Judge: Conceal carry is NOT a right.

[irishScott]

Oh, and here's the national "dear leader" of the anti-gunners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

She also calls magazines clips to this day. Mainstream guns haven't used clips since the Korean War. So she's getting her info from a John Wayne movie. It's better than Bush.

 

[irishScott]

Well look at the crime stats of cities with gun bans. Chicago, DC, NYC all have abnormally high violent crime rates. I wonder why that is?

But, but if we just banned guns everywhere then they wouldn't be able to get guns outside city limits. Then all 270,000,000+ privately owned guns (according to FBI estimates) would just disappear right?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Good for the judges, NO where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to carry a concealed weapon.


Moved from OT

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

Rights not specifically outlawed or barred in the constitution are reserved for the states to decide.

OP and Judge = Huge Fail.

 

[classy]

Everytime this comes up, the gunslingers run out the right to bear arms. Its true, but it comes with limitations. Every single constitutional right comes with limits and regulations. This fallacy of an argument that a person can walk around with a weapon in any manner is totally wrong. I can't say the judge is right or wrong totally, but he does make a strong point. If the constitution is to be believed and respected for what it says, it should also be acceptable not to add what it doesn't say either.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I actually agree Classy, with a caveat. If we're not going to allow blanket concealed carry, then by default we MUST allow blanket open carry. That means NO harassment from government about it. Otherwise you've negated the right entirely. There are only two ways to carry a weapon, and one of them MUST be allowed.

Edit: This isn't to say anything about licensing, or off limits in courtrooms, or things like that. Just purely focusing on how people carry.

 

[QuantumPion]

Good for the judges, NO where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to carry a concealed weapon.

Sure it does.

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.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Sure it does.

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.

That just means you can carry, not necessarily concealed. I'd prefer it, but I have to be honest about it.

 

[QuantumPion]

That just means you can carry, not necessarily concealed. I'd prefer it, but I have to be honest about it.

It does not specifiy bearing openly. All the 2nd amendment states is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just because the ability to legally open carry is not infringed, does not mean that the government therefore has the right to ban concealed carry. Banning either is infringement.

It would be as if the government claimed that they could legally ban newspapers, because they weren't also banning the printing of books, and as long as you have one or the other available, whom are you to complain.

Oh, but they still require that you have a permit to print books. Permits which are issued by the government. But you still have your freedom of the press! All you need is the permission of the government and you can continue to freely print whatever books you wish.

Well, not whatever books. I mean, some books are just too dangerous to allow the average person to print. Those we'll have to ban. But regular "sporting use" books that have no political content are still fine to print. As long as they aren't "assault books" which contain more than 20 pages. I mean, who REALLY needs 20 pages in a book?

 

[Lithium381]

Sure it does.

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.

lol cali is no longer free, liberals and radicals have everything on lock-down

 

[schneiderguy]

Oh, and here's the national "dear leader" of the anti-gunners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

She also calls magazines clips to this day. Mainstream guns haven't used clips since the Korean War. So she's getting her info from a John Wayne movie. It's better than Bush.

Loughner-style assault clips!!! We must ban them! D:

 

[Triumph]

Everytime this comes up, the gunslingers run out the right to bear arms. Its true, but it comes with limitations. Every single constitutional right comes with limits and regulations. This fallacy of an argument that a person can walk around with a weapon in any manner is totally wrong. I can't say the judge is right or wrong totally, but he does make a strong point. If the constitution is to be believed and respected for what it says, it should also be acceptable not to add what it doesn't say either.

Yes, the 2A comes with limitations. You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you can't go shooting your gun wildly in all directions in a crowded theater, either.

 

[Lithium381]

Yes, the 2A comes with limitations. You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you can't go shooting your gun wildly in all directions in a crowded theater, either.

yes, because that is exactly what the law-abiding citizens that take the time to register their firearms, take the test and pay the fees want to do, go get their gun off in a crowded theatres....

 

[irishScott]

Loughner-style assault clips!!! We must ban them! D:

Lol. And you know a lot of people kinda look down on the NRA for being just another lobbyist group, and not without reason. Some of their decisions have been questionable, but tell me this analysis isn't on the money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzWECN3sijc&feature=channel_video_title

 

[dali71]

There is no need to carry any gun, and soon it will be illegal to open carry here too.

Good for you! I hope you feel safe and secure with the knowledge that if you're ever confronted by an attacker, you can count on the police to arrive in time to save your life photograph your body.

 

[theeedude]

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.

Don't see anything about the right to conceal arms, just right to bear them. Do see something about the whole arm bearing business being well regulated though.

 

[QuantumPion]

Don't see anything about the right to conceal arms, just right to bear them. Do see something about the whole arm bearing business being well regulated though.

Sorry but you're a little late to the party on that one. SCOTUS already ruled once and for all that "well regulated" did not mean what you wish it meant. :biggrin:

But you're right, I don't see anything in there about the states having the authority to ban concealing arms either.

