Did you miss the intent of the 2nd amendment? It codifies the unalienable right so since it is codified by law in the constitution it is constitutional. This was done so there would be no question.
What, exactly, do you think I've been arguing? You made the claim that concealed carry was never a right (sic.) I simply proved the claim wrong. Concealed carry was, in fact, constitutional until a later Supreme Court decision made a mockery out of the law.
Dude... can you not read? I just proved you wrong. WTH??? What do you think post # 25 is all about? Concealed carry was perfectly legal. Can you read?
I have heard this before, and yes it is a pretty interesting platform, however, for Me, as a retired LEO, it is a moot issue. When you are pulled over by a LEO, there is a moment where you establish you are not a Criminal, as an active or retired LEO, you do that in a manner less threatening and at the same time informing the LEO, so there are no surprises. I reccomend keeping your CCW permit and Driver's license and reg / ins documents together and hand them over to the LEO, before verbally informing him / her about your CCW, and that you are Armed. Yes, the Right to keep and bear Arms should not require Government permission hence why many States have gone Constitutional carry like Vermont. However, until every State has Constitutional carry, a hard document is a good protection. Getting a permit is a personal decission, however given the alternatives, I highly reccomend it.
Carry is both unalienable and constitutional. Method of carry has always been the purview of the states.
I appreciate your views, but as a point of fact, there are no statistics that say your chances are better one way than another. And, it appears that everybody that disagrees with me doesn't have a response. Two guys go to the mall. Both are carrying concealed. One has a permit; the other does not. The sign in the mall says no weapons allowed. From a legal perspective, who is in the better position? If we're going to discuss the alternatives, what are they? In Georgia, at least, a person has the Right to have a weapon in their automobile because it is an extension of their home. If a guy gets a permit on the basis that it makes him feel "safe" and in doing so forfeits a God given Right, what is the point of Rights?
I do not disagree with you, you have to do what you think is best, however, there are consequences, if a Mall is posted, I will not go there unless it is 100% necessary, and then, I most likely would not carry if I did. It is a personal decission in any case.
The problem I have is how they interpret concealed. For example, how does one "open carry" in the winter? Do you walk around with some kind of tactical drop holster? Open carry and concealed carry is really a distinction without a difference. If you're carrying a gun, you're carrying a gun. Just because a gun isn't visible doesn't mean you're trying to "conceal" it. Do you have any information where you came up with the statement "method of carry has always been the purview of the states."? It would seem to me that the 14th amendment would mean that the 2A would apply at the federal level the same way it does at the state level, i.e. no infringment. There is a reason being able to carry either open or concealed or any any manner you choose is called "constitutional carry".
In Florida, there is no requirement to inform a cop that pulls you over that you have a concealed license and are carrying. I would not disclose this info to the cop unless he tells me to get out of the car. Then I would inform him in the most non threatening way. You just don't know how he will react, so it's better to keep it to yourself if it is a simple citation.
Yes, but the way the government tries to apply it in Miranda, it becomes an inalienable Right. So, we have to know more than the government and protect our unalienable Rights. If you allow the government to think for you, they will begin to think they granted you the right and it won't be worth a tinker's damn to you. IIRC, Miranda is history anyway... well, at least to the extent that they have to tell you their version of your Rights.
As far as Miranda decission being rescinded, you should post your sources, I have not heard a Court decission that rescinded Miranda, yet... http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatifiwasntreadmyrights.html Some things are far too important to trust to IIRC
Although you highlight a few words, it does not alter what I said. You cannot give up an unalienable Right. That is the whole meaning of the word. Upon further reflection, I found in my files that people charged with entering the United States without papers were not due any Miranda warnings (at least that was the law in 2012 when the case was being litigated.) But, I can explain that. Entering the U.S. without papers is not a criminal violation of the law; it is a civil violation. Sorry for the mistake... and unlike the politicians, posters on a board are not entitled to be even slightly wrong.
I apologize to you then, I did not intend to prove you wrong, and for that I am indeed sorry. I only wish to help.
Agreed, however before blurting out I have a firearm, I like to show my credentials first as I always did as an active LEO, when off duty or in street clothes, those are tense moments when responding LEOs are trying to figure out if you are a good guy or a bad guy. Even if there is no requirement to disclose, nothing is harmed by handing a LEO that pulls you over your credentials. https://youtu.be/dT-nePQuT-s Massad Ayoob on getting pulled over while CCW.
I have friends that this has hapend to, and I have heard other stories of cops that get pretty nasty and pull you out of the car for no reason when you hand them your CCW, even though they pulled you over for a just speeding violation. I'm not saying all cops are like that, I'm just saying why take the chance when it is unnecessary. I've seen the video before, Mas is a member of the same club as I am, and I have competed against him multiple times. Really nice guy.
the vast majority of the nonsense present in this discussion comes down to the simple fact that when state constitutions were being drafted, honest individuals carried firearms openly, while criminally minded carried firearms in a concealed manner. They could not stop someone from carrying or acquiring a firearm, so they needed some manner of differentiation. And since there were no laws against carrying firearms by default, they needed some standard.
I don't know where you get your information from, but you are wholly wrong. Unless you can quote a state constitution from the founding era that outlawed concealed carry, you are blowing smoke. Here are the facts: Our earliest history was that America was under English law. Some erroneously believe we had a "right" under English law to keep and bear Arms, but that view is not supported in history. After decades of debate and discussion, the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence and the colonists governed themselves separate and apart from English law. The fact is, in 1632, a statute of Plymouth Colony ordered “that every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himselfe and each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war with bandaleroes and other appurtenances with what speede may be....” By the end of the following May, each person was to own “two pounds of powder and ten pounds of bullets” with a fine of ten shillings per person who was not armed." If you examine all of the state constitutions of the colonial period, you will find that in virtually every one of them a Right to keep and bear Arms. NONE of them prohibited concealed carry. I brought up this very issue in post # 25. Let us revisit that relevant part: A provision of the Kentucky Constitution, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned," provided the occasion for perhaps the first state judicial opinion on the nature and source of the right to bear arms. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). Defendant appealed his conviction for having worn a sword cane by asserting the unconstitutionality of an act prohibiting concealed weapons. The court held, "Whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution." Id. at 91-92. Observing that wearing concealed weapons was considered a legitimate practice when the constitutional provision was adopted, the court reasoned: "The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right, and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear when the constitution was adopted." Kentucky was the first state to pass a concealed carry law. That was in 1813 (or thereabouts.) At that time, ALL of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, save of Charles Carroll, were dead when the first concealed carry law was passed in Kentucky. It's kind of hard to prove a case in favor of concealed carry when quite the opposite is proven by the lack of any bans on them during the founding era. The 1689 English law that some people don't understand, did have a limited "right" for some people to keep and bear Arms AND prohibited concealed carry; however, it is clear from the state constitutions that they did not even consider the issue and did not outlaw concealed carry in the early state constitutions. - - - Updated - - - You never have to apologize to me. We're on the same side. I just have to try harder to articulate points and make sure that I get it right.
Was anything regarding to state constitutions from the founding era mentioned? No it was not. It was specifically state constitutions, period, and all during a time when honest individuals carried firearms openly, and there was no negative stigma attached to such. Relying on old precedent for prohibiting concealed carry in this day and age is pointless as well as intellectually dishonest.
It is intellectually dishonest NOT to consider the laws of our past. On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Thomas Jefferson "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield" George Washington in his Farewell Address When I am advocating for unalienable Rights, I am doing exactly as the founding fathers admonished us to do. I'm not like the liberals, quoting the law in 1689 nor all these other wannabe Perry Masons, quoting precedent law after the founding fathers were dead and gone. Furthermore, I am observing the fact that Washington's words were more accurate than those of Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce. In every respect, Washington's words have proven to be true. Furthermore, when you cannot get a grip on the principles behind our founding documents, you end up supporting liberalism on the installment plan, ending up with the failed of philosophies of people who want America to be like the failed systems in so many other foreign countries. During the founding era, there were no laws prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons - AND the founding fathers had ample opportunity to address the issue. But, the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.
Maybe you and I are on two different wave lengths. When you criticized old precedents, I was making the point that the only way to properly interpret unalienable Rights is to use the precedents based upon the debates as the founding fathers admonished.
And old precedent has been used to justify restrictions on firearms ownership and possession as well.
If you will simply read what the founding fathers wrote, you can come to a rational and consistent interpretation of the Second Amendment. What was the law post 1776 and BEFORE all the founding fathers passed away?
