Posted on 02/08/2009 5:10:59 AM PST by marktwain
The courts have deliberated over the Second Amendment for some time and it has been confirmed that individual gun ownership rights are indeed provided for in the amendment. Americans' right to own firearms is no longer in question. Today, the bigger issue is what to make of concealed carry laws.
In the U.S., only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., don't allow any type of concealed carry. Every other state has joined the majority faction after seeing the benefits that can come from allowing citizens to lawfully carry firearms.
Concealed carry laws prove their worth all the time, such as when citizens defend themselves from criminals. Just January, in Houston, two citizens used their legally concealed weapons to defend their office against a would-be attacker. Similar situations occur all the time that serve to further justify concealed carry laws.
One flawed argument against concealed carry laws is that while they allow citizens to carry weapons, they allow criminals to do so as well. This theory falls flat on its face for several reasons.
First of all, an extensive background check is required to get a concealed carry permit. Secondly, criminals who intend to break the law with a firearm aren't going to bother with a permit. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who legally acquire a concealed carry permit.
A study by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz estimated that firearms are used for self-defense 2.5 million times every year. In the 1980s, the U.S. Justice Department funded a study by the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts. In this study, 1,874 convicted felons from 10 states were interviewed.
The results were astonishing.
According to the study, 34 percent of the criminal respondents said they had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen, and 40 percent said they had been deterred from committing a particular crime because they believed the potential victim was armed. If anything, this study seems to admit that it's safe to say armed citizens scare criminals and deter crime.
Concealed carry laws shouldn't face any danger of repeal. Washington, D.C., famous for its stringent gun laws and lack of a concealed carry law, serves as a perfect case. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, D.C. had the highest murder rate and violent crime in the country from 2006 to 2007, far exceeding any other area. It still has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, despite infringing on its citizens' gun rights.
Oddly enough, Vermont, which lies in the same region, is a complete opposite. It has the most liberal concealed carry policy in the country (along with Alaska), and one of the lowest violent crime and murder rates. It would seem that concealed carry laws save lives and protect law-abiding citizens in this case, as well.
If nothing else, people have a right to defend themselves. U.S. police agencies are effective and wonderful at their jobs, but stretched thin in many areas. Officers can't be everywhere they are needed at once, especially in large metropolitan areas.
From a strictly legal standpoint, concealed carry makes even more sense, as the government doesn't have a legal duty to protect its citizens. In 1982, a federal court of appeals ruled in Bowers v. DeVito that, "[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." If citizens don't have the right to be protected, they at least deserve the right to protect themselves.
Thus closes the bulletproof case for concealed carry laws.
Being part of the wild west,
Has Arizona always allowed individuals to carry a concealed weapon?
How about openly carrying one?
Arizona only allows openly carry.
The word "bear" in the "keep and BEAR arms" part of the 2nd Amendment.
This, from Wikipedia...
In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[48]
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."[49]
Free citizens should not need ANY permission from the government to bear arms for defense.
Nice article, but the author fails to realize a few points:
1) The SCOTUS decision on Heller left the definition of what firearm you can own wide open. In fact, immediately after the decision, DC insisted that Heller could not register a semi-auto handgun as they would only allow revolvers. The SCOTUS even went out of its way to say that machine guns are not covered by the Second Amendment.
2) The SCOTUS decision on Heller also left the “where” to exercise your Second Amendment rights wide open. With Heller, it was mere posession in the plaintiff’s home that was decided. Once again, the SCOTUS went out of its way to say that places like schools could be off-limits.
3) The SCOTUS did not “incorporate” the Second Amendment....meaning it does not apply to the states...yet. It only applies to the federal gov’t.
These three “holes” in the Heller ruling are wide enough to allow even the most weak-minded liberal to drive a truck through.
First, they could rule you only have a right to a flintlock in your home and nowhere else.
Second, they could still force registration.
Third, they could still tax ammunition/components and its annual posession to where the average citizen could never afford to legally own them.
The bulletproof case for concealed carry laws?
The word "bear" in the "keep and BEAR arms" part of the 2nd Amendment.
This, from Wikipedia...
In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[48]
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."[49]
Free citizens should not need ANY permission from the government to bear arms for defense.
They only allow open carry without a permit. You can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona. I have one.
Arizona only allows openly carry.
Uh, no. I live in AZ and have a CCW permit. You have to take a class and get a background check, but concealed carry is available.
Please note, I did not say permitted, because the right to carry a firearm is not something granted by the government.
I stand corrected!
Then, during the first legislative session, it was concealed carry in certain circumstances, was made illegal by the legislature!
This was finally challenged in the 1980’s, when Bob Corbin, a former state attorney general had done the research showing that the constitutional convention had specifically *refused* to give the legislature the power to regulate concealed carry.
The appeals court ruled against concealed carry, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Since then, we have had some appeals court rulings (mostly by the same anti-gun judge, to muddy the waters on what is legal open carry.
We have been fighting back in the legislature, have improved the shall issue law we passed in 1994, and are working to pass Alaska style constitutional carry this year. One of the few good things about the Obama election is that our governor Janet Napolitano, was selected for the Homeland Security cabinet seat. This leaves Jan Brewer, a good conservative, in the governors seat, so we hope to get some legislation passed that was vetoed by Napolitano.
Unfortunately, Janet left Arizona deeply in debt. The state is not in quite as bad a mess as California, but I am sure that Janet was glad of the cabinet appointment so she could flee all the red ink she created in Arizona.
The budget is taking up most of the legislator's time, so I don't know what we will be able to pass this year.
The way the Heller ruling came out they may be able to get away with saying you can only “bear” arms in your own home!
Our real problem comes from Heller being only a 5-4 decision. Our liberty hangs by a thread in an Obama administration.
I said “allowed open carry”. That is incorrect. The right to open carry has always been protected by the State Constitution. I believe that concealed carry is also protected by the State Constitution, but we have a number of liberal judges in Arizona who don’t think we should have *any* rights to carry.
Nice post. Thanks. Bookmark for later.
Its a good article except for the above. Vermont and DC don't have a lot in common!
Idaho allows open carry of loaded firearms.
Thanks
Apparently I was wrong!
Absolutely! My permit was issued with the 2nd amendment. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.