 

[schneiderguy]

Don't see anything about the right to conceal arms, just right to bear them. Do see something about the whole arm bearing business being well regulated though.

I don't see where it puts any restrictions on how you bear your arms.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" = you can carry them however you want

The militia is well regulated, not the "arm bearing business". According to the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC the two clauses are independent, so being part of the "well regulated militia" is not necessary to have the right to "keep and bear arms".

 

[Triumph]

yes, because that is exactly what the law-abiding citizens that take the time to register their firearms, take the test and pay the fees want to do, go get their gun off in a crowded theatres....

what?

 

[xj0hnx]

Don't see anything about the right to conceal arms, just right to bear them. Do see something about the whole arm bearing business being well regulated though.

No, the militia is what is "well regulated", the right to keep and bear arms is what is not to be infringed.

 

[Phanuel]

What's funny is that you can now pretty much 100% get a CCW in Sacramento County as a common citizen living there. The Bay Area and LA are pretty much the only remaining urban areas where CCWs aren't easy to obtain in California.

 

[irishScott]

Don't see anything about the right to conceal arms, just right to bear them. Do see something about the whole arm bearing business being well regulated though.

I'll make you a deal. I'll give you federal-level gun control requiring a multi-day course to obtain a license for a certain class of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) a full background check to obtain said license (similar to security clearance checks), requirement that all gun sales go through an FFL and require a NICS background check.

In return for going through such an ordeal, I want a revised 2nd amendment that states my right as a US citizen of non-violent behavior, good mental status, and proven knowledge of firearms to keep and bear non-fully automatic firearms of any nature in any place I so choose in any manner I so choose outside of sensitive federal buildings. And I want the government to provide all necessary training, psychological and background checks for said license for free or minimal (<$100) charge within 6 months per applicant. Finally, I want a clause that specifically states that if this amendment is ever altered in any way, the old 2nd amendment will be restored in its place with all applicable state gun laws at the time the revised amendment was adopted.

Deal?

 

[PrinceofWands]

It does not specifiy bearing openly. All the 2nd amendment states is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just because the ability to legally open carry is not infringed, does not mean that the government therefore has the right to ban concealed carry. Banning either is infringement.

It would be as if the government claimed that they could legally ban newspapers, because they weren't also banning the printing of books, and as long as you have one or the other available, whom are you to complain.

Oh, but they still require that you have a permit to print books. Permits which are issued by the government. But you still have your freedom of the press! All you need is the permission of the government and you can continue to freely print whatever books you wish.

Well, not whatever books. I mean, some books are just too dangerous to allow the average person to print. Those we'll have to ban. But regular "sporting use" books that have no political content are still fine to print. As long as they aren't "assault books" which contain more than 20 pages. I mean, who REALLY needs 20 pages in a book?

I agree in theory, but I think it's one of those 'compromise' issues that separates anarchists from citizens. Sure it'd be great to have a truly libertarian existence, but since the only way that's EVER going to happen is with the annihilation of 90% of the world's population, I'll settle for an agreement to allow one form of carry or the other without question. They get to choose rather they want us all carrying openly, or all carrying concealed, but then they have to shut the fuck up entirely.

 

[xj0hnx]

I agree in theory, but I think it's one of those 'compromise' issues that separates anarchists from citizens. Sure it'd be great to have a truly libertarian existence, but since the only way that's EVER going to happen is with the annihilation of 90% of the world's population, I'll settle for an agreement to allow one form of carry or the other without question. They get to choose rather they want us all carrying openly, or all carrying concealed, but then they have to shut the fuck up entirely.

Only thing there I would disagree with having open carry as the only way to legally carry, for a couple reasons. First, it's really no business of anyone if I am carrying, second, it let's criminals know you are carrying, and third, as of now even places that have had open carry for a long time it still causes issues with people calling the cops, or scaring the ignorant. I'd like to see a more lax conceal carry in that printing isn't a "crime", so if you are responsibly conceal carrying and your shirt comes up, or you bend over cops don't have a coronary.

 

[werepossum]

OP doesnt even read his own article. All this is saying is that the states dont need to be a "shall issue" state. They can be a "may issue state."

Meaning people can still carry.

Imagine applying that to other rights.

States MAY allow your right to free speech, if they like what you are saying.

States MAY allow your right to be free of unreasonable searches, if they like the way you look.

States MAY allow you to choose your spouse, if they approve of your choice.

Hmm, looks like I'm a little late.

 

[werepossum]

I actually agree Classy, with a caveat. If we're not going to allow blanket concealed carry, then by default we MUST allow blanket open carry. That means NO harassment from government about it. Otherwise you've negated the right entirely. There are only two ways to carry a weapon, and one of them MUST be allowed.

Edit: This isn't to say anything about licensing, or off limits in courtrooms, or things like that. Just purely focusing on how people carry.

Good point.