Operation Restore Hope, Somalia, 1993 NRA Life Member; Range Safety Officer Glock 26, CT Laserguard, Smartcarry

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