Alan Gura Begins Attack on "May-Issue" Carry Laws

[azmjs]

if you want details of what I think the second amendment specifically protects, you can find them in the supreme court's decision in DC v Heller, as written by antonin Scalia.

Your opinions or mine about what the founders believed aren't what count. Even if they did, the founders are not immortal dictators- we are a nation of laws, not men, not even great men.

The law is that the supreme court is responsible for deciding questions about the constitution.

 

[1911Tuner]

if you want details of what I think the second amendment specifically protects, you can find them in the supreme court's decision in DC v Heller, as written by antonin Scalia.

So...You feel that our rights are granted and moderated by government...or rather a specific branch of the government. Think carefully.

Work with me here. I'm trying to wrap my head around your core beliefs. A straight answer to the question will do.

Do you feel that the Constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms? How about the right to speak our minds? Or the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure? Are all of these rights granted by the government?

All these points are relevant, because no other article in the Bill of Rights has been subject to so much regulation and restriction. If any of them are violated, there is usually hell to pay...but not the 2nd Amendment. They run roughshod over that one almost at will.

You say that if concealed carry is struck down, your right to keep and bear arms isn't being infringed...in Arizona...because you can still carry openly. Try walking down 42nd Street in NYC with a Glock on your hip and see how quickly your 2nd Amendment rights will be infringed.

Do you believe that the Constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms? Yes? No?

 

[azmjs]

There's nothing in the second amendment that "grants" a right.

The point I made about az open carry was solely to illustrate the fact that in AZ, the RKBA is not contingent on being able to carry concealed. Without concealing a gun, people in AZ can keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment.

If that is not true in new York, or other places, it should certainly be rectified.

Incidentally, the second amendment's is not the only guarantee to be seriously disabused over the years, not even the most egregious.

 

[1911Tuner]

Good! I'll get to the point that I was trying to make.

No. The Constitution doesn't grant us the right. It recognizes
that it is a right, and guarantees it...in writing.

That's why the phrase "Endowed with certain unalienable rights" was used.

Endowed. Born with it. Unalienable. Permanent. Never to be denied.

Our rights and liberties are being eroded a nibble at a time because
a vast number of people have been led to believe, and have accepted that
those rights and liberties come from the government...and so they stand
idly by while they disappear before their eyes.

Privileges are granted...and privileges can be revoked at whim. All
it takes is a majority of one in the voting entity, and whatever right
that they feel should be null and void is gone...with the stroke of a pen.

As it stands, our concealed carry permit is a privilege. We go and beg for permission from the high sheriff...pay the tax for the privilege...and we're apparently quite satisfied that we're exercising a right. Got a news flash for ya. If the high sheriff one day decides that your privelege is to be revoked...it's gone. All it takes is a speeding ticket if that's what he wants to use.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...even though there are infringements by the dozen. We've allowed it to happen , though. I guess it's true. We really do get the government that we deserve.

Good debate! Be well.

 

[toivo]

Because NYS is so deeply in love with "handgun registration" they want each and every handgun tied to your "pistol permit" (by default a permit to merely own and take to the range). You buy the handgun and submit a form to the County Clerk who leaves it with a judge to have it signed off on. Your newly purchased firearm waits inside your friendly dealer's vault until it's signed and you are sent a new permit with the gun's make model and serial printed on it. I don't know how many judges there are, but there are literally only one or two that sign these things promptly, the rest are indifferent or hostile to 2A, and therefore it's quite possible to wait 4-8 weeks before you can start taking the gun to the range.

A lot depends on the county you live in. In my county, one of the judges has given a rubber stamp (literally) of his signature to the clerk in the pistol permit bureau of the sheriff's office. I walk in with a receipt for a handgun, she fills out and rubber-stamps the form, pushes a few buttons on her magic machine, and I walk out with my new handgun listed on my permit. It's possible to buy the gun, get it listed on your permit, and take possession of it all in the same day. Might not sound like a good deal to those of you in "free" states, but by NY standards it's pretty cool.

 

[Neverwinter]

Nope. I'm pretty certain that those words were defined several centuries before the Supreme Court was a twinkle in John Adams' eye. The Supreme Court interprets words and phrases...and not always in accordance with the Framers' intents or desires.

Neither do I, and it's not about what I think they should say. It's what the Founding Fathers thought they should mean...and how they were to be interpreted.

And yet the institution of the judicial branch is behaving exactly as they designed it. The USSC composed of living individuals is interpreting laws in the context of legal precedence from the Constitution onward. How could the Founders not have anticipated differing and changing interpretations of a text? They were certainly learned enough to know the history of disagreements of the most published book in the world.

