What's better for overall safety? Carrying concealed or carrying openly?
Why are you pushing to make our RKBA a federal issue rather than a state issue, knowing Congress could pass constitutional legislation banning concealed carry?
Debatable. I feel open carry. Added comfort, added deterrent, easier access in a "trouble" situation. More options, including rifles and shotguns, that could be "carried". Cops, military, and security guards carry openly and are rarely "targeted" as some open carry opponents claim.
Why are you pushing to make our RKBA a federal issue rather than a state issue, knowing Congress could pass constitutional legislation banning concealed carry?
A couple of reasons. 1. The Second Amendment. 2. Look at the number of States that are abandoning common sense and freedom in favor of Nazi gun control laws. 3. It's already a "Federal Issue" in case you haven't noticed the BATFE's unConstitutional actions, the NFA of 34', GCA of 68, ect... Even assuming the Courts mistaken finding that the Second only restricts the FedGov, the "F" part of the BATFE shouldn't exist, nor should any of the machine gun/DD/class III bans.
The Right to keep and bear arms codified the Right of a person to protect themselves, their property, and those around them. Part of Washington's disapprobation with the original Colonist militia was that they were woefully under-trained with their privately owned arms. Even for those that had them. During the ratification debates, parts of which I have posted here, the inadequacy of the militia was a constant topic. It was decided that codifying the protection of the Right took the matter out of both the State and the FedGov's hands. Every citizen not subject to incarceration for violating a law was to be allowed their Right to the tool of self defense. There literally was no other way for them to ensure that they would have enough ARMED people show up if they called up a militia for whatever reason.
The ONLY legislation that Congress can Constitutionally pass in regards to RKBA would be regulations for the State militia's when called up. Only active duty militia members would be affected. Other than that, Congress could pass an Amendment repealing the Second Amendment. That is about it.
No mere State level law can negate the Second. States ratify the Constitution upon entering in to the Union. All Amendments are ratified by the States. Via Art 6 para 2, this makes them subject to the Second limitation of "shall not be infringed". Yes, States can makes laws "regulating" the active duty militia. Places of drill. Equipment to be obtained by militiamen wishing to participate. Military law similar to the UCMJ for active duty members. Those are all legitimate militia functions.
Saying that I, as an inactive reserve potential militiamen, cannot carry a firearm for self defense is NOT a legitimate function. Saying that I as an inactive reserve potential militiamen cannot own a certain type of weapon is NOT a legitimate function.
Period. End of story.
Lawmakers, -- Congress/State/local -- cannot pass 'constitutional legislation' that would ban either open or concealed carry, as such 'laws' violate provisions of the 2nd, 10th & 14th amendments.
-- You know this is true paulsen, [you've even in effect admitted it from time to time] -- so why do you post otherwise, - most every day?
Are you obsessed with advocating gun control?