Why Are We Fighting Useless Battles?

[Sam1911]

Kenneth, you have a very selective interpretation of what constitutes an infringement. I could make equally valid excuses for or attacks on any of those choices. Again, who are you to chose what is important to me or to someone else -- or what I think an infringement may be? Certainly you would admit that there is legal precedent for several of the things you claim to be infringements, (magazine limits, assault weapons bans) and indeed they have stood for many years in some places. Yet in a great many states, open carry has NEVER been challenged (whether commonly practiced or not), but you think that banning it is not an infringement? A very stilted set of values, you seem to have.

The point is to manage limited resources. If we spread our monetary and legal resources out to fight every battle at the same time, we will lose them all. Tactics and strategies win battles. Logistics (management and delivery of resources) win wars.

And again, this can be important to an organization like the NRA, who DOES present a unified front, fighting a few battles at a time in a strategic manner. They DO have limited time and limited funds and are a hierarchical organization the leaders of which can set a single, clear, and unified goal to which all working for that organization must march.

But it does NOT represent the way that "we" the people petition for our own goals and wishes with our representatives, or in the courts. WE fight for what is important to US. You cannot ask gun owners in FL to hang back and stall their own movement because NJ doesn't yet allow hollowpoints, or because CA has a standard-capacity magazine ban. We MUST fight what we can, when we can. We must harness momentum and grass-roots enthusiasm where it springs up and fight the personal, local, WINNABLE fights that we face in our own states.

Remember the "rising tide" analogy. Winning open carry in FL (just as an example) helps in very real ways, those beleaguered gun owners in states where the very basic forms of our right are constrained.

There is no strategy in holding back. The more we fight, the more we win. The more we WIN, the more visible our wins become. The more visibly we embrace and defend our rights, the more normal and correct the exercise of those rights appear to society, and to our own people. The more we win, the more we CAN win.

 

[2WheelsGood]

Winning open carry in FL (just as an example) helps in very real ways, those beleaguered gun owners in states where the very basic forms of our right are constrained.

This is VERY true. When non-gun people argue with me that loosening laws will end with dead bodies in the streets, I often point to Vermont or Alaska as proof of the opposite. Or when people argue that allowing guns on college campuses will end with dead bodies in the halls, I often point to Utah. And when Michigan allowed open carry at this past Arts, Beats, and Eats Festival not a single person was shot. That can now be used by others in non-open carry states as an example. Irrational fears are always settled by real world examples to the contrary.

 

[TexasBill]

As for what constitutes peripheral or core issues, I respectfully but strongly disagree with TexasBill. As I stated in my previous post it has long been established, that as long as the various local and state governments do not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, they may determine or regulate the manner in which arms are borne. Being required to conceal a gun that you own (keep) and carry (bear), does not constitute an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms any more than being required to carry openly did when the first concealed weapon laws where being challenged in various state courts during the days of the early republic. Open carry vs. concealed carry is not RTKABA.

“Assault weapons” bans, magazine capacity limits, and microstamping are core RTKABA issues. Import bans are not direct RTKABA issues but are an affront to liberty (in my loony libertarian free trader mind).

“Assault weapons” bans are an infringement to our RTKABA, because they limit or deny our access to military grade firearms that are suited to militia purposes. Our right to form into “well regulated militia(s)” is our ultimate protection from foreign invasion, insurrection, a breakdown of civil authority (riots), and government tyranny.

Magazine capacity limits are an infringement to our RTKABA for the same reasons that “assault weapons” bans are, and since our RTKABA is founded on our human right to self defense, we must be allowed to possess adequate means to defend ourselves.

Microstamping is an infringement to our RTKABA, because microstamping requirements effectively ban most handguns. Keyword microstamping on THR for many hours worth of reading on that subject.

Well, Kenneth, TexasBill respectfully disagrees with you, again. Requiring a permit to carry a gun at all violates RKBA. As the saying goes, which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

As has been pointed out (over and over again), the militia part of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with RKBA. A militia is important, so the people need to be able to keep and bear arms. In other words, the The right comes first and exists even exclusive of the need to form a militia. Besides, when has a militia ever been limited to concealed weapons? Please provide examples.

Being required to conceal a gun that I own is an infringement. Being licensed is an infringement. I do not ask the state for a license to speak, attend the church of my choice, write my own opinion and have it published uncensored, be free from unlawful searches and seizures, refuse to testify against myself, not board soldiers, etc. So long as I have performed my duties as a law-abiding citizen, my right to carry is not subject to the pleasure of the state.

And why is furtively carrying a weapon okay but carrying it for all to see, full-knowing I am responsible for its safe transport, use and retention not okay? It would seem to me the opposite would be more advantageous to the state. Apparently many states thought the same, because they only outlawed the carrying of concealed weapons.