 

[1911Tuner]

How could the Founders not have anticipated differing and changing interpretations of a text? They were certainly learned enough to know the history of disagreements of the most published book in the world.

Regardless...2A was second in order of importance only to the right to speak our minds because they understood the dangers of a government that gets too big and too uppity. They were also too well aware of the dangers of a standing army that obeyed an uppity government's orders without question.

They put no restrictions or modifiers into the text...other than "Shall not." They did that in the 4th Amendment with the words: "Without due process" meaning that you could be subject to search and seizure as long as there's a good reason for it.

Had they meant for 2A to be subject to restrictions, they would have made a provision for that, maybe along the lines of: "Except where prohibited by law."

Liberty disappears one nibble at a time. Applying for a license in order to exercise a right means that it's not a right at all. It's a privilege...and as noted...that can be revoked at whim.

 

[azmjs]

Good! I'll get to the point that I was trying to make.

No. The Constitution doesn't grant us the right. It recognizes
that it is a right, and guarantees it...in writing.

That's why the phrase "Endowed with certain unalienable rights" was used.

Endowed. Born with it. Unalienable. Permanent. Never to be denied.

Our rights and liberties are being eroded a nibble at a time because
a vast number of people have been led to believe, and have accepted that
those rights and liberties come from the government...and so they stand
idly by while they disappear before their eyes.

Privileges are granted...and privileges can be revoked at whim. All
it takes is a majority of one in the voting entity, and whatever right
that they feel should be null and void is gone...with the stroke of a pen.

As it stands, our concealed carry permit is a privilege. We go and beg for permission from the high sheriff...pay the tax for the privilege...and we're apparently quite satisfied that we're exercising a right. Got a news flash for ya. If the high sheriff one day decides that your privelege is to be revoked...it's gone. All it takes is a speeding ticket if that's what he wants to use.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...even though there are infringements by the dozen. We've allowed it to happen , though. I guess it's true. We really do get the government that we deserve.

Good debate! Be well.

I'm afraid "endowed with certain inalienable rights" is not anywhere in the constitution, and as such isn't part of our laws.

Moreover no right is inalienable, not even the right to life, or else we couldn't have a death penalty, or other punishments for crimes, or any way to maintain safety or security of anything.

Our rights have in fact been greatly expanded and propped up since the country was founded. Our rights are better protected now than at any point before. I've never met all these people who supposedly believe that our rights "come from the government" and that it's therefore OK for the government to abridge them. I suppose I might be fortunate to know so many ACLU types, who are passionately committed, and do more than any other group, to safeguard the rights of the individual against government of all levels.

In a state where open carry is unrestricted, then the RKBA does not require that concealed carry be allowed, and it is indeed a privilege.

For the record, as it stands in Arizona and a few other states, no permission or license or tax is required to conceal a weapon.

I don't think that the second amendment's "shall not be infringed" is ambiguous, though I have found many people who disagree. It is quite clear that it means that the government shall not prevent people from keeping and bearing arms.

As long as people can keep and bear arms, their right to do so is not infringed. This is the reasoning that prevailed in Heller, and it will continue to prevail, while more fanciful interpretations, be they for or against gun ownership, continue to floudner.

Thus allowing open carry precludes a RKBA right to concealed carry, et cetera.

and... a good day to you too!

 

[happygeek]

Moreover no right is inalienable, not even the right to life, or else we couldn't have a death penalty, or other punishments for crimes, or any way to maintain safety or security of anything.

Not a terribly good analogy to gun control as to have your right to life taken away you have to be convicted in court under due process of the law.

Where's the due process in gun control schemes? Are we putting each and every individual in the country on trial in court, convicting them, and then denying them gun ownership and/or carry?

 

[hermannr]

I would agree "IF" we had the unrestricted right to OC everywhere (no permit necessary), then a permit would be OK to CC. Unfortunately, in NY (and DC, Chicago...etc) they do not have any right to OC, and a very restricted right to CC. Argument could be made for unequal treatment under the law.

Here in WA, we have only slight restrictions to OC, and have shall issue CC, not perfect, but way better than NY.

 

[azmjs]

Not a terribly good analogy to gun control as to have your right to life taken away you have to be convicted in court under due process of the law.

Where's the due process in gun control schemes? Are we putting each and every individual in the country on trial in court, convicting them, and then denying them gun ownership and/or carry?

