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


1 posted on 02/25/2013 6:20:01 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: blam
"keep and bear arms"
104 posted on 02/26/2013 6:50:38 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

And why pray tell should anyone listen to the court? Our Government has violated the Constitution and the law. They are not being held accountable. Why shouldn’t American Citizens do the same?

This is what dual standards lead to. You asked for it, you got it. No respect for authority. I carry a gun, I couldn’t care less who says I can’t. I’m going to carry to protect myself and my family. Have a problem with that? Get over it.


105 posted on 02/26/2013 7:41:32 AM PST by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

“To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases. “

I’m not impressed. Eaarlier Court decisions - state and federal - have been found to be in conflict with the Constitution by later courts.
Also, an anti-gun court can pick and choose decisions with which it agrees and disregard those with which it does not.

The Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the the right to “keep” arms - meaing posses and ALSO clearly states “and bear” meaning to CARRY arms.

If the Tenth Circuit is implying that CONCEALED weapons can be banned - it MUST, then recognize the right to carry UNCONCEALED Weapons must be offered as an alternative to the citizenry.

As Mark Levin has often stated, the Federal Courts are GREAT at basing bad decisions on questionable earlier decisions and so on backwards, deviating from the original intent of the Constitution which each generation of re-interpretation.


108 posted on 02/27/2013 8:43:25 AM PST by ZULU (See: http://gatesofvienna.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam

So long as the right to bear arms (carry) is unrestricted, I see no constitutional problem with a requirement that arms be borne openly (even to the point of forbidding concealed carry).

I didn’t read too deeply, but there’s a problem with this only if open carry is not permitted in the locality. If it isn’t this needs to be overturned on appeal (and given Heller as precedent most likely will be.)


110 posted on 02/28/2013 7:27:45 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blam
there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. ... But to carry a concealed weapon in public, a state resident must apply to a local sheriff to get a permit.

The title leads me to believe that no one can legally carry a concealed firearm but at the end, it clearly states that you can if you have a permit.

That's pretty consistent with almost all the states.......

112 posted on 03/01/2013 4:24:22 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (God bless you Tommy and thank you for your service: http://swiftboats.org/tribute/tribute.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

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