Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,932 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.

Shall not be infringed relates to the right to keep and bear arms ONLY, that does not in any logical sense mean you have the right to carry a gun wherever you want, anywhere. That the government has NO authority whatsoever in restricting where and when you can carry.

I'm sorry Pro, but to be blunt that interpretation is flat out stupid. No document, no paper, no quote, NOTHING whatsoever in any way guarantees that the original intent of the Second Amendment gave an absolute right without limitations to carry a gun wherever you want. There is no historical evidence that the Second Amendment intended that an individual can carry a gun into a school, the White House, a courthouse, etc...period.
What do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
States decide whether to be shall issue or may issue. I guess it depends on who you ask and where they live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,932 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
States decide whether to be shall issue or may issue. I guess it depends on who you ask and where they live.
Yes, but is that constitutional? The government decides a lot of things.... it doesn't mean it's right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
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.

Yes, but is that constitutional?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
I'm sorry Pro, but to be blunt that interpretation is flat out stupid. No document, no paper, no quote, NOTHING whatsoever in any way guarantees that the original intent of the Second Amendment gave an absolute right without limitations to carry a gun wherever you want. There is no historical evidence that the Second Amendment intended that an individual can carry a gun into a school, the White House, a courthouse, etc...period.
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,333 Posts
The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights obviously bore arms; no colony, state, or commonwealth restricted carry.
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,585 Posts
Well, let's see...is it RKBAOAH (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only At HOME) or is it just RKBA?:rolleyes:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
Does the 2A cover carry?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
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/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
"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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,908 Posts
It says to keep and bear.

Thats as clear as the English language allows IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top