mattd
Member
How does the right to bear arms permit the right to carry a concealed gun? I always thought bear meant to carry openly.
Concealed carry and right to bear arms
- Thread starter mattd
- Start date
- Status
<cynic>
To Congress, the RKBA doesn't mean squat...99% of them would probably just as soon ban guns altogether, if they knew they'd get elected again afterwards. It SHOULD protect all ownership and all carry of all weapons, but that's way too scary fpr the Congresscritters and their sheeple constituents.
</cynic>
Some state Constitutions are much more specific than the Federal one. Here in Colorado, for example, the state constitution guarantees the right to carry weapons in defense of your person and property, but specifically says that this does not protect concealed carry. I believe this stems from the belief that concealed carry was a trait of criminal alone, as open carry was a common practice when the Colorado Constitution was written.
To Congress, the RKBA doesn't mean squat...99% of them would probably just as soon ban guns altogether, if they knew they'd get elected again afterwards. It SHOULD protect all ownership and all carry of all weapons, but that's way too scary fpr the Congresscritters and their sheeple constituents.
</cynic>
Some state Constitutions are much more specific than the Federal one. Here in Colorado, for example, the state constitution guarantees the right to carry weapons in defense of your person and property, but specifically says that this does not protect concealed carry. I believe this stems from the belief that concealed carry was a trait of criminal alone, as open carry was a common practice when the Colorado Constitution was written.
revlar
Member
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictonary of he English Language lists no fewer than thirty-three separate and distinct meanings for the word "bear" (apart from the animal-related definitions). The most fitting for RBKA are "to carry, bring". I find no mention of carrying "openly".
We in Missouri also have the legal right to carry firearms openly (with the exception of certain municipal ordinances). Just try actually doing it sometime.
What is particularly revealing in the various definitions of "bear" is the repeated emphasis upon the responsibility - the burden - of "bearing".
RKBA is surely conferred by a higher being than our legislature or our governor. Now our governor has the bill on his desk. If only he will honor our God-given right and place just a little trust in the citizens of this state. Perhaps he just may allow us at least the opportunity to prove our fitness to assume the responsibility - the burden - to bear.
We in Missouri also have the legal right to carry firearms openly (with the exception of certain municipal ordinances). Just try actually doing it sometime.
What is particularly revealing in the various definitions of "bear" is the repeated emphasis upon the responsibility - the burden - of "bearing".
RKBA is surely conferred by a higher being than our legislature or our governor. Now our governor has the bill on his desk. If only he will honor our God-given right and place just a little trust in the citizens of this state. Perhaps he just may allow us at least the opportunity to prove our fitness to assume the responsibility - the burden - to bear.
mattd
Member
3. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
Do you know where I can look up the meaning of words in the governments eyes?
Do you know where I can look up the meaning of words in the governments eyes?
revlar
Member
I do not see the correlation between a tool (firearm) and a "characteristic". And I definitely do not see the correlation between a firearm and a "scar".
As for "government" definitions of words - obviously that is subject to change. What the framers of the Bill of Rights meant by "militia" and "bear" are not what many (most?) of today's legislators would like us to believe the words meant/mean.
As for "government" definitions of words - obviously that is subject to change. What the framers of the Bill of Rights meant by "militia" and "bear" are not what many (most?) of today's legislators would like us to believe the words meant/mean.
Gordon Fink
Member
The right to bear arms has little to do with baring them.
Following the “bare†arms “logic†… If it rains, must I expose my sword to the threat of rust? Must I carry my pocket knife outside my pocket? Should I pin my voter-registration card to my lapel? Must I keep my hands as fists at all times? Should I always bare my teeth, lest I be charged with carrying “concealed assault jaws�
If open carry is more acceptable than concealed carry, then ready carry (weapon in hand, ready for action) must be even better than open carry. How does that sound?
~G. Fink
Following the “bare†arms “logic†… If it rains, must I expose my sword to the threat of rust? Must I carry my pocket knife outside my pocket? Should I pin my voter-registration card to my lapel? Must I keep my hands as fists at all times? Should I always bare my teeth, lest I be charged with carrying “concealed assault jaws�
If open carry is more acceptable than concealed carry, then ready carry (weapon in hand, ready for action) must be even better than open carry. How does that sound?
~G. Fink
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
All other things being equal, I'd rather carry openly than concealed: it's much easier to carry more gun more comfortably.
As far as I'm concerned, if you legally own it, you ought to be able legally to carry it; conversely, if you use a firearm to commit a crime, you should get an extra ten years added to your sentence in addition to the sentence for the crime.
With rights come responsibilities.
As far as I'm concerned, if you legally own it, you ought to be able legally to carry it; conversely, if you use a firearm to commit a crime, you should get an extra ten years added to your sentence in addition to the sentence for the crime.
With rights come responsibilities.
Feanaro
Member
Bear:
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
A characteristic is just that, it is not an object. To bear a scar is using the word in a different context. Moving on, people have a right to "keep and bear arms". It does not specify how they bear them, merely that they can. And I also doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of ANY constraints on firearms, even concealed ones. They believed them to be tools useful for stopping governments, attackers and bringing dinner to the table.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
A characteristic is just that, it is not an object. To bear a scar is using the word in a different context. Moving on, people have a right to "keep and bear arms". It does not specify how they bear them, merely that they can. And I also doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of ANY constraints on firearms, even concealed ones. They believed them to be tools useful for stopping governments, attackers and bringing dinner to the table.
