Second Amendment Rights

[Iceweasel]

Given what we are seeing the two leading candidates for the GOP doing and saying right now, I don't think that is a safe assumption, Ice.

You don't think period. You can't.

 

[Iceweasel]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

Wrong. You are too fucking stupid to understand what bearing arms means. You don't bear arms in the safe.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent people from carrying weapons. Libturds think government grants us rights and we need their permission to do xyz. But power is granted to the government instead so you guys have it ass backwards. As long as the government is kept in check the arrangement works. Too many libs in government moves us dangerously close to upending the works.

 

[ZackB]

Personally, I don't think that open carry is a good idea. I have a carry license and I carry every day. However, I carry concealed. I also know how to handle a firearm safely and would never think of pulling it in any situation unless it was a matter of life and death and was an absolute last resort to protect myself or others from imminent death. I

The thing is, if you openly carry on your hip then somebody can easily sucker punch you are take the gun away from you. Even with "locking" holsters all a bad guy has to do is a minimum of research to know how to extract the weapon. The result is that you are virtually giving a gun to a criminal. That is not a good thing.

Secondly, think about the scenarios which could cause you to draw a weapon. Clearly in your home you can pull your weapon and shoot an intruder. But how about if a bad guy tries to rob a convenience store or liquor store while you are inside? You can't just pull your gun and start blasting away lest you put everybody in danger. If you are in a robbery situation in a public place and the bad guy sees that gun on your hip he may take it from you as he points his gun at your face. Then you have put another gun into the stream of criminal activity.

For self defense purposes I much prefer for the bad guy to not know I have a gun. It will keep the gun away from the criminal and prevent it from making me the focus of the criminal, allowing me a tactical advantage if the situation turns deadly and I have to unholster my weapon.

I find that most people who carry have not thoroughly thought through the potential scenarios in which you may have to unholster your weapon - robbery in public area around other innocent people; robbery directed at you in, say, a parking lot; a car jacking, directed either at you or at someone near you; a hostage situation; workplace violence; etc... Have you actually thought about how it's going to go down? When it is appropriate, and legal, to unholster your gun and discharge it. If you carry you better think about it and know when it is legal and when it is not legal.

I suppose that the justification for open carry in public is deterrence. That is, nobody will want to engage in criminal activity if they know someone is carrying. But how would you deal with that if you are the criminal? You would pull your gun, hold the open carry person at gunpoint and take his or her gun away from them. The point is that these things happen fast. You may very well not even be in a position to draw your firearm before the bad guy starts waiving a gun in your face.

You are not a cop because you openly carry. You cannot just whip it out anytime you are in a bad situation. You are not a hero. If you are in a public area it may escalate the already bad situation and put everyone in much more danger than previously existed before you drew your gun.

There should be some happy medium that can be reached. For example, in a rural area there is no reason not to allow open carry. But in a suburban area with a dense population, allowing a lot of exposed firearms to float around seems like a tragedy waiting to happen. However, if you carry concealed you can move about freely among people and nobody knows that you are carrying. But if a psycho decides to pull out an AR 15 at Six Flags and opens fire and you are in the vicinity, it is incumbent on you to unholster your concealed peace and neutralize the threat so that people do not die.

Finally, if you can legally carry concealed, then your second amendment rights are not being infringed upon. Open carry is not necessary to ensure that we have full use of our second amendment right. There are tons of methods and systems you can use to comfortably carry concealed. I carry a large, heavy Glock 4O long slide 10mm in a shoulder holster underneath my jacket. Nobody knows I have it, and God help the poor fucker who ever causes me to unholster it. When I am not wearing a jacket I downgrade to a Glock 17 holstered inside my waist band , and carry my G40 10mm in my brief case where I keep it handy. I hope that I never have to unholster either to deal with a deadly situation. But if I do have to I have the ability to unleash all unholy hell on the perp. And I do thing strictly with concealed carry pieces.

The biggest thing I can advise is that if you are going to carry, open or concealed, take 2 courses, or get individualized training in these 2 areas: gun safety and shooting, and self defense tactics.

