Does the 2A cover carry? - Page 4

10thmtn · October 27th, 2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

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 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...

DaveH · October 27th, 2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

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!
[/

]

ccw9mm · October 27th, 2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pro2A

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.

DaveH · October 27th, 2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccw9mm

....
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

varob · October 27th, 2009, 06:49 PM

Now I'm really starting to miss Hopyard and Self Defense....

rljohns · October 30th, 2009, 01:44 AM

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".

2edgesword · October 30th, 2009, 04:03 PM

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.

ccw9mm · October 30th, 2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rljohns

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.

Mountaineer · October 30th, 2009, 09:53 PM

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.

+1

I like the steadfastness of your argument.

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

ccw9mm · October 30th, 2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

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.

October 27th, 2009, 06:49 PM	#35
varob Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,283	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

October 30th, 2009, 04:03 PM	#37
2edgesword Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: New York Posts: 398	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

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

October 30th, 2009, 01:44 AM	#36
rljohns Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 631	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".