I get dinged all the time. That's the game. Posts deleted too! But I didn't like the suggestion that I had some favorable view of strict restrictions as compared to practical analyses. But, it was a touch sketchy, I could have been politer.
Should Open Carry Be the Law of the Land in All 50 States?
- Thread starter IJ1981
- Start date
- Status
Old Dog
Member
It's not too tremendously different that wearing a flashy expensive watch or driving a nice vehicle anywhere one might encounter a thief that wants one's Rolex or BMW. Or, for that matter, walking anywhere around Chicago talking on your brandnew I-Phone 400++Ultra, someone's gonna go after it.
As I predicted in, what, post #2 or #3?
hawg
Member
Open carry is legal here in MS so is concealed carry without a permit but it has restrictions. I rarely see anybody open carry.
Jim Watson
Member
There was a spate of open carry here after it was clearly allowed, but the incidence has fallen off, I see few belt guns these days.
I think it tactically doubtful, no matter the legality.
We are larded about with limitations and restrictions; the dame above would have been in violation carrying a pistol around a political demonstration here just as in NY.
I think it tactically doubtful, no matter the legality.
We are larded about with limitations and restrictions; the dame above would have been in violation carrying a pistol around a political demonstration here just as in NY.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 562
So, the states entered into a common agreement on Nine out of the Ten Bill of Rights amendments.
... but not the Second one.
Fascinating.
Any links to this absurdity?
OP
OP
IJ1981
Member
Post #110. A large outpouring of diverse opinions. Thank you all very much for the comments and votes.
This thread has been very enlightening and entertaining.
This thread has been very enlightening and entertaining.
gwpercle
Member
So ... I should loose my right to open carry because of this ... why ?
Man tries to steal gun from Detroit officer who stopped for gas before joining Taylor Swift detail
New video shows a Detroit police officer who stopped for gas before joining the Taylor Swift detail wrestling with a man who tackled him in the middle of a g...youtu.be
Good thing no criminal would ever try to take somebody's Open Carried gun from them right?
Elkins45
Member
The biggest absurdity here is your belief that you alone get to interpret what the Constitution means, and that your opinion supersedes that of actual legal scholars. Applying your absolutist interpretation to the other rights means you believe laws against libel or slander violate the First Amendment, and yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is just Constitutionally-protected good fun.
Since you asked for a link here’s one for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Yep already spelled out pretty clear
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I half-jokingly suggest that if we had unrestricted firearms carry in society perhaps the Darwinian weeding-out effect would result in a return to those desirable conditions.... but only half jokingly.
Tentative Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
But it’s not, and you don’t have to be a lawyer to know this. Think about the wording of the First Amendment and imagine if the courts applied it in the same way everyone wants the Second to be interpreted. Here’s the first clause of Amendment One:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Now imagine an argument saying a church should be allowed to practice human sacrifice and/or child sexual torture as part of their sacrament. Or that they should be allowed to inject heroin in order to have visions. Or that their holy text forbids the payment of taxes or the wearing of garments that cover the genitals. Or…
Imagine the protests with crazy perverts running around wearing T shirts with “SHALL MAKE NO LAW” printed on them. Absurd, isn’t it? No Amendment confers an absolute right.
I think we all have a right to carry guns in self-defense, but I understand why they won’t let me on an airplane with one.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 562
Really?
The language: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
So, how is this misconstrued to mean: "...the right of criminals and the Government to be armed, but not the people, shall not be infringed."
Elkins45
Member
You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make. I clearly understand the people have a right to keep and bear arms, and I never said they don’t. I just said they aren’t absolute. Either you are missing the point or this is just a really bad strawman. Do you believe the hospital has no right to refuse you from wearing a gun in the MRI machine? Or that you should be allowed to board a commercial flight armed? Or that you should be allowed to practice with your 155mm field gun in your subdivision? Are those infringements?Really?
The language: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
So, how is this misconstrued to mean: "...the right of criminals and the Government to be armed, but not the people, shall not be infringed."
