CCW a Right??

A

anand

New member
One thing I dont understand as a non citizen
is, the American constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, does that not mean carrying it?
I believe that one can undergo a background check and legally buy a gun, then why can he not be trusted to carry it with him concealed? I ask this question because I am an Indian citizen and have a firearms license,which means I can possess, carry,or display it. There are no specific CCW rules.
Another point is that if bearing arms is a right, why then, is there licensing for CCW?
When licensure comes into play it is no longer a Right. Am I making any sense??
 
You understand better than most of the politicians and so called leaders---that an unalienable right is just that,,,,,it is not something that should treated as a privilege.......fubsy.
 
er, um ... you're asking some awkward questions there, anand. ;)

There are better minds here than mine, but I do recall in 'That Every Man Be Armed' by Halbrook that there have historically been various restrictions on the concealment of weapons. It seemed that it was crystal clear the RKBA was an ancient right, but concealment did seem to be more of a debate. Now, with John Lott's work in 'More Guns, Less Crime', I think it is more difficult for governments to take that position.
 
Since when have governments ever found it difficult to take positions which were contrary to established facts? Heck, they started a war on drugs after losing a war on alcohol, (Just another drug.) so they can't have THAT much brain power.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
I agree with Jeff Thomas, CCW is a grey area in the otherwise clear RKBA. There are clear reasons why CCW is a good idea, but OTOH I can see why states would like to check out those who would wish to carry a gun.

I don't mind the fact that Georgia took my fingerprints and ran a background check on me before issuing my CCW. (GA is a "shall issue state, BTW). Training is not required, but I would not have minded if it was.

CCW is more than dropping a gun in your pocket and walking out the door. For me, it was a long process if introspection and coming to grips with the responsibility CCW entails. I never touched a gun before Jan 1999, and it took a while before I became comfortable with owning them, and even longer before carrying them. I had my CCW permit in March, but I did not start carrying until December.
 
The US Constitution guarantees the right to carry weapons, and by practical aspects that includes handguns, rifles and shotguns. It does not say anything about whether the government may control how they are carried. Apparently (someone please convince me otherwise) the government can specify how you carry a gun; example: handguns concealed only or open only or either. We have freedom of speech, but there are restrictions on how loud under certain conditions; we have freedom to bear arms, but perhaps there may be restrictions on whether concealable guns may be or must be concealed.

The more relevant issue is not whether concealed carry licenses are legal by restricting visibility, but whether they are legal because they control whether you may own or carry a concealable firearm at all.

Separate the issues: one issue is how you are allowed to carry a gun, and the other is whether you can carry a gun at all. The government can tell you whether to carry openly (so we know you're armed) or concealed (so you don't scare people); it can NOT tell you to not carry any gun at all.
 
More accurately, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the government shall not take away the right to carry arms.

The right to bear arms (carry them) is one of the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independance. It is not enumerated because it is "self evident" and is protected from being infringed by the existence second amendment.

A reading of the second amendment shows that this right (presumed to exist) "shall not be infringed"

This right exists as non-enumerated to the people by the existence of the ninth and tenth amendments.

So essentially, the Federal Gov't has no legal standing to pass laws controlling the availability or use of 'arms' - be they firearms, swords, or cannon.

Personally I think it would be marvelous if the Feds would get out of this business, and let the people and the states argue over who this right belongs to, because it clearly belongs to one of them (see the tenth amendment). It can be argued that it belongs to the people by the use of the word 'people' in the second amendment, and therefore laws like SB23 in Kali would be unconstitutional.

Oh well, again, I dream...

anand, these are great questions, how would you like to come ask them of our politicians?
 
Great question. Leave it to those "new to the ideals of personal freedom & liberty" to bring up some of the most succinct queries.

Here's my take. Totally aside from the "God given" & "inalienable right" (& Constitutional, BTW) question, people have the right to self defense. Period. It is the most immutable aspect of life & which is to propigate the species. Hopefully, the good guys win this one, BTW.

That said, all else is mute if one does not possess the means by which to protect one's self. A firearm is the best tool known today to perform that act of self defense. A handgun is the most portable. A concealed handgun makes the bad guy guess & allows the good guy to preempt the "bad thing" w/out the bad guys' knowledge. Enough CCWs & there's a lot of BG guessing going on. One of the most telling surveys performed was that of BG's stating that the most effective deterent was that they feared the armed citizen & the chance that they may be shot. Fear of LEO capture was pretty far down on the list.

Too, armed citizens are 2.5 times more likely to justifiably shoot a BG than is an LEO. That due to the fact that an armed citizen being confronted by a BG is more likely to KNOW the scenario than is an LEO coming on-scene, unawares as to who is good vs bad. (no LEO slam intended - just a fact of circumstances)

All rights, and possesion of any instrument, are beyond the limits placed on the government. The only time the government may become involved is when the USE of that instrument (free speech = yelling fire when there's none, etc.) infringes upon the rights of others, or causes undue harm. Mere possession of ANY intrument should NEVER be against any law.

Misuse? well, then we could talk ....
 
You are correct in your observation CCW is not a guaranteed right under the US Constitution. It is a privelege defined by the the individual states. Luckily I live in a CCW state and a state that restates in its constitution the right to keep and bear arms. But one still has to be on guard against those that would take those rights away.
 
It is interesting to look at the first court cases on this issue right after the constitution was ratified forward. The first cases decreed that the right existed at the time of the adoption of the 2nd and therefore the government (including the states) could not pass laws to infringe on that right. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). It was not until large cities came into being that these laws against concealed carry were upheld as constitutional. The turning of a right into a privilege has taken time. It has evolved since the adoption of the constitution.

What these laws do is create a catch 22. One can not wear a gun openly now in most parts of the country without scaring the citizens. And yet you must obtain a license in order to carry concealed. Is this not the plan? In order for one to get to carry a gun when away from home that you need a license to do so? If one is to carry a gun, is it not better to keep it concealed so that you do not frighten others? Just think about it. What is the difference between an honest law abiding citizen carrying concealed and a criminal carrying one? They claim they need to license the citizen for the safety of all. But does not the criminal ignore the law anyway? So you either have a choice to register so that you can carry, thereby giving the government a list of gun owners or to carry open and run the risk of being arrested for scaring the people at large. Maybe someone here who is smarter than I am can explain the difference between open carry and concealed.

Usual arguments for licensing is to insure that the person is trained in it's use. Well don't they have the power under article 1 section 8 to provide for the method of training? Why don't they use that and require all to take basic firearms safety and training? Make it a requirement in order to graduate from school. This will never happen as that is not in the game plan. The plan is to completely disarm the people at large. The first step has to be registration. They first have to turn it from a right to a grant from government. That is what the CCW laws are designed to do.



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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top