Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Diuretic]

And that's the long and the short of it.

T he police, God bless them,d are reactive.

An armed citizen is proactiave.

A citizen withh an open carry firearm is a deterrent.

We have a little bit of a plan at our house for any threatening circumstances. I hold 'em off with the pistol while my wife grabs the shotgun. It's a semi-auto with extended mag and laser sight so she has tactical advantage over anything in close quarters except for a fully automatic submachine gun. Last night was the first time we used the plan it but it feels good to know that we can defend ourselves.

That's a damn good idea, have a plan and stick to it, but allow for the contingencies which may crop up. It might be useful to agree on several concrete SOPs and then allow some controlled variation from there. Just in case I need to say this, I am not being sarcastic. I am serious.

Just one thing. I've never used a s/auto shotgun with a laser sight, only the usual point and blast, I just wonder about the need for a laser sight. I mean it might be a good idea, I have no knowledge of that.

 

[Diuretic]

It is a right to bear arms.. Not a privilege that you "retain" only "if" you follow all the rules all the time, or one that you should lose AFTER you have paid your penance to society by spending time in jail.

I do not believe that carrying a weapon is a trait that people should have to get a permit for, because they have to hide the weapon somehow, based on the ever-growing laundry list of legislation that has very much infringed on our right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia means the GOVERNMENT, and in regulating that, THE PEOPLE, which the 2nd amendment states very clearly, have the right to bear arms.

"Due process" does not include state or federal legislation that would make gun ownership, especially open carry, illegal or criminal.

Concealed carry is a different issue. At least with open carry, people know in advance that you are packing heat. To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and therefore be "sneaky".. that I agree- should continue to be a permitting designation.

To be clear- I am against parole. I think parole is a good program, but if we are going to release people for good behavior, work achieved, and other noble deeds, proving that the convicted prisoner is rehabilitated, then why even mess around with a parole system? Let them out and set them free. Its not fair to a parolee that they cannot have a gun.

It is also not fair that someone who has been served an order for protection of an accuser, should also suddenly lose their rights to carry a deadly weapon.. and people who are released and awaiting trial, also..
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"??

And as for the people who are mentally ill.. For God's sake, don't the sick ones have guardians? And the ones who aren't too sick to go to school, work, etc.. well guess what? If they want to go around killing everyone in sight in a fit of psychosis, they WILL find a way. Outlawing guns results in only the outlaws having guns.

I do not care so much about the "unsafe" aspect of it. I realize this will result in more shootings and very likely a lot more accidental homicides..

But it will also DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of overall violent crime, as well as theft that occurs in this country on a daily basis..

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

In 1764, Marquis Cesare Beccaria published On Crimes and Punishments, the founding document of modern criminal science. In it he wrote:”The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty —so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator— and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were familiar with Beccaria’s work.


Now, as far as who the 'militia' is...

George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights:"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.

Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Beccaria always gets my approval. His work probably did more than any other person at that time to turn around the whole concept of a criminal justice system.

I wonder now though if Beccaria would think that the existence of various police agencies in Italy may render his views subject to amendment?

 

[JW Frogen]

Dam, I actually learned some interesting stuff from this fine thread.

I am getting old.

 

[lawbuff]

I can't wait until the Supreme court decides the McDonald v. Chicago case. If that one turns in our favor as it should we might actually gain some ground on nationwide carry. It will be the first post-Sotomayor test for the Supreme Court concearning 2nd Amendent issues.

That case being found for McDonald would be AWESOME because it could overturn the slaughterhouse ruling of 1873 that made the 14th amendment apply the bill of rights to the respective states. =)
Let's hope this one is a landmark..

Heller already decided that the 2nd AM is an individual right to bear arms, but since the question presented only concerned DC's gun ban, it did NOT incorporate it to the states.


Slaughterhouse concerned citizenship, state v. federal. The question was not of in toto incorporation of the Bill of Rights, that process "started" in the early 1920's.