An assault weapons ban and magazine size restrictions limit what we can buy but they do not limit our right to go armed. The same is true of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Incidentally, your argument about access to military-grade firearms is a complete non-starter: the NFA has already heavily restricted your access military-grade firearms with their short barrels and selective fire and the Firearms Owners Protection Act prevents you from acquiring state-of-the-art military rifles. They do nothing about the millions of evil black rifles, evil black pistols and high-capacity magazines that are already owned by Americans.

The whole micro-stamping thing is idiotic. Even if it worked perfectly, it still wouldn't cover the millions of firearms already in private (and criminal) hands and there are serious issues with the ability of a prosecutor to successfully use micro-stamped case as evidence, such as in the case of a stolen weapon or a stolen police weapon (according to some who have posted here, cops are losing their sidearms left and right). In addition, were I to be stupid enough to commit a crime with a firearm that micro-stamped the primer, I would hope I was smart enough to use a revolver. The spent casings can go in my pocket to disappear far from the scene of the crime.

This is not to say such restrictions should not be opposed; they should be. But the core issue remains the fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the manner one chooses.

In Texas, I can legally carry a loaded rifle (including a military-style rifle) or shotgun just about anywhere I want except for places where no firearms are allowed or places that sell or serve alcoholic beverages. If I had a long raincoat, I could carry it concealed. No permit required or even offered. Long guns are not covered in the Texas laws. In Texas, if I am in my car, I can lawfully carry a concealed, loaded handgun without a permit. We are so close to that last step, I am truly amazed that people who should be championing the cause (and, yes, I include the NRA) are afraid to take that last step.

 

[x_wrench]

personally, i think you should be allowed to carry anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want. if you want to go to school and pick up your kid with a 458 magnum on your shoulder, you should be able to. is there a need? probably not. but the 2nd amendment does not say we need to have a reason to keep and BEAR ARMS. it also doesn't say what type of arm. i have a cpl, and like it that way. like the original poster says, i do not want to be on guard all of the time, fearing someone would try to stip the gun from me. if no one knows i have it, i can relax a bit more. life is stressfull enough! but, i still belive that anyone should be allowed to carry what they want, when and where they want. only the meek, and the criminal would feel threatened by a citizen with a gun.

 

[Kenneth]

Well, Kenneth, TexasBill respectfully disagrees with you, again. Requiring a permit to carry a gun at all violates RKBA. As the saying goes, which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

I never mentioned permit requirements; I agree that requiring permits and registration infringes our RKBA. Please point out what I said to lead you to believe that I supported permit and registration requirements so I don’t do it again. I “get” all of our rights, here in New York “infringed” is more than just a word in the constitution, it’s a living condition. Here and in other states like Illinois, and California we are constantly fighting and pushing back against actual infringement of actual rights.

As has been pointed out (over and over again), the militia part of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with RKBA. A militia is important, so the people need to be able to keep and bear arms. In other words, the The right comes first and exists even exclusive of the need to form a militia. Besides, when has a militia ever been limited to concealed weapons? Please provide examples.

Agreed! (I think) Anti’s love to argue that the RKBA must be viewed in the context of a well regulated militia. My response is that, first; the first clause cannot limit the second clause because the second clause contains the prohibition against infringement. Second; the RKBA preexists the constitution (see US vs. Cruikshank), therefore it preexists the militia. The right to collective self defense (a militia) is utterly dependant upon our individual right of self defense (RKBA).

An assault weapons ban and magazine size restrictions limit what we can buy but they do not limit our right to go armed. The same is true of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Incidentally, your argument about access to military-grade firearms is a complete non-starter: the NFA has already heavily restricted your access military-grade firearms with their short barrels and selective fire and the Firearms Owners Protection Act prevents you from acquiring state-of-the-art military rifles. They do nothing about the millions of evil black rifles, evil black pistols and high-capacity magazines that are already owned by Americans.

If you are trying to say that the onerous restrictions in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are settled law and therefore do not constitute infringement, then you prove too much. Laws requiring that firearms be worn in the open, or be concealed were first challenged and upheld during the days of the early republic. If laws requiring concealed carry are infringements then so are the Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. I would rather be required to keep a firearm I believed to be effective with an amount of ammunition I believed to be adequate under my shirt, than be “allowed” to wear an ineffective pea shooter on my hip, or over my shoulder. Restricting access to guns and ammunition is a greater evil than open or concealed carry requirements.

The whole micro-stamping thing is idiotic

Yes! And there are a whole bunch of idiots in Albany that want to shove that down our throats. Jeez! At least porn stars get paid!

This is not to say such restrictions should not be opposed; they should be

Amen brother!!

