Does the second amendment protect your right to carry?

What does 2A protect?

  • Your right to bear arms fit to resist a tyrranical government domestic or foreign(Homeland Defense)

    Votes: 30 65.2%

  • Hunting, Self defense, home defense, and Homeland defense

    Votes: 16 34.8%
  • Total voters
    46
J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
This conversation is entirely theoretical. Anyone posting it is impossible to distinguish between a pistol possessed for protection against a tyrannical government from one to protect from criminals is off topic.

From the text of the second amendment and my readings of our founding fathers I limit my interpretation of the second amendment to ownership and possession of firearms necessary to protect against tyrannical government. In my mind this does not relate to Hunting, or even home defense. It only pertains to homeland defense. I am not saying that those are not rights, just that they fall under the 9a not 2a. These other rights also seem to fall under common sense to me, but that doesn't seem to count for much in Washington.

Not what you wish it was meant for, what you actually think was the intent of the amendment
 
No

The Constitution does not mention concealed carry, therefore those rights not delineated by Federal law, are resolved by the individual states.
I'm not real clear on your question or position as I can interpret your remark to mean that gun ownership is allowed only to secure a free state against tyranny. Security of a free state as written in the Constitution, includes my state of security, including self defense, home defense and those dependent upon me. IMHO
 
I don't want to get into where the protection of you right to bear arms for the purpose of hunting, self defense, and home defense, might be protected or reserved, just whether or not you believe it is in the second amendment or not.

Is the Second Amendment limited to "homeland defense" or does it cover all facets of firearm ownership.

Security of a free state as written in the Constitution, includes my state of security, including self defense, home defense and those dependent upon me.
Click to expand...
So you think the Federal government has responsibility to protect you from domestic non-state actors?
 
Last edited:
Maybe I should point out where I am going with this.
If 2A is limited to "homeland defense," is it still in existence at all? Are any federal policy decisions made with any respect the homeland defense aspect of gun ownership.
If you went to congress and said this bill should not be passed because it impeded on my right to protect myself from tyrannical governments foreign and domestic would you get anything but laughter?

I am really starting to believe this country needs a constitutional convention.
 
Last edited:
johnwilliamson062 said:
If 2A is limited to "homeland defense," is it still in existence at all?
Click to expand...
That would lead to I think a discussion of the militia. Long thread already done here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=342370and here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337107 so you can read a lot of discussion about "homeland defense". The antigunners argued that the RKBA was tied to service in the militia and since the militia is defunct then the states and Fed could pass any gun laws they wanted. They had several law cases to back that up too. However, Heller saved the day by decoupling the militia part of the clause from the individual right and recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms apart from service in the militia.

johnwilliamson062 said:
If you went to congress and said this bill should not be passed because it impeded on my right to protect myself from tyrannical governments foreign and domestic would you get anything but laughter?
Click to expand...

No, and probably add fear to that mix as you would be viewed as a kook deserving attention and observation from LE agencies.

Also, to answer your question about CCW. I would say the state of law now is No. CCW is enacted by states not the Fed and IIRC the 2A hasn't been incorporated which means that it only applies to Federal law not State law. So, if a State says no CCW, the Federal court would not overturn it on 2A grounds. However, we have discussed that the 10th Amendment might keep the Fed from outlawing CCW by law.
 
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman, I agree with your analysis of the current legal environment and interpretation of 2A.

I want to know if you think 2A was meant to be interpreted that way or not. Whether 2A is tied to militia service or not is irrelevant.
In your opinion does 2A include these other uses of firearms or not? Or is it just for Homeland Defense
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
In your opinion does 2A include these other uses of firearms or not?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "other uses". I do believe it was written to insure that all citizens have a right to personal self defense but am not sure what you mean beyond that.
 
hunting, home defense, personal defense, and I will throw in collecting at this point.
I want the opinions of members of this board concerning the original intent, not their legal analysis of the current legal environment.
 
