Response from the Governor

I

indyspc

Retired Screen Name
I wrote this time, as I have many times before on different issues, about how bad the Massachusettes Governor and Attorney General's recent actions against our rights are. I asked that our tax dollars not support any anti gun or similar actions in the state. And that I want no more action that threatens or takes away our rights, especially the RKBA.

"Dear Mr. Cxxx:

Thank you for your comments on the subject of gun control.

I believe the best way to reduce gun violence is not to punish law-abiding
citizens who responsibly exercise their right to bear arms, but to severely
punish those who use guns to commit crimes. Not only must we punish these
individuals, but we must send the message that tougher sentences await
those who break our laws.

Thanks to passage of the 10-20-Life law last year, Florida is now one of
the toughest states in the nation in which to commit a crime with a gun.
Criminals using a gun now face a 10-, 20-, or 25-year to life minimum
mandatory sentence for committing their crimes in Florida. That compares
with the previous law that imposed only a three-year minimum mandatory
sentence. Using $500,000 appropriated by the legislature, aggressive
efforts are being made to spread the word about these tough new penalties
through public service announcements and grassroots efforts.

I stand committed to making Florida the safest state in the nation and to
reducing gun violence. Enabling Floridians to exercise their right to
protect and defend themselves does not contradict our efforts--curtailing
that right does.

Thank you again for your comments. I respect your views on this issue and
appreciate your sharing them with me.

Sincerely,
Jeb Bush "
 
Jeb should be running for President in stead of his brother!!!

------------------
BOYCOTT SMITH AND WESSON!!!
Defend the Constitution from the foreign threat!!!!
 
I agree.
Governor Bush says : "I stand committed to making Florida the safest state in the nation and to reducing gun violence. Enabling Floridians to exercise their right to protect and defend themselves does not contradict our efforts--curtailing
that right does."
When do I bring up (or do I at all) the fact that the UNconstitutional Florida CCW is curtailing this right? I mean I don't need a license to speak. Yet.
 
You may think having to get a CCW permit is unconstitutional, but I disagree. If anything in FL is unconstitutional it is the banning of open carry. The 2nd gives us the right to keep and bear arms...it doesn't say "conceal" anywhere.
 
I have "The Permission Slip" but after reading and doing some searching here I am becoming more aware. I also don't think the 2nd applies to open carry alone.

I really hope PR doesn't mind me quoting him here but here goes:

"We need to remember that Rights cannot be licensed, permitted, bargained for, or annointed upon us. These are "unalienable" Rights GUARANTEED by our Constitution, ones that do NOT require a permission slip from Big Brother. Permits, licenses, CCW, CHL, or whatever they may be locally called, are all INFRINGEMENTS to your RKBA. Being a "free" American should not and DOES NOT require one to get permission to carry out unalienable Rights that are GUARANTEED. - Paul Revere" http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=24614

How is he wrong?
 
I think he and you are wrong in thinking the second guarantees a right to concealed carry. It guarantees a right to carry, and given the mentality of the Founders, I would say that was intended to be open carry. I believe any state that denies open carry is violating the constitution.
 
RikWriter, I have to respectfully disagree. At the time of the adoption of the constitution, it was common practice for gentlemen to carry pocket pistols when out and about. A lot of them carried sword canes. Although not a gun, they were nevertheless concealed weapons.

For this I have one question. What is the difference between open and concealed? What makes concealed different? Carrying open in a lot of places scares people. The solution to that is to carry concealed. If one is to be trusted with arms to begin with, what is the difference?

It is interesting to note that one of the first state court cases on this issue found that laws prohibiting concealed carry were unconstitutional. The basis of the judges argument was that if it existed at the time of the adoption of the consitution it was not within the power of government to change it. The judges went even further and stated that the federal 2nd was binding on the states. Our rights have been going downhill ever sense.

Richard


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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
True. A violation exists. It should not matter how I BEAR ARMS open or concealed. The Right is self evident and not granted by anyone including the Founders. And I believe the RKBA covers both, as you said it does not contain the word conceal nor does it say on your person or in plain view. And where I KEEP my arms before I Bear them is not up to discussion according to the Constitution - the KEEPING of said is afterall the Right of The People.

Steve
 
The founders would have had open carry in mind because back then people were not overly concerned if someone was carrying a gun openly and the sight of an openly carried gun would be a deterrent to criminals.
 
Either way I think that the RKBA speaks for itself. How you Keep And Bear Arms is of no real concern as long as you can.

I really don't think the Founders had concealed or open KEEPing in mind. We are nit picking - any INFRINGEMENTS are unconstitutional.

But do we just go along for the ride and hope it gets better or do we speak out and work towards change and what is right? Ok sure, emailing and writing my Governor and elected officials will probably accomplish little but it's a start.

As I have seen:
* keep (retain possession of)
* bear (carry on one's person; convey)
But the Founders may have meant something totally different.

Steve
 
My paternal grandfather, an ordained minister, carried a .32 revolver in his belt, under his coat, just about any time he was out of the house.

Yep, that includes when he was preaching!

He believed the (state) government was completely out of hand when they began to require fishing licenses. He refused to pay 25 cents to go fishing. His compromise was, "Fine, I won't catch any of the state's fish. I'll only catch the ones God put there."

His view of the Second Amendment was clear. The men who wrote it were fluent in English. It means what it says, "... shall not be infringed."
-----

BTW, he lived in central Pennsylvania.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top