Posted on 12/07/2011 3:52:56 PM PST by kwikrnu
The Second Amendment Foundation, SAF, and Alan Gura filed an amicus brief AGAINST the open carry of firearms. I believe they have been hiding their real agenda for some time now. I believe their agenda is to establish a permit or licensing scheme for the bearing of arms. If anyone has read their briefs, they do not seem to want open carry as an option.
Here is a link to the brief which was filed 12-5-2011
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcODdkNmEzZWMtYTFkYi00ZWZmLTg3ZDYtZTY4OWQ0Yzk2NzZm
The law that allows the open carry in the hand of a Navy or Army pistol is certainly an odd one. Cops are often willfully ignorant of the law, but I'm not sure I can fault them too much for not knowing about that particular one.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." Good practice -- and not just as a required oath before testimony.
I wouldn't trust you to hand me an ice cream cone.
Besides,
...genuine FReepers really despise trolls...
The law was not odd. It existed from 1871 to 1989 and was ruled constitutional by the state supreme court numerous times. In fact, the ordinances of the city of belle meade were and are clearly found on the city’s internet web page. The local open carry in the hand laws are specifically preempted by state law. Many localities have open carry in the hand laws on the books today.
Here is a reply to a recent criminal appeal from a federal prosecutor regarding the applicability of old or obscure laws,
“Lastly, one other aspect of the Defendant’s argument that Section 231(a)(2) is “obscure” appears to be based in part on his assertion that he was convicted of violating “an obscure statute which has been used only a handful of times in the forty plus years it has existed.” Defendant’s Motion, p.7. The Defendant’s challenge to conviction for
violating Section 231(a)(2) appears to rest upon his argument that validity of this provision should be measured in direct correlation to the frequency of prosecution; this
argument is simply without merit. Using the same logic (or illogic), there would be similar challenges based upon the “infrequency” of any prosecutions for treason or
seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §§ 2381 and 2384) or the knowing use the of “Woodsy Owl” character for profit without authorization (18 U.S.C. § 711a). Simply put, this
“obscurity” argument has no bearing whatsoever on whether statutes are to be considered constitutionally valid and any convictions for violations thereof in keeping with due process principles.”
As long as it is not carried in an unsafe manner I have no problem whatsoever with anyone carrying whatever they please.
What happened in 1989?
State law changed from open carry in the hand to no carry except to hunt and a few other exceptions. It wasn’t until a few years later that permits became an option and then a sort of shall issue put into place. However, as I stated, there is no state preemption of local laws in place before 1986. That means there are many communities with the open carry in the hand of the army or navy pistol.
Here is a link to a portion of a debate in 1989 regarding open carry in the hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD7S4tX4GPo
Andrews v state was the tennessee case that said some type of carry must be allowed. Open carry in the hand is what the tennessee legislature came up with. The TN supreme court found the law to be constitutional several times.
They could just hire a copyeditor or a script girl if all they wanted was consistency.
There are exceptions to this rule. You can open carry loaded handguns in rural, inincorporated areas, and on public lands where shooting is NOT prohibited (such as National Forests and BLM areas).
Anywhere else, not so much.
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.