Denying people gun ownership was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in DC v Heller.

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

The death penalty was not offered as an analogy for gun control, but rather as an illustration of the fact that the rights protected by the constitution are not in fact inalienable or absolute. The second amendment is not a guarantee of the ability to do whatever you want with any weapon you choose, just as the first amendment does not protect anything you might possibly wish to say or write.

 

[Loosedhorse]

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

Only because that question has not come before the Court, yet. The reasoning used in Heller (that the RKBA is fundamental, and tied to the fundamental right of SD) allows us to anticipate that carry also may not be prohibitted. However, other dicta suggests that carry can be banned within certain "sensitive places", but not generally throughout a state.

What those sensitive places are will have to be decided, but confirmation of the right to carry just awaits arrival of the right case--assuming no repacement of a pro-gun Justice (or Kennedy) with a anit-gun one.

It is sad that, even after Heller, our rights depend on one Justice. But there it is.

 

[azmjs]

Only because that question has not come before the Court, yet. The reasoning used in Heller (that the RKBA is fundamental, and tied to the fundamental right of SD) allows us to anticipate that carry also may not be prohibitted. HOwever, other dicta suggests that carry can be banned within certain "sensitive places", but not generally throughout a state.

What those sensitive places are will have to be decided, but confirmation of the right to carry just awaits arrival or the right case--assuming no repacement of a pro-gun Justice (or Kennedy) with a anit-gun one.

It is sad the, even after Heller our rights depend on one Justice. But there it is.

I think that's how it will end up too.

As far as the one justice thing, one useful way of looking at it is to remember what got us here. Too many decades of pro-gun people hitching their wagon to the wrong horse, so to speak. There's a long history of the liberty-crusader ACLU types being opposed by the pro gun types. The only way to protect gun rights in the long term is to win over the support of liberals. Liberal jurists should learn not to hold the RKBA to a double standard against the personal liberties protected by the other amendments that they defend so vigorously.

 

[happygeek]

Denying people gun ownership was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in DC v Heller.

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

The death penalty was not offered as an analogy for gun control, but rather as an illustration of the fact that the rights protected by the constitution are not in fact inalienable or absolute. The second amendment is not a guarantee of the ability to do whatever you want with any weapon you choose, just as the first amendment does not protect anything you might possibly wish to say or write.

I'm not sure I follow, where's the due process in the Sullivan Act for example?

 

[1911Tuner]

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

And again, 2A placed no restrictions on where we may bear arms. Since it isn't specifically prohibited or modified...we rightly assume that it's protected. No interpretation is warranted.

A restriction or modifier on how, when, and where we bear arms is an infringement. It's a lot like the statement made by the 2nd Amendment "supporter" Bill O'Reilly when he said that he believed in the right...to keep a *rifle* for self defense...only in the home, and repeated with emphasis "Only in the home."

Which part of "Shall...not...be...infringed" is so hard to grasp?

A gift that has a string attached isn't a gift at all.

If the SCOTUS can rule that we may only bear arms in the home, it can also at some point in the future rule that we can't take the gun out of a specific room in the home. Look at Heller, and the restrictions that were enacted by DC in retaliation. In the home. Not in an attached garage. Not on the front porch. Not on the back porch...and the justices didn't offer a whisper in opposition.

Feelin' infringed on yet?


Now comes the "IMO" part.

After considering that the founders understood the dangers of a standing army, I don't believe that they wanted one. They knew that a provision for the common defense would be needed, which is why they made provisions for a militia...but not a professional army.

And...Because a government that grows too big for its britches could cause just as much mischief with a regulated militia as with a standing army...they put the 2nd Amendment in place. Not so that we could be called up...but specifically because the government could call it up and turn it on the populace.

I also believe that the founders never intended for us to be outgunned by the militia or...God forbid...a professional army...so I believe that we should have legal access to anything the military has, up to and including Abrams tanks and Tomahawks and F18s if we can afford'em.

For the record, I know that ain't gonna happen, either.

 

[azmjs]

I'm not sure I follow, where's the due process in the Sullivan Act for example?

If the sullivan act deprives people of their second amendment rights without due process, than it deserves to be reviewed by the courts, and no doubt eventually will be.

Heller was just a few short years ago, it takes a long time for big changes in the country's legal framework to work there way completely through the legal system.

For better or worse (better, in fact), one of the prices paid for living in a free country with civil society is obeying the law as long as it is the law.

 

[1911Tuner]

The Sullivan Law is an example of an unlawful ruling, and should have been immediately challenged.