But the core issue remains the fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the manner one chooses

The core issue is the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

In Texas, I can legally carry a loaded rifle (including a military-style rifle) or shotgun just about anywhere I want except for places where no firearms are allowed or places that sell or serve alcoholic beverages. If I had a long raincoat, I could carry it concealed. No permit required or even offered. Long guns are not covered in the Texas laws. In Texas, if I am in my car, I can lawfully carry a concealed, loaded handgun without a permit.

With all the liberty you enjoy you can afford to forgive a 95 pound woman, being assaulted by 210 pound rapist in Chicago because she is not even allowed to keep and bear a firearm, for thinking the open carry concealed carry debate to be a bit trivial. The fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a life or death issue. The “in the manner one chooses” is not.

 

[Chuck41]

I live in a state where open carry is not allowed. As a CCL holder that puts me in danger of hassles if some little old lady sees the corner of my gun handle, or my holster and calls the cops. I would love to see open carry legal here just because it would eliminate the possible hassles.

I grew up in Louisiana where open carry was legal. You didn't see it often except during hunting season and nobody paid any attention to it. In my opinion carrying open in an urban setting even if legal is both uncouth and unwise. It makes some folks nervous and is therefore inconsiderate to others. If you are actually in a threatening situation it marks you as the first dude for the bad guys to target thus negating your ability to self-protect.

 

[2WheelsGood]

As a CCL holder that puts me in danger of hassles if some little old lady sees the corner of my gun handle, or my holster and calls the cops. I would love to see open carry legal here just because it would eliminate the possible hassles.

It's not necessarily that simple. We allow open carry here, but you can still be charged with brandishing. If someone claims your shirt riding up was no accident, you can still be charged. It's your word against theirs. I'm sure I worry about it less because we allow open carry, but it doesn't eliminate the fear totally. Plus I think if you're going to carry concealed, you should do a darn good job of keeping it that way. I think getting a flash of someone's concealed firearm is more alarming than just seeing it worn out in the open.

 

[dgvc63]

BOTTOM LINE... (I agree with the original point btw) YOUR PERMIT TO CARRY IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!! END OF STORY... We should be forcing THAT issue in all 50 states...

 

[TexasBill]

""

I never mentioned permit requirements; I agree that requiring permits and registration infringes our RKBA. Please point out what I said to lead you to believe that I supported permit and registration requirements so I don’t do it again. I “get” all of our rights, here in New York “infringed” is more than just a word in the constitution, it’s a living condition. Here and in other states like Illinois, and California we are constantly fighting and pushing back against actual infringement of actual rights.

If you live in New York (I have actually been to Tonawanda), you're starting from about square -4, maybe -5. You need to get to square one. When I lived in Connecticut, it was still an open-carry state (concealed would get you in big trouble). I always wondered what was so wrong with New Yorkers that they couldn't be trusted with firearms or what was so wrong with New Yorkers that they let their government treat them that way. I am not saying you favored permits and such, but I can't figure out why you think open carry is such a minor issue.

Agreed! (I think) Anti’s love to argue that the RKBA must be viewed in the context of a well regulated militia. My response is that, first; the first clause cannot limit the second clause because the second clause contains the prohibition against infringement. Second; the RKBA preexists the constitution (see US vs. Cruikshank), therefore it preexists the militia. The right to collective self defense (a militia) is utterly dependant upon our individual right of self defense (RKBA).

Yay!

If you are trying to say that the onerous restrictions in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are settled law and therefore do not constitute infringement, then you prove too much. Laws requiring that firearms be worn in the open, or be concealed were first challenged and upheld during the days of the early republic. If laws requiring concealed carry are infringements then so are the Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. I would rather be required to keep a firearm I believed to be effective with an amount of ammunition I believed to be adequate under my shirt, than be “allowed” to wear an ineffective pea shooter on my hip, or over my shoulder. Restricting access to guns and ammunition is a greater evil than open or concealed carry requirements.

If the NFA and GCA aren't settled law, please direct me to the successful challenge of either one. Failing that, show me any initiative on the part of the NRA to get them overturned/repealed/rewritten. I am not saying they couldn't be challenged: I would love to have one of those shotguns with the 14-inch barrel, but the likelihood of success based on a flaw within the existing statues is very slim.

Fatal Flaw Alert! What does the type of weapon or amount of ammunition matter if you can't carry it?

Your argument about "effective firearm" vs. "ineffective pea shooter" is specious on the face of it. In the first place, by allowing only concealed carry, you are already limiting what you can carry, from a practical standpoint. If you really want an effective weapon, go for open carry. It can not only be larger, it can be deployed more quickly if needed.

