Constitution = Vermont CCW?


July 18, 2003, 07:34 PM
I'm fairly curious; if you weren't fed cow dung from the leftist media; and you just read the 2nd; would you end up with Vermont style CCW?

If you enjoyed reading about "Constitution = Vermont CCW?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
July 18, 2003, 07:49 PM
That's right.

Which is exactly the way it was during the first hundred odd years of our republic.

July 18, 2003, 08:49 PM

July 18, 2003, 09:17 PM
It seems to me, the Constitution was written in plain language and not "legal-eeze" so everybody would understand its meaning.

So what happened?

Standing Wolf
July 18, 2003, 10:08 PM
Works for me!

Bill St. Clair
July 18, 2003, 10:18 PM
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith

July 18, 2003, 10:18 PM
What always happens, twoblink. Someone got the novel idea of telling someone that they weren't a "person", and thus didn't have rights under the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. Thusly, the door was opened to ignoring the Constitution in part or in whole, and coming up with ludicrous schemes for why it doesn't apply to one person or another. And, thusly, you have what we now have today, a government that only pays lip service to the Constitution and the principles enshrined therein, and uses any excuse they can find to abridge the rights of the people that they govern.

July 18, 2003, 10:47 PM
Which is exactly the way it was during the first hundred odd years of our republic

Not sure that is correct.

Weren't there places where gun toting, open or concealed, was illegal, even in the wild west?

Or is that just a Hollywood creation?

July 19, 2003, 12:01 AM
Constitution = Vermont CCW?


Glock Glockler
July 19, 2003, 09:30 AM
Weren't there places where gun toting, open or concealed, was illegal, even in the wild west?

Yes, but this is not in conflict with the 2nd Amendment. Contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights is only a prohibition on Federal power. During the time of ratification there was a lot of conflict between the Federalists, who favored a strong central govt, and the anti-federalists, who feared a strong central govt due to reason and their recent experience under the English monarchy. The Bill of Rights, though watered down and reduced, was basically a bone that the Federalists threw to the antis saying "Here, it's in black and white that we're not going to get tyrannical".

They didn't want to do this, as they didn't want their power to be limited. Imagine where we'd be without the BoR, then keep in mind that Madison argued in on of the Federalist papers that a BoR is 'not only unnecessary, but dangerous'.

That is the proper context in which to view the BoR, as a reluctant bone thowed to the antis to quell their fear of a tyrannical govt. But if they did have such a fear of a central govt, would the States adopt a document that limited their own power and placed that central govt as the arbitrator that decides when the states are right or wrong? If so, what point is there for the states to have Constitutions with limits on state power? Why would similar prohibitions on state power be necessary when we have Big Daddy Federal govt to take care of us?


Check out my signature, then keep in mind that 34 of the 55 delegates at the Convention were lawyers. Do you think lawyers, that make their living with the finest subtleties of language, would know that certain clauses in the Constitution would be interpreted in a certain way, especially with Federal judges that they would be appointing? If they really wanted to restarin the Federal govt, could they have crafted a govt that would have done so, or at least done a better job?

The 2nd Amendment is weak, as are the other amendments. If you want a real 2nd Amendment, check out Boston T party's version in his gun bible. Things like the interstate commerce clause, the general welfare clause, the necessary and proper clause, the Senate's ability to enact treaties that are on par with the Constitution, are all reasons why the govt has become like it has, with our RKBA rights being thrown out the window.

The Federalists feared that the people would rise up and dispose of them, and why not with incidents like Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion? Why would you want an armed populace that might threaten your power?

If you're really interested in this stuff, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It actually looks into the Constitution itself as well as the motives behind it, things we're taught not to do because the Founding fathers were all like Gods and should not even be questioned.

July 19, 2003, 01:03 PM

Since Boston T Party was my shooting instructor for 8 days; yes, we have talked about the Constitution extensively around the campfire while eatin' chili :cool: :D

I'm just as surprised now as I was when I was younger; the Constitution seems fairly clear to me; how come all these well learned old people have such a difficult time..

I know the dinky little town my friend lives in, in TX actually has gun laws since inception. Of course, nobody follows them, but that's another story..

Wolves, Stampedes, etc.. Biggest threat there.. As for things like burglars there; when even grandma's got a shotgun, theft is probably a bad idea..

So I know quite a few cities that had gun laws way back when; but most of the state constitutions also have a 2nd amendment similar.. The PRK doesn't.. :barf: :scrutiny:

Glock Glockler
July 19, 2003, 01:30 PM
Wow! I didn't know that you chilled with Boston, pretty cool. I'm sure that didn't influence your M1A purchase at all:) That's probably the next rifle on my buy list, it just feels so much better and more natural than a Fal or G3, I just wish the mags weren't so damn expensive and that some company would make a quality rifle with a forged receiver.

As far as the Constitution goes, if it is so clear, and not just to you, why is it that judges interpret it to give the Feds far more power than they apparently have under Article I, Section 8 (Get it, section 8, is that a coincidence:))?

Why is the term "The United States" used with different meanings, which invites confusion if one is even aware that it's being done?

Why was the 10th Amendment written with the word "expressly" removed from the second part of the AoC?

I should probably reread the book, as well as some other stuff, but I think it raises plenty of legitimate points that need to be answered.

Also, when you land here again I'd look to take up residence not in KA. That's just a sinking ship that will get infinately worse before it get's better.

Jim March
July 19, 2003, 05:53 PM
Glock Glockler: a VERY strong case can be made that the BoR was intended to limits the states too, even before the 14th Amendment of 1868.

The original, core constitution is binding on the states. It allows for amendments, which according to the core constitution [i]have the same force and scope of effect as the core constitution[/b].

Have you read the Barron vs. Baltimore case of 1833 I think it was? I have. It's quite clear the USSC eliminated the state's need to obey the BoR on pretty flimsy grounds. All through the 1840s/1850s, various state court cases were clear that there is a 2nd Amendment right to arms (although not concealed arms) that effects the states, so they didn't put much faith in Barron either.

When the 14th Amendment of 1868 was proposed and passed, the stated intent was to overturn Barron by applying the BoR to the states (again, as it was prior to 1833). Another stated intent was to allow black self defense against the proto-Klan "night riders" and various Southern "state militias" that were first exploring the fashion possibilities of bedsheets with eyeholes :rolleyes:. This "let's arm the blacks" intent is dead clear from speeches by Ohio Republican congressman Bingham, the driving force behind the 14th Amendment and speeches on record by other legislators of the period; it's also clear from it's ancestor legislation in the Freedmen's Bureau acts and similar. See also Akhil Reed Amar's 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights" and Stephen Halbrook's 1984 book "That Every Man Be Armed".

Now, if all that is true, and the evidence of this intent in the 14th is overwhelming, it leads to interesting conclusions:

* No southern black of the 1868 period could possibly have safely packed a gun open-carry. He'd have been shot on sight. Getting a CCW permit issued on a discretionary basis was likewise utterly out of the question.

* Powerful concealable arms were well known at that time. Colt, S&W and others had factory-built pocket revolvers, generally 22 through 32 calibers. Not much stopping power, but one hell of an infection threat! The Mormons had invented the big-bore snubby by chopping up 36 and 44cal percussion Colts circa 1850s and with round ball ammo at across-the-room range, had stopping power and then some. The "Volcanic" handguns were well known, basically lever handguns that were pretty cool and more concealable than a modern semi-auto. I'd love to have a 6" barrel 45ACP lever-handgun with a 7-shot tube mag under the barrel. Finally, everybody knew the S&W patent on the through-bored cylinder was going to run out in 1872 and this was eagerly awaited - as expected, it caused a revolution in handgun design and effectiveness.