McDonald WILL incorporate the 2nd's individual right to the states, as to have it apply to DC and not the whole country is not Constitutionally sound, period.

 

[JD_2B]

I can't wait until the Supreme court decides the McDonald v. Chicago case. If that one turns in our favor as it should we might actually gain some ground on nationwide carry. It will be the first post-Sotomayor test for the Supreme Court concearning 2nd Amendent issues.

That case being found for McDonald would be AWESOME because it could overturn the slaughterhouse ruling of 1873 that made the 14th amendment apply the bill of rights to the respective states. =)
Let's hope this one is a landmark..

Heller already decided that the 2nd AM is an individual right to bear arms, but since the question presented only concerned DC's gun ban, it did NOT incorporate it to the states.


Slaughterhouse concerned citizenship, state v. federal. The question was not of in toto incorporation of the Bill of Rights, that process "started" in the early 1920's.


McDonald WILL incorporate the 2nd's individual right to the states, as to have it apply to DC and not the whole country is not Constitutionally sound, period.

I am of the understanding that Slaughterhouse was the first in a series that included the bill of rights to the 14th amendment's notion that states can regulate..

PS I know wiki is a shitty source, but Im feeling lazy today, lol

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[immto]

I can't wait until the Supreme court decides the McDonald v. Chicago case. If that one turns in our favor as it should we might actually gain some ground on nationwide carry. It will be the first post-Sotomayor test for the Supreme Court concearning 2nd Amendent issues.

That case being found for McDonald would be AWESOME because it could overturn the slaughterhouse ruling of 1873 that made the 14th amendment apply the bill of rights to the respective states. =)
Let's hope this one is a landmark..

That would be sweet.

 

[Shorebreak]

Just one thing. I've never used a s/auto shotgun with a laser sight, only the usual point and blast, I just wonder about the need for a laser sight. I mean it might be a good idea, I have no knowledge of that.

The laser sight is because we have kids. The sight is mounted under the barrel and also has a powerful spotlight on it so there's no shooting blind in the dark. We dialed the laser in at the range so the sight is accurate across the largest possible open space in our house, which is less than 45 feet. My pistols have laser sights also.

You can't point and blast when some creep is trying to go after one of your children.

 

[lawbuff]

I am of the understanding that Slaughterhouse was the first in a series that included the bill of rights to the 14th amendment's notion that states can regulate..

PS I know wiki is a shitty source, but Im feeling lazy today, lol

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 14th did not make the BoR automatically applicable to the states.

The Slaughterhouse cases were not an incorporation question for any of the the Bill of Rights though, discussion within.


Wiki is a good source, and here is another wiki article citing incorporation cases through the years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

 

[G.T.]

I don't understand being against backround checks, is my only thing. I want everyone to be able to carry, except Violent Criminals and crazies, of course. I don't see the good in allowing them Guns. If someone can help me with that, perhaps I'll see it differently. But I'm all for guns to everyone who isn't a convicted violent offender or a psychologically-fucked person.

 

[Shorebreak]

I don't understand being against backround checks, is my only thing. I want everyone to be able to carry, except Violent Criminals and crazies, of course. I don't see the good in allowing them Guns. If someone can help me with that, perhaps I'll see it differently. But I'm all for guns to everyone who isn't a convicted violent offender or a psychologically-fucked person.

My only concern with background checks is that the government should have zero information on whether or not I'm interested in buying a gun. It's none of their business.

Should violent criminals be prevented from buying them? Yes, they should. But should the government be notified when I'm buying or shopping? No, they should not.

 

[G.T.]

My only concern with background checks is that the government should have zero information on whether or not I'm interested in buying a gun. It's none of their business.

Should violent criminals be prevented from buying them? Yes, they should. But should the government be notified when I'm buying or shopping? No, they should not.

I suppose I can see why that is, I guess if they're background checking they(sellers) only need your criminal record, and I'd be fine with that.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't understand being against backround checks, is my only thing. I want everyone to be able to carry, except Violent Criminals and crazies, of course. I don't see the good in allowing them Guns. If someone can help me with that, perhaps I'll see it differently. But I'm all for guns to everyone who isn't a convicted violent offender or a psychologically-fucked person.

