Being part of the wild west,
Has Arizona always allowed individuals to carry a concealed weapon?
How about openly carrying one?
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.
Nice post. Thanks. Bookmark for later.
Its a good article except for the above. Vermont and DC don't have a lot in common!
As an aside, there are several tales of historical Arizona Sheriffs and guns worthy of mention.
One such retired after over 40 years as Sheriff, with something on the order of 70 concluded murder investigations, none unsolved. When he would ride out to a criminal scene, he would bring a second horse with him for whoever he would arrest. On his retirement, it was decided that a plaque should be made, featuring his gun. But it was soon discovered that the gun could not be removed from the holster, having become fused with the leather, and the gun itself was just a hunk of rust. In his entire career, he had never drawn his gun.
Another Sheriff, however, who often needed to transport prisoners around his county, did so without restraining the prisoners at all. They would even stop in to small restaurants so the Sheriff could buy them a meal en route, if needed. The prisoners would not do anything without either being told to, or asking for and being given permission first. None of them dared, because the Sheriff was known to be the fastest, deadliest, and most dangerous gunman in the region.
And then, of course, there was both historical Tombstone, Arizona, and today’s Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County. An interesting bunch.
You wouldn't think the words 'shall not be infringed' would be that hard to understand.
The right to self defense being an absolute right, I have yet to discover how any government entity has the authority to say I must get its permission to carry a concealed weapon.
In a sane country yes. Here, I don't think so.