In truth, there really can't be a fully unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, and there are certain groups of people who shouldn't be legally able to do so. (We could say the same for cars and driver's licenses...but I digress.) Repeat violent offenders is one such group.

I say "repeat" because most of us have been violent at one time or another in our lives...and if we'd been prosecuted, we wouldn't be able to trot down to the local firearms and fish bait emporium and buy a shootin' iron 30 or 40 years later.

Due to my reckless misspent youth, and my willingness to go a few fast rounds in the parkin' lot at the proverbial hat-drop in those days...I'm in that category. I just got lucky. (Yes. I've grown, and I'm all better now.)

Those amongst us who are certifiable stark-ravin' looney tunes should likewise be infringed...but also in reality...how would that be enforced without becoming a totaltarian police state? Even with that, it would be a virtual impossibility. If a tweaker or crackhead can leave his house at 0900 in search of his daily fix and get hooked up before noon...anybody who wants a gun can pretty much do likewise.

In the final analysis, it comes down to something that my grandfather once said to a sheriff's deputy during a dispute with a neighbor.

"Sonny...the only authority that you have over me is what I let you have. Now get the hell offa my property."

 

[cbrgator]

In truth, there really can't be a fully unrestricted right to keep and bear arms,

You are admitting a fact that you've been arguing against throughout this thread. We all know the 2A says "shall not be infringed." It is not an absolute protection, same way the 1A language, "Congress shall pass no law," is not absolute.

None of our rights are absolute, they can't be in a civil and organized society. It's just a fact of life. Instead, fundamental rights are generally subject to strict scrutiny (optimistically awaiting this for the 2A). Our fundamental rights CAN be abridged, infringed, etc. if the infringement is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

You can argue anything you want about the definitions of words but that is simply the way things are. I want as few limits on the 2A as is realistically possible, and even you now admit that at LEAST some are necessary/acceptable.

 

[1911Tuner]

You are admitting a fact that you've been arguing against throughout this thread.

Think so? I'm really not. I'm only noting that there are certain realities that go along with the right to keep and bear arms. While the people that I described were born with the right, their criminal actions or their lack of the legal ability to make intelligent, responsible decisions and care for themselves are exempted...much like 5 year-old children.

A man of sound mind, and without violent tendencies or predisposed to sociopathic behavior? He should have the unrestricted right, as provided for and guaranteed by the Constitution. One criminal conviction or one violent episode in his past shouldn't change that. Nor should a lesser felony conviction once he's paid his debt and proves that he can stay on the straight and narrow for three years.

After all...we wouldn't hand a 16 year-old boy with a fresh license 200 bucks and the keys to a Corvette and tell him to be home before daylight...would we?

Nor would we hire a known pedophile to teach 4th grade, even if he has the degree and is licensed by the state to teach.

But all of this is moot, because if a violent felon or a whackjob decides that he wants a gun at noon, he can usually have one before the sun goes down...and that is the single reason that the rest of us should have the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. We might meet that guy one dark night at the edge of a parking lot.

 

[cbrgator]

While the people that I described were born with the right, their criminal actions or their lack of the legal ability to make intelligent, responsible decisions and care for themselves are exempted...much like 5 year-old children.

Where in the 2A are violent felons exempted from its protection? If a felon's rights can be stripped, then they aren't absolute.

Where does the 2A say that only people with the "legal ability to make intelligent, responsible decisions and care for themselves" enjoy 2A protections? You are now putting a restriction on a right you say is absolute.

Don't you realize that by saying the 2A is ABSOLUTE, that violent felons AND 5 year old's have full 2A protection? As do infants, the mentally deranged and mentally incapacitated, etc.

It simply is not possible to have absolute rights in a civil, organized society. If rights were absolute, I could stand on the sidewalk outside your home at 3AM, wave a gun around in the air, and scream into a megaphone that I will kill you if you step outside. And I could so because I have the absolute right to bear my arms however I choose, and say whatever I want, wherever and whenever. Should I have the right to do that? Do you believe that restricting that behavior infringes on your constitutionally protected freedom?

 

[azmjs]

And again, 2A placed no restrictions on where we may bear arms. Since it isn't specifically prohibited or modified...we rightly assume that it's protected. No interpretation is warranted.

A restriction or modifier on how, when, and where we bear arms is an infringement. It's a lot like the statement made by the 2nd Amendment "supporter" Bill O'Reilly when he said that he believed in the right...to keep a *rifle* for self defense...only in the home, and repeated with emphasis "Only in the home."