One final bit of advice: carry a 3-4" fixed blade knife. Carry in a pant pocket, on your belt, jacket picket, boot, or around your neck. I personally carry a 3 inch blade in a hard plastic scabbard that I hand around my neck with a lanyard and keep tucked behind my shirt. A knife can enable you to neutralize the threat quickly at close range and may help you avoid some of the excessive interrogation that follows from police after you shoot someone. In other words, if the perp is a bad guy and is in such close proximity to your person to make a knife a viable weapon of self defense, then the police may infer that the threat level was more serious and your actions are justifiable. However, if you shoot a guy across the room who may or may not shoot someone, then your actions will be scrutinized much more closely by the police.

You live in a constant state of fear. That's got to be rough. Even for a white guy.

Actually, I don't.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Libturds think government grants us rights and we need their permission to do xyz.

Really? In my state if you get in trouble with the law and are carrying concealed without a permit, you have large troubles.

So how is it that this "right" you say we have is tied to a government permit?

 

[Wilbur Right]

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent people from carrying weapons

There is nothing in the COTUS that says you can carry concealed. Permits are necessary in my state. How could that be right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent people from carrying weapons

There is nothing in the COTUS that says you can carry concealed. Permits are necessary in my state. How could that be right?

as long as they shall issue all is good

 

[Iceweasel]

It's shall issue here. Open carry is legal too but I've only seen it a few times in 30+ years. Seattle has tried to ban guns, being the unAmerica zealots they are but the high court keeps shooting them down, harhar. It's in the state Constitution.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Personally, I don't think that open carry is a good idea. I have a carry license and I carry every day. However, I carry concealed. I also know how to handle a firearm safely and would never think of pulling it in any situation unless it was a matter of life and death and was an absolute last resort to protect myself or others from imminent death. I

The thing is, if you openly carry on your hip then somebody can easily sucker punch you are take the gun away from you. Even with "locking" holsters all a bad guy has to do is a minimum of research to know how to extract the weapon. The result is that you are virtually giving a gun to a criminal. That is not a good thing.

Secondly, think about the scenarios which could cause you to draw a weapon. Clearly in your home you can pull your weapon and shoot an intruder. But how about if a bad guy tries to rob a convenience store or liquor store while you are inside? You can't just pull your gun and start blasting away lest you put everybody in danger. If you are in a robbery situation in a public place and the bad guy sees that gun on your hip he may take it from you as he points his gun at your face. Then you have put another gun into the stream of criminal activity.

For self defense purposes I much prefer for the bad guy to not know I have a gun. It will keep the gun away from the criminal and prevent it from making me the focus of the criminal, allowing me a tactical advantage if the situation turns deadly and I have to unholster my weapon.

I find that most people who carry have not thoroughly thought through the potential scenarios in which you may have to unholster your weapon - robbery in public area around other innocent people; robbery directed at you in, say, a parking lot; a car jacking, directed either at you or at someone near you; a hostage situation; workplace violence; etc... Have you actually thought about how it's going to go down? When it is appropriate, and legal, to unholster your gun and discharge it. If you carry you better think about it and know when it is legal and when it is not legal.

I suppose that the justification for open carry in public is deterrence. That is, nobody will want to engage in criminal activity if they know someone is carrying. But how would you deal with that if you are the criminal? You would pull your gun, hold the open carry person at gunpoint and take his or her gun away from them. The point is that these things happen fast. You may very well not even be in a position to draw your firearm before the bad guy starts waiving a gun in your face.

You are not a cop because you openly carry. You cannot just whip it out anytime you are in a bad situation. You are not a hero. If you are in a public area it may escalate the already bad situation and put everyone in much more danger than previously existed before you drew your gun.

There should be some happy medium that can be reached. For example, in a rural area there is no reason not to allow open carry. But in a suburban area with a dense population, allowing a lot of exposed firearms to float around seems like a tragedy waiting to happen. However, if you carry concealed you can move about freely among people and nobody knows that you are carrying. But if a psycho decides to pull out an AR 15 at Six Flags and opens fire and you are in the vicinity, it is incumbent on you to unholster your concealed peace and neutralize the threat so that people do not die.

