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?

varob

States decide whether to be shall issue or may issue. I guess it depends on who you ask and where they live.

__________________
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
-Tony Soprano

Pro2A

Yes, but is that constitutional? The government decides a lot of things.... it doesn't mean it's right.

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.

__________________
The Second Amendment ...... Because crime SHOULD be a hazardous occupation.

If you want to piss off a conservative, lie to him.
If you want to piss off a liberal, tell him the truth.

Anubis

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.

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-

jumpwing

Have him explain how bearing arms (or anything else for that matter) can be achieved without carrying them.

Additionally, the argument that the Fed is barred from denying a right but the State can do it was tried 50 years ago. ML King did a decent job of rounding up successful opposition to that silly notion.

__________________
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

mlr1m

I agree with part of this, that the 2nd amendment dose got give us any right. It only says the Federal Government cannot infringe on a right we were born with. Government powers were enumerated in the Constitution. Our individual ans state rights were everything elst that we didn't give up to the feds.

Michael

MitchellCT

They did.

They restricted slaves, indians, and indentured servants from carrying arms.

Those restrictions aren't allowable under the 14th amendment today...but yes, they did restrict carry.

As to the constitutionality on carrying & the RKBA...well. That's what we have the courts for.

retsupt99

Well, let's see...is it RKBAOAH (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only At HOME) or is it just RKBA?

__________________
"That I cannot do."

"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."


***********************************

NRA Life Member

Ram Rod

Of course it does. Written in the simplest of terms over 200 years ago by our forefathers with intuition and intelligence was designed to cover every aspect and time has no hold over any of it. No change or time will ever make the second amendment any more or any less than what it is. It's so simple that it's hard to believe that it could even be considered 'up for interpretation'. The notion that it could be is totally ridiculous to me.

__________________
RamRod-----sans remords
live, eat, breathe, sleep Glock