Which part of "Shall...not...be...infringed" is so hard to grasp?

A gift that has a string attached isn't a gift at all.

If the SCOTUS can rule that we may only bear arms in the home, it can also at some point in the future rule that we can't take the gun out of a specific room in the home. Look at Heller, and the restrictions that were enacted by DC in retaliation. In the home. Not in an attached garage. Not on the front porch. Not on the back porch...and the justices didn't offer a whisper in opposition.

Feelin' infringed on yet?


Now comes the "IMO" part.

After considering that the founders understood the dangers of a standing army, I don't believe that they wanted one. They knew that a provision for the common defense would be needed, which is why they made provisions for a militia...but not a professional army.

And...Because a government that grows too big for its britches could cause just as much mischief with a regulated militia as with a standing army...they put the 2nd Amendment in place. Not so that we could be called up...but specifically because the government could call it up and turn it on the populace.

I also believe that the founders never intended for us to be outgunned by the militia or...God forbid...a professional army...so I believe that we should have legal access to anything the military has, up to and including Abrams tanks and Tomahawks and F18s if we can afford'em.

For the record, I know that ain't gonna happen, either.

Neither does the 2A preclude all such restrictions. The second amendment does not protect your ability to carry a gun into the oval office, or into a court room, or a school, or many other places.

This doesn't speak to whether it protects concealed carry per se at any rate. Because even if the 2A is found to protect carrying a gun, it is entirely possible to carry a gun openly while not being able to carry it concealed. Thus the protection for carrying a gun would be fulfilled.

A restriction or modifier is not an infringement unless it prevents you from keeping and bearing arms.

The supreme court might very well rule that we cannot take guns out of the home, or out of a certain room in the home. In order to uphold the constitution, we would have to abide by that ruling, as unlikely as it might be.

Obviously, it is not the justices role to offer a "whisper of opposition" to anything except cases put before them. When the time comes for those restrictions to be considered, then it will be the proper forum for them to speak and act.

 

[husbandofaromanian]

It's because the 2nd is such a strong statement that I am worried. The 2nd is saying we can pretty much any arm (morters, bazookas, grenades) and bear them at will. It scares me that this will cause a Constitutional Convention and a new ammendment will water down the 2nd.

 

[1911Tuner]

As is my habit...sometimes maddening...I usually play devil's advocate in these discussions...presenting both sides of the argument.

There are many things that minors and violent felons are exempted from, including the right to vote and the right to autonomy. This doesn't do away with their right to keep and bear arms. It just makes it a prosecutable action if they're caught with one. Is it an infringement? Yes. Is it a reasonable infringement? Yes.

Again...would you hand a .357 Magnum to a 12 year-old and tell him to go have fun? Well...you might...but being the responsible adult, you could wind up in hot water if you do. I remember a time when a 12 year-old could walk into the woods with a .22 rifle, and nobody really thought much of it. A cop or sheriff's deputy might stop and ask him where he was going, and when the boy replied "Squirrel huntin!" The officer would usually remind him to be careful and go his way. That's not the case any more.

Also in times past, if a man convicted of a felony was subsequently caught with a gun, he would be relieved of it...and no charges were brought for the possession of the gun unless he was in the act of committing a crime. He could often go before a judge or even the sheriff and get his gun back...unless the felony included armed robbery, murder, or attempted murder.

Things have changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. It turns out that there must be some form of restriction, be it on guns possession or automobiles or certain drugs....even though it does nothing to prevent anything before the fact...but because that too is a form of checks and balances that the country has at its root.

We also have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Says so right there in the Constitution, but if our pursuit of happiness includes pedophilia or setting fires just to see the pretty light...that will be infringed upon like right now.

As to that...is it not an infringement on a felon's pursuit of happiness when we lock him up in prison for his crimes? Or when we fine the speeder for driving 90 mph on the highway...would an accepted excuse be that it made him happy to drive that fast? No. The right to pursuit of happiness assumes that those pursuits are reasonable, and don't trample the rights of others or endanger the general public. We have the right to free expression...unless we yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

So, no. I'm not rabidly for unfettered access to firearms...but I feel that about 99% of the infringements are unlawful and unreasonable. I feel strongly that if a man is legally entitled to possess a gun, that he shouldn't be restricted as to how he may bear it, and there should be no distinction made between concealed and openly displayed. If he hasn't exempted himself by his own actions, he has the Constitutionally protected right to carry it in any way that he sees fit.