My only concern with background checks is that the government should have zero information on whether or not I'm interested in buying a gun. It's none of their business.

Should violent criminals be prevented from buying them? Yes, they should. But should the government be notified when I'm buying or shopping? No, they should not.

By law NICS must destroy the records within 72 hours. I know for certain that TBI, which does our background checks, does so.
I also know for certain that ATF keeps a database of multiple sales reports.

 

[Shorebreak]

I don't understand being against backround checks, is my only thing. I want everyone to be able to carry, except Violent Criminals and crazies, of course. I don't see the good in allowing them Guns. If someone can help me with that, perhaps I'll see it differently. But I'm all for guns to everyone who isn't a convicted violent offender or a psychologically-fucked person.

My only concern with background checks is that the government should have zero information on whether or not I'm interested in buying a gun. It's none of their business.

Should violent criminals be prevented from buying them? Yes, they should. But should the government be notified when I'm buying or shopping? No, they should not.

By law NICS must destroy the records within 72 hours. I know for certain that TBI, which does our background checks, does so.
I also know for certain that ATF keeps a database of multiple sales reports.

Just so I've got it straight - are you saying that TBI is following the law, but ATF is violating it?

 

[Missourian]

Even the most hardcore gun rights advocate sees and understands the need for backround checks.

The problem is balancing public safety with personal privacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

My only concern with background checks is that the government should have zero information on whether or not I'm interested in buying a gun. It's none of their business.

Should violent criminals be prevented from buying them? Yes, they should. But should the government be notified when I'm buying or shopping? No, they should not.

By law NICS must destroy the records within 72 hours. I know for certain that TBI, which does our background checks, does so.
I also know for certain that ATF keeps a database of multiple sales reports.

Just so I've got it straight - are you saying that TBI is following the law, but ATF is violating it?

No.
TBI is following the law. I don't know about NICS because I don't interact with them. I know they had an issue under Janet Reno but I assume they have it worked out.
But the law does not restrict what happens to the Multiple Handgun Sales Report that dealers must submit to ATF. And I know for certain that ATF keeps a database of these.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Even the most hardcore gun rights advocate sees and understands the need for backround checks.

The problem is balancing public safety with personal privacy.

Even though I recognize the respective states have the power to place restrictions on the II Amendment, I don't approve of their various restrictions. Background check is one of the ones I take umbrage with.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I am actually surprised that no one mentioned the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

If you actually read the amendment it does not give us the right to bear arms.

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.

What it does do is assume that we already have that right. And it forbids the Government from infringing upon it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am actually surprised that no one mentioned the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

If you actually read the amendment it does not give us the right to bear arms.

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.

What it does do is assume that we already have that right. And it forbids the Government from infringing upon it.

The Constitution does not grant rights. You, I, and others understand that simple fact. It prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It does not prevent the state government from restricting as they will.

 

[Steerpike]

The Constitution does not grant rights. You, I, and others understand that simple fact. It prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It does not prevent the state government from restricting as they will.

The Constitution does prevent State governments from restricting as they will. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, the 14th Amendment prevents exactly that. Speaking in general terms. As to whether the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated at some point - we'll see. Could happen next year.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The Constitution does not grant rights. You, I, and others understand that simple fact. It prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It does not prevent the state government from restricting as they will.

The Constitution does prevent State governments from restricting as they will. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, the 14th Amendment prevents exactly that. Speaking in general terms. As to whether the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated at some point - we'll see.

The XIV prevents no such thing, as that is not the point and purpose of the amendment to begin with, in my opinion.

Court decisions based on the perverted use of the XIV Amendment is not the same thing as the amendment itself preventing the respective states from placing restrictions on the II Amendment. The XIV Amendment does not prevent the state of Georgia from placing restrictions on the II Amendment.