Finally, if you can legally carry concealed, then your second amendment rights are not being infringed upon. Open carry is not necessary to ensure that we have full use of our second amendment right. There are tons of methods and systems you can use to comfortably carry concealed. I carry a large, heavy Glock 4O long slide 10mm in a shoulder holster underneath my jacket. Nobody knows I have it, and God help the poor fucker who ever causes me to unholster it. When I am not wearing a jacket I downgrade to a Glock 17 holstered inside my waist band , and carry my G40 10mm in my brief case where I keep it handy. I hope that I never have to unholster either to deal with a deadly situation. But if I do have to I have the ability to unleash all unholy hell on the perp. And I do thing strictly with concealed carry pieces.

The biggest thing I can advise is that if you are going to carry, open or concealed, take 2 courses, or get individualized training in these 2 areas: gun safety and shooting, and self defense tactics.

One final bit of advice: carry a 3-4" fixed blade knife. Carry in a pant pocket, on your belt, jacket picket, boot, or around your neck. I personally carry a 3 inch blade in a hard plastic scabbard that I hand around my neck with a lanyard and keep tucked behind my shirt. A knife can enable you to neutralize the threat quickly at close range and may help you avoid some of the excessive interrogation that follows from police after you shoot someone. In other words, if the perp is a bad guy and is in such close proximity to your person to make a knife a viable weapon of self defense, then the police may infer that the threat level was more serious and your actions are justifiable. However, if you shoot a guy across the room who may or may not shoot someone, then your actions will be scrutinized much more closely by the police.

Thank you for posting such a well thought out and reasoned piece on this topic.

 

[Centinel]

Each of us has a natural right to keep and bear arms. However, a property owner also has the right to place conditions on the use of his property. If a property owner says that I may not carry arms on his property, then that is his prerogative. This has nothing to do with government. It is simply the choice of private individuals or groups of private individuals.

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

Nope. I didn't say that.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

Of course it doesn't. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It recognizes them.

And because a person has a natural right to his life, he also has a right to possess the means with which to protect his life. Firearms are currently the most effective means to do so.

 

[Wildman]

Personally, I don't think that open carry is a good idea. I have a carry license and I carry every day. However, I carry concealed. I also know how to handle a firearm safely and would never think of pulling it in any situation unless it was a matter of life and death and was an absolute last resort to protect myself or others from imminent death.

AMEN brother.., 101%

 

[Centinel]

Each of us has a natural right to keep and bear arms. However, a property owner also has the right to place conditions on the use of his property. If a property owner says that I may not carry arms on his property, then that is his prerogative. This has nothing to do with government. It is simply the choice of private individuals or groups of private individuals.

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hell yeah, lets get our second amendment hate on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

You appear to be confused about the power of Congress and that of Judicial Review. The power of Congress has existed since 1789 and that of the Supremes was conceived by the Founders; see Federalist #81, Hamilton (1787). In Marbury v. Madison (1803) it became doctrinal to the High Court.

Congress will continue, from time to time, to enact or amend gun control legislation just as SCOTUS has and they will continue to adjudicate cases arising over that topic to rule on its Constitutionality. See/read Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). He made it damn clear that Amendment II was not sacrosanct and the last word! Once again, this is from Scalia's decision in section III, first paragraph;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 " [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

 

[Centinel]

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

You appear to be confused about the power of Congress and that of Judicial Review. The power of Congress has existed since 1789 and that of the Supremes was conceived by the Founders; see Federalist #81, Hamilton (1787). In Marbury v. Madison (1803) it became doctrinal to the High Court.

Congress will continue, from time to time, to enact or amend gun control legislation just as SCOTUS has and they will continue to adjudicate cases arising over that topic to rule on its Constitutionality. See/read Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). He made it damn clear that Amendment II was not sacrosanct and the last word! Once again, this is from Scalia's decision in section III, first paragraph;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 " [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER >

I'm not sure what you're claiming, but if it's that the constitution empowers congress has to enact gun control legislation, then please cite the relevant clause in art I, section 8.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Yet another liberal fanatic who doesn't know the difference between "I am carrying a gun" and "I have the right to carry a gun".

