Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Concealed carry is bulletproof
TheBatt.com ^ | 6 February, 2009 | Travis Holland

Posted on 02/08/2009 5:10:59 AM PST by marktwain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
A reasonable summation in a short essay in favor of "shall issue" conceald carry laws.
1 posted on 02/08/2009 5:10:59 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Being part of the wild west,
Has Arizona always allowed individuals to carry a concealed weapon?
How about openly carrying one?


2 posted on 02/08/2009 5:14:39 AM PST by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

Arizona only allows openly carry.


3 posted on 02/08/2009 5:21:56 AM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
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.

4 posted on 02/08/2009 5:27:40 AM PST by DocH (Keep your powder dry and keep it in the black, fellow freedom-loving Patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


5 posted on 02/08/2009 5:29:40 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocH
Should have posted the above THIS way...

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.

6 posted on 02/08/2009 5:30:02 AM PST by DocH (Keep your powder dry and keep it in the black, fellow freedom-loving Patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Arizona only allows openly carry.

They only allow open carry without a permit. You can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona. I have one.

7 posted on 02/08/2009 5:31:18 AM PST by The Anti-One (So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ontap

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.


8 posted on 02/08/2009 5:33:46 AM PST by xtargeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xtargeter

I stand corrected!


9 posted on 02/08/2009 5:35:28 AM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
Arizona has always allowed open carry. Concealed carry was legal through early statehood. During the State Constitutional debates, the right to bear arms in defense of self and the state was enshrined into the Constitution. The delegates debated if the legislature should be given the power to regulate concealed carry. That was voted down at least twice.

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.

10 posted on 02/08/2009 5:37:25 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DocH

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!


11 posted on 02/08/2009 5:40:16 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
“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.”

While much of your critique of the Heller decision is plausible, the above point is incorrect. In Heller, Scalia specifically says the “commonly owned” firearms are protected. AR-15s are probably far more commonly owned than are flintlocks.

Our real problem comes from Heller being only a 5-4 decision. Our liberty hangs by a thread in an Obama administration.

12 posted on 02/08/2009 5:40:55 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

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.


13 posted on 02/08/2009 5:46:02 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Nice post. Thanks. Bookmark for later.


14 posted on 02/08/2009 5:50:07 AM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Arizona only allows openly carry.

100% wrong.
15 posted on 02/08/2009 5:50:21 AM PST by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Oddly enough, Vermont, which lies in the same region...

Its a good article except for the above. Vermont and DC don't have a lot in common!

16 posted on 02/08/2009 5:50:50 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Idaho allows open carry of loaded firearms.


17 posted on 02/08/2009 5:54:21 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Thanks


18 posted on 02/08/2009 6:00:29 AM PST by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

Apparently I was wrong!


19 posted on 02/08/2009 6:01:35 AM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DocH
Free citizens should not need ANY permission from the government to bear arms for defense.

Absolutely! My permit was issued with the 2nd amendment. Period.

20 posted on 02/08/2009 6:04:45 AM PST by snippy_about_it (The FReeper Foxhole. America's history, America's soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson