Posted on 08/16/2010 8:00:56 AM PDT by Pessimist
I think, that if an LEO believes he should check out a person carrying open, he should. We have a right to know that person is legal or not.
Not ashamed, just don’t want to do it. I used to have a permit when I lived in FL, now I don’t bother with one, because I can’t bring a weapon to work with me.
I’m sure if you asked them what their thoughts are about abortion they would use the word, “RIGHT.” Now that’s a right they would of course understand- tax paid for, on demand (no waiting time, across state lines, late term. no parental consent or informing)............
Where in the US Constitution does it expressly state that you have some right to privacy (underlying point in R vs. W)? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
is that you robert paulson[sp] ??? 8^}
agreed that the fed trumping the state with 2A 'incorporation' will ultimately lead to a usurpation of Conservative states' laws concerning arms...on the altar of PC and 'sensible,reasonable' restrictions...
and raise you a...
'as God's people we stand on our feet, we dont crawl before anyone'...
You can "bear" without being concealed. North Carolina Constitution Sec. 30 has an interesting part that I came across a while back, which led me to digging into the laws:
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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.However, North Carolina still requires a permit for a handgun. That is interesting because the first attempt to require a permit for a gun was aimed at free blacks and supported before the Civil War by the NC Supreme Court. Even better, just before that the court had upheld the individual right to carry a weapon openly, but in this case allowed restrictions on ownership because blacks weren't citizens, or the public had a public safety interest in restricting black gun ownership. This was framed in an "as opposed to whites" argument, meaning that whites could not be so restricted. Restricting blacks would of course now be seen as unconstitutional, so what remains is the fact that whites can't be so restricted by registration.
Yet there NC remains, with a racist handgun registration law on the books and enforced.
As a God-given and Constitutionally protected right, EVERY schoolchild and adult should have mandatory firearm safety and respect training, so that all those who wish to exercise it do so safely and those who don’t are safe as well! The fee for such a course should be minimal. I received free (to me) training as a young boy through Daisy, ROTC, Boy Scouts, etc., then as an adult in the Army. Such a course would not be an infringement of the 2nd, but rather a way of promoting it and keeping those who exercise it from infringing on the rights of others to be secure in their lives.
Damn straight, brother.
Kneel for None but One.
Of course not. Requiring a license to exercise a right is unconstitutional on its’ face. Until people are willing to ignore the law en mass then very little will change.
No law can exist that limits the carrying, purchasing, or ownership of firearm, and still be constitutional.
Of course not. Requiring a license to exercise a right is unconstitutional on its’ face. Until people are willing to ignore the law en mass then very little will change.
No law can exist that limits the carrying, purchasing, or ownership of firearm, and still be constitutional.
Of course not. Requiring a license to exercise a right is unconstitutional on its’ face. Until people are willing to ignore the law en mass then very little will change.
No law can exist that limits the carrying, purchasing, or ownership of firearm, and still be constitutional.
The question when was that written, most likely post civil war. The original most likely was worded different.
Well technically speaking the 2nd doesn’t say anything about concealed, just arms. And the most generally accepted limitation to the 2nd is standard military issue for individual use (no tanks or crew operated guns) sans full auto, and the military isn’t into concealed weapons. I don’t know how it is in Ohio but until the recent changes in AZ open carry was available to all except felons, concealed needed a license. Now of course AZ has changed back to our wild west roots, any non-felon can carry any way they choose.
Of course the real punchline with licensed CCW is if you’re doing a good job of concealing nobody knows until you shoot somebody, then you can just pay the fine.
The short answer is “no”. I’m sure others have already
discussed this more at length.
LEO’s don’t get to “feel” that they have the right to check someone out for doing a legal activity. The SC has already ruled that there is no “gun” expemption to the 4th amendment adn someone can’t even be asked for ID simply because they are armed.
That’s why many of us who do open carry practice “sterile carry” where we don’t even carry an ID on us, only a voice recorder. I have to verbally tell an officer my name and address, but that’s it, and that’s all he’s getting. If he wants to detain me for OC then he has a lawsuit on his hands that the precidents already exist to easilly win.
I knew concealed carry was once disfavored, but not that
it was forbidden anywhere. Fascinating post and thank
you for it.
I would say open carry is the constitutional right, rather than concealed carry. I’ve read court cases from the 1800’s, and open carry was not really disputed but concealed carry was deemed not to fit the definition of “bearing arms”.
What if they suspect someone of carrying illegally? Can’t they do that? Or perhaps a safety check? Game wardens have the right to inspect your hunting weapon.
Suspect someone of carrying illegally? Open carry is legal in nearly all states. If the act of carrying a weapon is not illegal then there’s no crime to suspect a person of.
It is well established that the police can’t stop someone for driving a car the speed limit simply because they suspect the driver is unlicensed.
Safety check? The police are there to enforce actual laws, not play safety police. No state that I am aware of has a law mandating that a person demonstrate safe gun handling at the request of the police.
Interesting. It wasn't in the original, but if it was added post civil-war it wasn't removed in subsequent mass alterations of the Constitution, up to 1971.
But even better, I like this being there. Yep. Because in this sense the NC Constitution states the RTKBA, and then explicitly states the ONE way it is allowed to be restricted -- concealed carry. In the words of later judgment based on it, "the exception indicates the extent to which the right to bear arms can be restricted, and the Legislature can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons but no further." I like that. It has been used to remove the requirement of a permit for open carry, which is considered a right in NC. So I wonder how the current permit to buy process is being upheld.
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.