And you have deviated far from your original Trump quote assertion that CCW permits are like driver’s licenses. There’s no equivalence between them, but just for the fun of it let’s explore that point. How do you propose that states like NY, NJ and HI be forced to accept carry permits from other states? What legal mechanism do you propose to make that happen? And whose laws are the gun owner required to follow?
It seems to me you are just throwing out a bunch of cliches to prove how much you love gun rights. That’s not a discussion, that’s just virtue signaling.
Elkins45
Member
To expand on this point ^^^^ If the federal government can force a state to accept another state’s CCW permit then that is in effect saying the federal government can impose one state’s gun laws onto all the others.
Congratulations, now we all have to follow the NY or HI carry laws. Happy now?
Congratulations, now we all have to follow the NY or HI carry laws. Happy now?
Governments enter into all kinds of agreements that they then break. Ask any American Indian. It's inherent in the system. All governments do it. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at I guess.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,146
Lose your right to open carry.
Not in the least but aren't you the one who is always saying that criminals never really try to take people's openly carried firearms?
I mean this is you right?
I thought you might want to see some evidence that you're wrongOriginally Posted by gwpercle
I find it interesting that so many believe thugs are so brave they would seek out an armed man to attack . Have you ever been assulted and robbed?
They aren't brave and don't want to come up against an armed victim...
the thug might get hurt ...old , unarmed and alone make muck better prey.
Open Carry all you want ... you will not be singled out for attack ...thugs like easy prey not prey that's openly armed and will give them a fight.
Last edited:
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 562
The Federal Government has no problem enforcing the other Nine Bill of Rights Amendments on states.
What you are assuming - is that any given state's CCW permit - is Constitutional to begin with.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They are not.
Even in the interests of Public Safety, as in "free speech" and "yelling Fire! in a crowded building"?
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”
It would be a Federal (SCotUS) issue.
That the states have usurped their authority, does not mean that one state will be victimized by another.
It means that We, the People, will retain our Constitutional Rights - with an absolute minimum of interference in the name of "public Safety."
Elkins45
Member
SCOTUS decides what is Constitutional, not Gun-Reck. How many times do we have to tell you this before it sinks in?
When they decided on Roe v Wade (or Heller, or Miller, or...) they didn't stop the proceedings to say "Let's call up Gun-Reck and see if he agrees we're reading this correctly." They didn't call me either.
All laws are assumed to be Constitutional until such time as a court of appropriate authority decides they are not, and your feelings about this do not matter. That's the way the system has worked since long before you were born. Your declaration that all CCW laws are Unconstitutional is simply meaningless until such time as you manage to get yourself appointed to the Federal bench.
FWIW I agree that many of the laws are so restrictive as to be clearly outside the spirit of 2A, especially ridiculous ones like No CCW in Times Square or the NYC subway, but my opinion is just as worthless as yours on this matter. We don't get to decide.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 562
I can read the Constitution - it was written in plain English.
Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The SCotUS - is the arbiter of disputes - not the grantor of Rights, nor are the states.
Constitutional Republic.
Elkins45
Member
Your absolutist position is simplistic to the point of silliness. Carry a loaded shotgun into the White House and proclaim your "uninfringable" rights. Give me some advance notice so I can film it. I suspect they won't be impressed by your ability to quote the BoR.
Do you think the hospital can't make you take off your gun before getting an MRI? Is TSA making you check rather than carry your gun an infringement? I said those as an absurd joke but I'm starting to think you probably really do believe them.
Just yelling "shall not be infringed" over and over is not the way to advance an argument.
Elkins45
Member
LOL I was so busy addressing the gun stuff that I almost missed this. I'm arguing with a guy who is defending inciting a deadly panic as protected speech.
I think we're done. Please feel free to yell at the clouds at your leisure but I won't be listening anymore.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 562
You obviously don't embrace your Constitutional Rights, but instead the Government that rules you.
Rights are - or they are not.
In the Republic of the United States, they are written in our Constitution so that they can be both respected and protected.
And, the mechanism the Framers installed for ultimately protecting all of the the Bill of Rights?
Is the Second one.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 562
No, you are struggling, and failing, to understand plain English.
The Issue was, in fact, arbitrated by the SCotUS, as a First Amendment issue.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
---------------------
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll