Do Americans have a right to carry?

[Panken]

What you said is true but you forgot removing the safety (I would hope the safeties were on, if they exist of course). That is another step to make the firearm ready but you are right that carrying in the trunk is the better option. Point of fact here in Texas I keep my firearm in the trunk and the ammo in the backseat just to be safe.

I understand about the safety but when I took the course the Liutenet who was teaching us said 2 steps to chamber the round. Safety does not really count becasue alot of newer guns have the safety on the trigger. Also safety can be turned off and on very quickly if you know how to use the gun.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

This has cycled through here a few times already, but my position hasn't changed.

Americans do and should have the right to carry, and infringing upon that is going against our personal freedom and the Bill of Rights. If anyone thinks that we are interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly, they need to call their congressman and demand a constitutional amendment immediately.

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.

This means that we should be able to form a militia when necessary, but also that our individual right to own a firearm can not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has sided with this time and time again.

Personally, I happen to believe that was merely supposed to mean being able to serve in the military (which means that banning homosexuals was unconstitutional).

However, that's totally irrelevant, as there's no reason why you can't allow for privately owned weapons with other laws (or, for that matter, ignore the Bill of Rights when convenient).

Speaking from a historical context, 'militia' refers more to a collection of civilians that have taken up arms for one reason or another, rather than a distinct military force, or at least that's always how I've understood it.

Even so

Snip

Interesting though that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Hicks has clearly completely disregarded the historical context of the second amendment (unlike Penn & Teller), nor does he seem to give much credit at all to the author of the Bill of Rights, and he also seems to ignore the fact that commas are used to separate ideas when writing. Put simply if the founders had meant for the second amendment to say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" they would have written it that way

 

[health-bar]

I don't know anything about the gun laws in the states but shouldn't it at least be concealed?

you actually need an additional license to legally carry it concealed.

 

[Gilhelmi]

He gets the NRA lawyers and sues the city for millions.

He cooperated with the police and the police attacked him. The public should have the right to videotape, audiotape, and photograph any police encounter they are involved in. I added the 'involved in' because the public should not have the right to recored other peoples encounters with police.

I live in Kansas and I have my Conceal Carry Permit and I use it. I have it only because it makes me more tactical in carrying. (why advertise you are carrying?)

Lawsuit Lawsuit Lawsuit. GO NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION RA-RA,HIP-HIP HURRAY.

 

[Coldster]

One of my friends moved to the states and he said the only state that allows you to have firearms in plain sight is Texas. Everywhere else it has to be concealed (like in a purse or under your coat).

 

[Gilhelmi]

Well now, let's see if Penn and Teller vs. Bill Hicks can be entertaining. This is taken from pages 272 and 273 of Bill Hicks' book "Love All The People":

"I'll quote Article Two of the Bill of Rights first, then present my simple realization and perhaps, God willing, this ludicrous issue can be resolved once and for all. (Yeah, right...) Here goes: '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.' (!) As far as I can tell, that's one sentence. This issue doesn't need to be debated by constitutional lawyers. This whole debate could be cleared up by my first grade English teacher, Mrs. Farmer. Article Two says, essentially, that: 'In order to maintain a free state a well-regulated militia (the National Guard) is necessary, and to that end only (at least according to the grammatic content of the sentence) people (the National Guard) have the 'right to bear arms'. If you reverse the two parts of the sentence it becomes even more crystal clear: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.'

This sentence, this one idea, this complete thought in and of itself does not say that every Floyd, Clem and Burl has the right to bear arms. It does not say every psychopathic yahoo in the country should be able to own a gun. It doesn't say that at all, and anyone with an education higher than the first grade should be able to comprehend this. Again, I believe people should be able to glean the true meaning of a simple sentence before we even begin to discuss their owning automatic weapons for 'hunting purposes'.

I can't help but wonder why the simple and obvious meaning of this sentence has never been mentioned before. Perhaps this is old news to the gun control debaters, but that still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Are gun rights advocates arguing that roving gangs of young people shooting innocent bystanders constitutes a 'well-regulated militia'? Or that Clem shooting Burl because he mistook him in the drak for a 'nigra' constitutes a 'secure and free state'? What, exactly, is their argument based on? Because it is not based on any 'guaranteed right' in the constitution. A child could explain this to you if he or she wasn't busy ducking for cover, or being strip-searched on the way into their grade school."

He goes onto mention some more deep thinking along the lines of America's real social enemy and solutions to the maladies that plague the world. All I can do is recommend the book if anyone is interested in learning more about this issue, and many others.

First of all are you really trying to argue that the Bill of Rights (1789) was referring to the National Guard of the United States (1903). Perhaps now you see why it is not used as an argument. But if you don?t-

'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.'

The people have the right to keep and bear arms so that they can serve in a militia. A militia, as defined by the Department of Defense, is any male between the ages of 17 and 45 who is capable of serving in the military. In other words if you use this line of reasoning I have the right to keep and bear arms but all women do not have that right. Feel free to try and get that passed. In addition the right of the people to keep and bear arms is so that they can form a militia. So how is that a statement against owning a firearm in the first place? All that that sentence makes clear is that the people possessing firearms are necessary in order for the militia to exist. I am sure you will throughout the well regulated part but the simple fact is that in the vernacular of the time regulated was synonymous with practice. In other words the militia was supposed to go out and practice occasionally, (which we do).

?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.?

Lastly, a functioning vehicle being necessary for me to get to work, I will own and posses a vehicle. Does that mean I can only use my vehicle to get to work?

Thank you, I have not seen such an eloquent response to that augment in a long time.

I salute you, Sir.

 

[chuckman1]

Some pigs are so stupid.

 

[Citizen Snips]

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.

This means that we should be able to form a militia when necessary, but also that our individual right to own a firearm can not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has sided with this time and time again.

It is worth bearing in mind that much of the US Constitution is lifted from the Bill of Rights 1689, including the right to bear arms.

Most of the Act is an attempt to redress the actions of the previous (Catholic) monarch, James II who "by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom" - so it's a totally unbiased piece of legislation, as you might imagine...

Anyway, that's why the act states

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

(which in effect meant "Gentry get to carry weapons, Peasants don't")

The key point is really that the right to bear arms is 'as appropriate'; so if you live in the middle of nowhere, then you probably need weaponry capable of taking down a bear or a dragon, or whatever wild animals wander about in those bits of the US.

If you live in a city, it's not really appropriate to carry heavy artillery, guns or swords (all of which might make you feel safer, but so would a blanky).

(The 'armed & well-regulated militia' bit is lifted from a related act, and is a provision specifically to prevent the King sending peasantry into battle unarmed (not that English monarchs were ever complete and total bastards or anything))

The problem with that is that a city is no guarantee of safety and in fact may be more dangerous than rural areas.

If your home in the the city, then it is absolutely in your right to protect and defend that.

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment-a purpose not previously articulated by the Court-and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

This isn't really a gray area issue. You can own a weapon "as appropriate" to the law to defend your home, and that home can be in the middle of the Mojave desert or in the middle of D.C. I agree with the Miller precedent that we don't need rocket launchers, but hand guns, rifles, and shotguns should all be legal because they are used on a regular basis by sportsman, hunters, and for home defense.

 

[phelan511]

Well in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in general it IS indeed an open carry state. And yes in Philadelphia you do need a conceal carry license if you wish to open carry (which is kinda pointless in my opinion). This cop fucked up. Plain and simple.

 

[Tomster595]

It completely depends on the state, so I'm not sure about Pennsylvania

 

[Smerf]

This is why we don't arm the police.

were are you from?