And let's chat about that ammunition thing. Let's say McCarthy's limited magazine bill becomes law: new magazines are limited to ten rounds each. Is there some secret clause about "one magazine per household" we haven't heard about? And what about all the members of this forum with their M1911s? Those guns don't even hold ten rounds. How do we resolve this crucial problem? We carry spare magazines. Heck, I often carry a five-shot J-frame revolver. I also carry a speed loader with five more shots or, sometimes, I carry a second J-frame. Sometimes I carry a Walther PK380. It has an eight-cartridge magazine. When I bought the Walther, the first thing I did was buy two extra magazines. With one in the pipe, that's 25 rounds of ammunition, seven more than I was allowed to carry in my days in law enforcement (six in the gun, 12 on the belt).

The core issue is the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Yup. And open carry is part of bearing arms, just like concealed carry.

With all the liberty you enjoy you can afford to forgive a 95 pound woman, being assaulted by 210 pound rapist in Chicago because she is not even allowed to keep and bear a firearm, for thinking the open carry concealed carry debate to be a bit trivial. The fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a life or death issue. The “in the manner one chooses” is not.

I tried to follow your reasoning in that statement, but after the fourth U-turn I gave up so let's take this bit by bit. I am all for the 95-pound lady having a firearm. I am also for her having the choice to carry it openly or concealed. Unlike you, I have never said it was one or the other or open carry or nothing. I agree the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a life-or-death issue but I believe the right includes the choice of how one carries is important because I believe the right should not be constrained by needing government permission to exercise it.

 

[Kenneth]

I have actually been to Tonawanda

What possessed you to come here?? If I lived in Texas I’d never leave!

I always wondered what was so wrong with New Yorkers that they couldn't be trusted with firearms

At least we can still be trusted with thumbholes and pistol grips. Any Californians who feel strongly about the hardware issues? Jump in any time now!

I can't figure out why you think open carry is such a minor issue.

It’s not that it’s minor; it’s that since the ultimate goal of the anti’s is a total firearms ban, the hardware issues should take priority. All they have to do is nibble away at parts and pieces a little at a time and pretty soon we won’t be left with anything to carry in any mode.

And let's chat about that ammunition thing. Let's say McCarthy's limited magazine bill becomes law: new magazines are limited to ten rounds each. Is there some secret clause about "one magazine per household" we haven't heard about?

The thought of dropping an empty and inserting a full ten round magazine, while being shot at by someone with a twenty or thirty round magazine doesn’t exactly thrill my socks off. Is there something magical about the numbers six, eight, or ten that will end the efforts of the anti’s to impose further limits? If we concede that magazine capacity limits are reasonable, how do we then argue that limits on the number of magazines are unreasonable?

What does the type of weapon or amount of ammunition matter if you can't carry it?

You can’t carry something you don’t have.

If you really want an effective weapon, go for open carry. It can not only be larger, it can be deployed more quickly if needed.

Granted; However, the majority of civilian defensive gun uses are from a concealed carry mode. In the majority of law enforcement gun uses the weapon is drawn to make ready in anticipation of trouble, rather than as a reaction to a sudden threat.
We have to fight to roll back all the gains the anti’s have made; they have been so successful at sounding reasonable that even many gun owners believe them. Every “evil” feature, from pistol grips to the mythical “cop killer” bullets, are just pieces of the whole gun. The anti rights crowd knows that the manner in which arms are borne will not matter if they achieve their goal of rendering guns useless or banning them outright.

what was so wrong with New Yorkers that they let their government treat them that way

Next time you’re out this way, bring some of that good Texas chili with you. We all could use a little extra fire in our bellies.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said;

 

[Strykervet]

Because in a democracy, you must fight continuously for your rights, exercise your rights, or lose them. In a fight, you gain ground inches at a time. Inches add up to miles.

And open carry is better than no carry, and for some, the next step to conceal carry. In my opinion, it is worth fighting for, because if you lose open carry, guess what you will lose next?

In America, you got to pick and choose your fights. I want unlimited firepower and electric cars... among other things... and so that is what I fight for.

 

[x_wrench]

we should not have to fight for ANY type of pro-carry laws. open, concealed, or any other way you want to keep and bear your firearms. this was SUPPOSED to be guarranteed by THE SECOND AMENDMENT! unfortunatly, we have to way lawyers sitting around, with nothing really important to do, so they insist on screwing up our country for a paycheck! i do not mean to offend lawyers as a whole. it is just that we have way more lawyers, than we have a legitimate use for. they have to make a living, so some of them sell their soul to the devil and represent the anti-gun movement. THAT IS MY OPINION! AND I AM STICKING TO IT! flame me if you must. but i will not back down.

 

[XxWINxX94]

You should be lucky you have concealed carry, or open carry. I live in a state which BOTH are outlawed. If we got open or concealed carry here, I would be overjoyed, but would continue to fight for more gun rights.