2nd Amendment; RKBA-Does it or does it not?

P

Paul Revere

New member
Pssss't Click: Rant Mode On!

Subject: Does the 2nd Amendment give Americans the right to keep and bear arms, or not?

PR Commentary: I'm sitting hear thinking about a conversation I had yesterday afternoon with a life long friend of mine (almost as pro-gun as yours truly) who lives in one of those CCW/CHL states. His permit expires this month and he tells me he has to go downtown and convince the local sheriff that he is worthy of carrying a concealed firearm for the next 3 years, and of course pay his permit fee, oh and submit to another round of fingerprinting. He's worried about another round of red tape...

Long story short. When he was about 18 he got pulled over for some traffic violation and had his car searched. The cop found a couple of so-called illegal weapons in his car (baseball bat & tire iron) which he was arrested for. Charges were dropped...NOT GUILTY. So 3 years ago he decides to get his CCW/CHL permit and is red flagged by the "illegal weapons charge" and subsequently his application is denied. He spent nearly a month going through state bureacratic channels to try to remove a 20+ year old charge which ended in NOT GUILTY. He ended up getting a letter from the arresting officer's department head, and eventually was granted his CCW/CHL permit.

So I asked, "Why would you need to license an unalienable right in the first place?". TFL'ers PLEASE spare me the flame about subsequent legislation which has INFRINGED upon that right.

PR Point of Discussion: For those that haven't heard these words from me before, brace yourselves... If in fact we have UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION, and those are SWORN TO BE UPHELD, DEFENDED, and PROTECTED by the elected folks WE send to represent us, then why would we EVER need to subject ourselves to the tyranny of licensing or permitting an existing UNALIENABLE RIGHT???

PR Answer: YOU DON'T!!!!

Granted, not everyone wants or needs to carry a concealed weapon. That choice is a personal one. BUT, if your choice to not carry is based upon some infringement against your 2nd Amendment Rights (the multitude of Federal, State, and Local gun control "laws"), I say, IGNORE THEM!!!

If you feel you need to have a permit, make a reduced copy of the 2nd Amendment and laminate it into a credit card sized card, and keep it in your wallet or purse. THAT IS YOUR PERMISSION TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! And remember everyone that took the oath to an elected office had to swear to protect and defend that right...every single one of them.

Then, carry what you want, whenever you want...just be smart about it so you won't offend some whiney soccer mom, or draw attention to yourself. And stay out of trouble. If you give an LEO a reason to search you, he/she will!

If you are a responsible American citizen who doesn't get your income from holding up Seven-Elevens or selling drugs, or stealing purses, there's a very good chance that you will NEVER-NEVER-EVER be subject to a search of your person, purse, briefcase, or vehicle. And THAT is the single biggest FEAR that I hear coming from you folks.

Answer this for yourself...how many times in your life, have you been subjected to a search by an LEO for NO REASON? Personally, I have NEVER been searched. I'd bet that the MAJORITY of you fence sitters haven't either.

Read it again...and then again. If you can tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says you CANNOT keep and bear arms, I'd like you to point that out for me. Oh and by the way, while you're at it, tell we where it says your right to keep and bear arms is subject to infringement.

Personal choices. I choose to be FREE.

Hissssss't Click...rant mode off.
 
How many times? Twice.

[This message has been edited by Jeff, CA (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
I agree with you, but some state Constitutions forbid concealed carry unless with a permit. It's expressly denied. You can either choose to live within the law and change what you don't like, or not :). The 2nd amendment won't save you from being charged and possibly prosecuted, and if that's OK with you, go for it.

I personally would rather that there are no restrictions on guns for anyone, and let freedom and responsibility reign.
 
Agreed. You can't put a "prior restraint" (license) an a FUNDAMENTAL right. The RKBA is a fundamental right. The right extends to all non-felons. Furthermore, a state constitutional that expressly requires a permit/license is itself unconstitutional as violative of the federal second amendment as applied to the states via the 14th amendment and the "incorporation doctrine". Neither the feds NOR states can constitutionally regulate the right to KBA held by law-abiding citizens. I agree it's time to ignore the oppressive/illegal laws, but I might just wait till Emerson is decided, as it may possibly get you the free pass. (don't hold your breath, though). If Emerson denies the RKBA and the Supremes deny cert or uphold by decision, then the time for seccession will unfortunately be at hand.
 
You may want to check this out as well:

June 20, 2000 Update

Virginia Gunowners and Fauquier County Residents!

The Fauquier Board of Supervisors voted to register all Concealed Handgun Permit
applicants with the FBI at their June 19, 2000 meeting.

They decided to ignore the dozens of citizens who showed up at the public hearing to
oppose Sheriff Joe Higg's fingerprinting
& gunowner registration scheme.

Unfortunately for the citizens of Fauquier county the majority of politicians voted to
support Janet Reno's & Sheriff Joe Higg's
federal registration agenda.