 

[Manco]

Things have changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. It turns out that there must be some form of restriction, be it on guns possession or automobiles or certain drugs....even though it does nothing to prevent anything before the fact...but because that too is a form of checks and balances that the country has at its root.

Checks and balances? I think it's more like the government performing some CYA that simultaneously allows people to "feel safe" even though they aren't and never were. "Feeling safe" is good for tax revenue...not that the government actually needs revenue as long as they can print and borrow money....

We also have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Says so right there in the Constitution,

If you mean the literal quote, then it was actually stated in the Declaration of Independence, which is not the law of the land, although obviously it still is an important document in regard to American political philosophy.

The Constitution, if I remember correctly, doesn't actually say those words, although it protects those rights. The more common triumvirate of "life, liberty, [and/or] property" is mentioned in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the right to pursue happiness is implied throughout--most generally in the 9th Amendment, and for us most specifically in the 2nd Amendment.

but if our pursuit of happiness includes pedophilia or setting fires just to see the pretty light...that will be infringed upon like right now.

That's because such actions infringe upon the rights of others. There is no such thing as perfect freedom--we have to give up some freedoms in order to retain our rights. Rights are all about being able to keep things and not have others take them away against our will. These "things" include life, property, and the freedom to do anything that does not infringe on the same rights of others--together, this is known as liberty (for which some people substitute "freedom" as a synonym).

The problem is that sometimes government decides to take away freedoms or, even worse, rights for no other reason than to increase its own power--this is known as tyranny. According to the Founding Fathers of the United States, all governments are inherently tyrannical and must be kept in check by the people (one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment), which starts by making sure that the people know their own rights (very few do nowadays, but it's there in writing for them if they want to learn).

As to that...is it not an infringement on a felon's pursuit of happiness when we lock him up in prison for his crimes? Or when we fine the speeder for driving 90 mph on the highway...would an accepted excuse be that it made him happy to drive that fast? No. The right to pursuit of happiness assumes that those pursuits are reasonable, and don't trample the rights of others or endanger the general public. We have the right to free expression...unless we yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Sometimes there are clear lines to be drawn, and other times there are not. But either way, it always boils down to achieving the greater good, which is not always obvious, and is always vulnerable to misunderstanding and deception, both of which are most frequently based on fear. The one constant is that we should never give up our freedoms or rights easily--there must be compelling, rational reasons for doing so. And where there are compromises, we should always beware of insidiously losing our rights entirely over time, bit by bit.

So, no. I'm not rabidly for unfettered access to firearms...but I feel that about 99% of the infringements are unlawful and unreasonable.

In the case of firearms, most infringements are unlawful because of the 2nd Amendment (now incorporated to be binding on the states), and unreasonable because they're not based on rational arguments.

I feel strongly that if a man is legally entitled to possess a gun, that he shouldn't be restricted as to how he may bear it, and there should be no distinction made between concealed and openly displayed.

This is where rationality comes in yet again. In general any person could be carrying a concealed gun (or any other weapon, for that matter) at any time, whether it is legal to do so or not. Those who would use it unlawfully would carry it illegally, so laws against concealed carry have no deterrent effect whatsoever (without metal detectors, legal searches, or other means of enforcement applied), and only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens. Since anybody could be armed at any time anyway, it stands to reason that it makes no difference whether the weapon is openly displayed.

If the mere sight of a weapon causes fear and panic, then that should be taken into consideration, but it is most assuredly irrational behavior. Just as irrational is the notion that to "feel safe" is to be safe. Should our laws and decisions to infringe on our natural rights (namely to self-defense) be based on irrational thinking and fear, in effect trading self-reliance and a measure of real security for a false sense of security, which is a form of danger in itself? No rational person would want this, at least for the reasons I've given.

 

[azmjs]

It's because the 2nd is such a strong statement that I am worried. The 2nd is saying we can pretty much any arm (morters, bazookas, grenades) and bear them at will. It scares me that this will cause a Constitutional Convention and a new ammendment will water down the 2nd.

Put your fears to bed. The second amendment does not say we can pretty much have any arm and bear them at will.

What it says is that the government cannot outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms. Not the keeping and bearing of any arms, just of arms in general.

So, we are free to outlaw morters, bazookas, grenades, atomic weapons, poison gas, etc etc, as long as we allow things like rifles and pistols.

Because then, when someone sues that he cannot keep and bear arms because he can't buy sarin gas artillery, the courts can dismiss him on the basis of the fact that he can buy pistols, rifles and shotguns, and thus if he wishes to, bear arms to his heart's content.