Liberals come up with more strawman ("irrelevant") arguments than can be believed. Mostly because facts and accuracy never serve their agenda.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I'm not sure what you're claiming, but if it's that the constitution empowers congress has to enact gun control legislation

If you're not sure of what the law of the land is as established by the Heller decision and its direction which Scalia wrote for the majority means, I'm sure not going to try and explain it to you. One would think you would have some depth of knowledge about the topic since you dove into it.

BTW, there are thousands and thousands of things not written into the enumerated powers at Article I § 8 which have been passed into law and are constitutional. You really need to stop listening to crackpot Constitutionalists and start paying attention to how the Constitution actually functions. Judicial Review is a very large part of that!

 

[Centinel]

If you're not sure of what the law of the land is as established by the Heller decision and its direction which Scalia wrote for the majority means, I'm sure not going to try and explain it to you. One would think you would have some depth of knowledge about the topic since you dove into it.

BTW, there are thousands and thousands of things not written into the enumerated powers at Article I § 8 which have been passed into law and are constitutional.

Which of congress' enumerated powers would permit it to enact gun control legislation?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If you're not sure of what the law of the land is as established by the Heller decision and its direction which Scalia wrote for the majority means, I'm sure not going to try and explain it to you. One would think you would have some depth of knowledge about the topic since you dove into it.

BTW, there are thousands and thousands of things not written into the enumerated powers at Article I § 8 which have been passed into law and are constitutional.

Which of congress' enumerated powers would permit it to enact gun control legislation?

I'll not play your game of ignorance. Deal with the INTENT of the Constitution and not the crackpot "originalists" you bloody fruitcake! AGAIN, there are thousands and thousands of things not written into the enumerated powers at Article I § 8 which have been passed into law and are constitutional. Live with it!

 

[Centinel]

If you're not sure of what the law of the land is as established by the Heller decision and its direction which Scalia wrote for the majority means, I'm sure not going to try and explain it to you. One would think you would have some depth of knowledge about the topic since you dove into it.

BTW, there are thousands and thousands of things not written into the enumerated powers at Article I § 8 which have been passed into law and are constitutional.

Which of congress' enumerated powers would permit it to enact gun control legislation?

I'll not play your game of ignorance. Deal with the INTENT of the Constitution and not the crackpot "originalists" you bloody fruitcake! AGAIN, there are thousands and thousands of things not written into the enumerated powers at Article I § 8 which have been passed into law and are constitutional. Live with it!

When the states established their union, their INTENT was to create a general government with a small set of enumerated powers. They listed these powers in article I, section 8. Nowhere in this section is the power to enact gun control legislation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Natural? So, guns appear in nature do they?

Nope.

So how can there be a natural right to have guns then?

Your body appears in nature, and you have a natural right to defend it.

Is that your argument? Are you serious?

The 2A isn't about self defense at all anyway.

Basically what you're saying is that a person has a right to any object that can defend themselves. Like tanks, F-15s, nukes, SAMs. But you don't have this right.

The rights in the 2A are designed to protect the militia. This does NOT mean the militia has the rights. Individuals have the rights.
They are, the right to own a weapons and the right to be in the militia.

There is a right to self defense, but it doesn't come from the 2A.

As far as the constitution goes, focusing on the 2A is misguided. Remember, when the states established their union, they delegated to it a small set of specific powers. These are listed in article I, section 8. If you look at those powers, you won't find one enabling congress to pass any sort of gun control law that would prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms by the people of the states.

So with or without the 2A, congress still can't enact gun control.

Answer this question then.

If there was no power to take guns away from people, why would they make a right to protect something that didn't need protecting?

Actually there is something there. It's in Article 1 Section 8 which gives Congress the power to do several things.

"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, imagine the situation. The US govt orders a militia to federal service. They order all men to bring their guns with them. Then they take the guns away from those men who are serving in the militia and provide them with other arms. Then take back their arms, but don't give back the arms they took from the militia men.

All of a sudden there's a gray area and the guns have gone missing. Then they send these guys back unarmed and then take over the state without much resistance.

If you can organize and arm (and also disarm) the militia, and also discipline, that's a lot of power that could easily be used wrongly.