It should be noted that Center District Supervisor Joe Winkelmann, (540) 347-8648,
winkelmann@erols.com listened to gunowners and voted to protect gunowner rights.
Let Supervisor Winklelman know that you appreciate his principled stand for your rights!
... "
 
It should be kept in mind that the generation which ratified the Second amendment understood it to protect OPEN carry, not concealed carry... Hiding your piece was considered rather disreputable, if not quite proof of criminal intent.

Carrying a gun is a right, HIDING it is a privilege. At least that's the conclusion anyone devoted to an original intent reading of the Constitution would probably arrive at.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I don't have a ccp, and I carry all the time. When I'm in my vehicle, I carry a full sized pistol, and when out and about, I find a Makarov is an excellent little gun to carry. My personal taste. I refuse to obtain a permit to do what is my right to do anyway. I entertained the thought at one time, but decided against it. I might take the course though for the information. I am familiar with the Texas Constitution and it even supports the U.S. Constitution. I don't expect mercy if I am caught. It is a rare Deputy who is knowlegeable of the Constitution and Knowlegeable about natural rights vs priveledges views. I have talked my way out once, but don't expect to get that lucky again. The police officer who nails you is also a product of our public school system. While his heart may be in the right place, his brain may not be capable of doing the computations, and anyhow, it is always easier to arrest and avoid liablility than to use common sense. I bet they'll be glad I was carrying when I come accross them in a tight spot on a lonely stretch of farm road some night though.
 
There is no end to the alledged laws they write, I suppose that a person just has to decide on their own where the line is. Personally I don't even pay attention to them anymore. They will continue to write laws until we are all either criminals or good socialist / victims.



[This message has been edited by scud (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
My two cents:

Governments cannot GRANT rights, they can only take them away. Basic rights like free speech, self-defense, freedom of belief, and so on exist as a fundamental building block of civilization.

The right to defend oneself existed in common law at least since the Magna Carta, probably before that in some places. The 2nd Amendment does not "grant" any rights, it merely recognizes that the right exists as a tenet of civilized society and prohibits the government from abridging that right.

Take a First Amendment parallel: free speech. It also existed in one form or another prior to the Constitution. It was not created by the Constitution, only recognized and protected.

In both cases, there are limits. Free speech does not include the right to libel or slander, or to "shout FIRE! in a crowded theater". RKBA does not include the right to blow someone away because they cut you off on the freeway, or to wave a weapon around in public just to watch the innocents freak out.

It saddens me that our political process has degenerated from a good original design to what we have now: government for sale to the biggest campaign contributors, elitists who take away our rights to protect us from ourselves (because they assume anyone who didn't go to Harvard can't tie his own shoes), and special interest groups that want to be more equal than anyone else.
 
...some state Constitutions forbid concealed carry unless with a permit. It's expressly denied.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Nuf said.


[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
Brett:

First time I have ever disagreed with you my friend. There were lots of instances where our founders carried concealed weapons, such as pocket pistols, sword canes, etc. Read the court case of Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). It can be found at http://www.2ndlawlib.com/court/state/12ky90.html

This was the first case in court after the adoption of the bill of rights. Here is the main argument of the judge "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

This was a great decision.... well folks it went down hill from there..



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
There has been a changing of the guard, and we let it happen. It is true enough that RKBA should require no ammendment to affirm such a basic right, much less a permit to grant it, but the reality is that the constitution is no longer a binding agreement.
No more than a marriage certificate or paper money. These things are given value by good faith and a commitment to what they stand for. It is a fool that expects good faith from an institution that has made a mockery of these things.
There have been laws that governed human existence all through the ages, they are constantly changing, evolving, and supplanted by different ones according to the whims of the ruling order.
No right or wrong about it, what is significant will endure, what isn't won't.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brett Bellmore:
It should be kept in mind that the generation which ratified the Second amendment understood it to protect OPEN carry, not concealed carry... Hiding your piece was considered rather disreputable, if not quite proof of criminal intent.

Carrying a gun is a right, HIDING it is a privilege. At least that's the conclusion anyone devoted to an original intent reading of the Constitution would probably arrive at.

[/quote]

This isn't exactly true.

During the XYZ Affair (Paris Negotiation, 1797), Elbridge Gerry (R-Massachusetts) is known to have concealed two loaded pistols on his person and under his pillows while in Paris.

What is refered to as the Ignoble Act (concealing a weapon) implicitly referrs to the use of a concealed weapon during a duel. There is not a reference that during the times of Construction carrying a concealed weapon for personal defense was considered disreputable.

Also, laws against the carrying of concealed weapons have their birth in the South during the 1840's-1850's; once again an attempt to limit the ability of freed blacks to encourage slave revolts.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
Paul-

We agree. Now stop preaching to the choir and start suing for your rights. If NY passes its "assault weapons" bill in the next few minutes (waiting for the vote to finish), I'll be looking for a good pro-RKBA lawyer.

If 1% of the energy spent bickering & whining about the RKBA were spent in courts demanding it, we would have the rights the way we want them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top