The second amendment doesn't say "the right to bear arms" it says "the right to keep and bear arms." Keep is to own. Bear is to carry. No?
 
You are right, I don't follow the relevance unless you are arguing(maybe just pointing out the possibility) the amendment, by the inclusion of keep, extends to collectors while the bear section may not include hunting, SD, or HD.
I doubt the original intent of the inclusion of the word "keep" was to protect collectors, but I think there could be some strong legal ground there.

I am not saying the founding fathers would not have protected those rights had they thought of it, just that they don't seem to have done so in my opinion.
I doubt any of the founding fathers ever thought the right of a citizen to hunt with a firearm would ever be endangered.


http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment

The second choice includes the first choice. The first choice is limited, the second is not.
 
Last edited:
"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. "

My college history teacher argued that we do not have a right to keep and bear arms, because we no longer need a militia for defense.

Finland was invaded by Russia during WW2. The Finnish people went to the woods with their hunting rifles and defeated the Russian army with gurilla warfar. They shot one bullet at the leader of the tank convoy...

IMO Hunting is great or nessaceary or very important pre-warfare training.

"Not what you wish it was meant for, what you actually think was the intent of the amendment "

To understand the intent of our fathers, you have to think like they did.

Anyone who did keep and bear arms back then hunted and killed livestock for butchering. We were a rural nation back then. Why write in detail how to breath? :D

If I am to keep my free state secure, I must eat, and I must train, IMO>
Hunting is part of training; and eating.

Just imagine George Washington telling Americans, yes you can have a gun- but it's only one intended use is for homeland security. :D

IMO of course, I have to vote for option 2.
 
I see the point about hunting and the guerrilla warfare common to revolutions and resistance being linked. I would guess you would then also say the 2A protects your right to hunt, not just the right to maintain the weapons you use to hunt. As in a state outlawing deer hunting would be infringing on your 2A rights. Possibly harvest limits are infringements? I do not agree. This conclusion starts to broaden the 2A nearly to the extent of the interstate commerce clause. I think very few of us like where that has gone.

As far as I know the British never tried to control small arms prior to the beginning of the revolution. They only attempted to control artillery. During the Revolution I think their only controls were on Brown Bess rifles that were being picked up on the battlefield and provided by British defectors. I am not sure about this, I have never looked into the subject in detail.

The 2A was, I believe, put into place to protect military style weapons, specifically cannons. If that is not practical today then the amendment needs to be rewritten.
 
Yes, it does.

The essence of 2A is self-defense against predation small, medium or large, the petty thug, local gangs, government agents...

"Arms", "keep" and "bear" are terms of art that predate 2A by several hundred years in literature and law related to the personal and human right to effective self-defense. The earliest laws related to, in some cases, members of a particular religion who could keep and bear arms against individual harassment by members of other religions. The analog to concealed carry in current times is something only an ideologue could not recognize, but I do have hard feelings in the matter.

If you have an unrestricted right as an individual to effective self-defense, you must have the right to transport that means to whatever place you may need it, broadly brushed. Since no amount of written law can determine where this might be, concealed carry about anywhere is, or should be, considered a basic premise in light of 2A.
 
As far as I know the British never tried to control small arms prior to the beginning of the revolution.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was the attempt by British Gen. Thomas Gage in April, 1775 to seize a cache of small arms at Concord, MA that started the American Revolution. Prior to that, British troops regularly disarmed citizens whenever the opportunity arose. Since they quartered their troops among the citizenry, they used this as a convenient excuse to disarm them. To avoid this, and other problems, the Third Amendment forbids the quartering of troops.
 
No, the right of self-defense is covered by the Ninth Amendment. Carrying firearms in defense of yourself was never doubted or questioned by the Framers.

Carrying a gun in defense of self was seen as your right to draw air. Something every free man was allowed.

The 2A was, I believe, put into place to protect military style weapons, specifically cannons.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not specifically cannons. "Bearing" was defined then as something individually portable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top