So if there's a right to concealed carry today, it would stem from a proper understanding of the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment, and the social and technical situation of the day.

Glock Glockler
July 19, 2003, 08:04 PM

Thanks for your post. I am always sorely wanting of fit participants for political hand to hand:), that being said I disagree with you completely.

I suppose an amendment could make the BoR binding on the states as well, though that would be a radical depature from the Constitution binding Federal power, though such an amendment would have to be legitimate in order to carry any weight.

Let's look at the history of the passage of the 14th Amendment, shall we?

1861 - The South declares secession but the North refuses to recognize it and insists it's within the 'Union'.

1865 - The North Wins the war

1866 - After the South refuses to ratify the 14th Amendment, the North declares the South to be non-states under military occupation, but requires them to ratify the 14th Amendment in order to get back into the union. So they didn't want to be part of the union but were made to remain so at gunpoint, but were then expelled from the union and required to perform a function of a state to get back into the union, which it didn't want to be a part of in the first place, which it had rejected when it was a state.

This type of shiftyness makes Clinton look like a straight talking, no BS, kind of guy.

How can you ask me to respect a law that owes it's very existence a complete disregard to Constitutional law?

Aside from that, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the internal political situation was in the Southern states, or territories depending on who your audience, if the Feds don't have a legal way to accomplish something no matter how good their intentions are or what good will be accomplished by an act, it's unConstitutional I will not respect it.

Modern CC has nothing to do with the North's flagrant disregard for the Constitution, but simply an extension of the principles which the US constitution and the state's constitutions were based on.

July 20, 2003, 12:05 PM

I had an M1A BEFORE meeting Boston :cool:

He shot a DaeWoo for the 8 days. Said he liked the FN/FAL, but really loved the M1A. Also, really loved mine; the trigger is short and sweet.

The Constitution, as I learned it, is a contract with America, that THEY know their place in society [They being government]. That they understand the house rules, as the pun goes.

They are like a that movie "Planet of the Apes". They think they are the superior race..

Glock Glockler
July 20, 2003, 01:59 PM
My brother has an M1A and I'm quite fond of it, with the exception of the stock being too short (I'm 6'4). Yep, I'm saving my pennies, so pretty soon I'll be the proup papa of yet another gun. I've heard nothing but good things about the Deawoo, too bad we can't get them here, for now anyway:)

If the Constitution is a contract, that means that Congress is supposed to be the servants of the people, yes? Does Congress serve us or do we serve them? Do they control what we listen to, what are children are taught, what drugs and surgeries we're allowed to have, how we're allowed to be armed, etc, but does this apply to them as well or are they de facto royalty? I don't know of too many jobs where you can vote yourself a pay raise and where you get the type of retirement benies that they do, along with armed protection that we couldn't dream of. It sure sounds to me like different rules for royalty.

This is also just the slightest scratch of the surface, you know that I can go on for hours about the privilages and inequalities that Congress has over us. The tail is wagging the dog right now, and has been for a while. If the Constitution was supposed to keep us free it has failed, the only other avenue to regaining freedom is unfortunately one that we'd rather not have to persue, both for practical reasons and a desire to avoid nastiness.

The Feds know this though, and that's why they've taken over certain institutions in order to solidify their power. If they control education, they are the ones who program the minds of the populace, which is very good for them. If they control media outlets, they can control the minds of the sheeple, which is good for them. Same with the monetary system, and what they're trying to do with the healthcare system. When all those things are accomplished, they will begin disarming those that will resist them.

People will blab on about how many guns there are in the USA, but that is meaningless. The number of guns don't matter in the slightest without the willingness to use them.

I guess I can sum it up with a quote from Jefferson: "When the people fear the govt it is tyranny, when the govt fears the people it is liberty". Which one describes the situation we now endure? Are we in charge or are they?

If you enjoyed reading about "Constitution = Vermont CCW?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!