TallPine
Member
What about the "right of privacy" which has already been upheld (created) by a landmark Supreme Court decision (which shall remained unamed, of course 
) ...?
The right of privacy should therefore also apply to the right to bear arms, which means carrying concealed. (my twisted logic is just as good as that of some wacky judges).
Or do you think it is a right to bare arms?
) ...?The right of privacy should therefore also apply to the right to bear arms, which means carrying concealed. (my twisted logic is just as good as that of some wacky judges).
Or do you think it is a right to bare arms?
mattd
Member
You have no right to privacy in public. But I have yet to hear a good argument to why bear arms doesn't mean to carry openly.
The answer is simply that every right which does not infringe upon the rights of others' belongs to the people by default -- or should. The people derive no rights from the Constitution, the government derives its powers from the Constitution. Therefore, the right is ours by default.
Tamara
Senior Member
mattd,
Even if the Second didn't cover CCW, the Ninth does.
Even if the Second didn't cover CCW, the Ninth does.
Graystar
Member
And *that* is the best answer of all. We don't get to do things because we are permitted to....We are free to do anything by default. That's what we mean when we say powers not delegated are reserved by the people (10th amend.) Laws that restrict come into existance when it is clear that a lack of restriction is leading to rights violations. Like I mentioned in another thread, when cars were first created you didn't need a driver's license. But when too many of them were on road there were lots of accidents and the government saw a need to legislate in order to protect rights.
That is really the only reason why laws should be passed. A law should never be passed because it sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, many gun laws fall into that "good idea" category. Hopefully, one day soon, that can be corrected.
Sergeant Bob
Member
Yes, the forgotten amendment. Invoking the Ninth seems to start a ****storm every time I try it. I do agree though.
Leatherneck
Member
Nor have you posted your reasons why it does. Neither mode is implicit in the verb "bear."
TC
TFL Survivor
voilsb
Member
also, the second says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not "shall be limited to those arms which are openly carried"
this means that anything which infringes on your right to keep and/or bear arms, in any way, is still an infringement. and it shall not happen.
which means if you want to bear your arms concealed, the second amendment says that right is not to be infringed.
if you want to bear your arms cocked and unlocked in your hand with your finger on the trigger, the right of yours to do so shall not be infringed (however unwise it may be).
this means that anything which infringes on your right to keep and/or bear arms, in any way, is still an infringement. and it shall not happen.
which means if you want to bear your arms concealed, the second amendment says that right is not to be infringed.
if you want to bear your arms cocked and unlocked in your hand with your finger on the trigger, the right of yours to do so shall not be infringed (however unwise it may be).
Jim March
Member
There's another argument that nets us a "right to CCW" based on the *14th* Amendment.
Huh?
A good case can be made that the 14th effectively altered the BoR from a "political right" akin to the right to vote, into a "personal civil right to self defense" which in the case of at least some of the people who got that right in 1868 (at the passage of the 14th) would have absolutely required concealed carry.
See, there's strong evidence that the "privileges and immunities" that states were required to honor per the 14th included the 2nd Amendment. And in doing so, a key purpose for the 14th was to make sure the new black citizens of the South could defend against criminals, especially the rising tide of "night riders" (proto-KKK).
It's not just "right wingers" such as law professor Stephen Halbrook saying this (although he did, in his 1984 book "That Every Man Be Armed"). Left-wing Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar found the same thing from primary sources in a pair of law review articles and then his 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights".
Here's the kicker: the blacks thus armed didn't gain the right to vote (or serve in "militias") until the *15th* Amendment a few years later. Which means the 2nd Amendment became disconnected with "militia service" to a large degree; in 1868, the idea of Southern states enrolling blacks in any sort of "militia" is laughable since at that time, Southern "militia" uniforms usually involved bedsheets with eyeholes.
And if blacks got such a personal right to arms, they'd sure as hell need to CCW. The last time the NYPD thought they had an armed black dude in sight, they sent 41 rounds his way, connecting with 18 and killing him deader'n'Elvis. The Atlanta GA police circa 1868 would have been even more trigger-happy at the sight of an openly armed black dude.
By 1868, the idea of CCW weapons was well established. Functional percussion revolvers had existed since 1836 and by 1868 were common on the used market, especially given the surplusses from the recent war. By around 1855, the Mormons had invented the big-bore snub-nose revolver by necessity (36 and 44cals chopped as short as 3" and known as "Avenging Angels" for the Mormon security troops that carried 'em). Colt had a 4" barrel factory 31cal deep-concealment revolver by 1861, and S&W had 22rimfires as early as the 1850s. There were also those cool little "Volcanic" lever-handguns that later got enlarged to rifle length but meanwhile gave the revolvers a run for their money in terms of effectiveness and firepower.
The point is, both the technology and need for CCW was well understood by 1868. And if Amar, Halbrook and the like are correct, this was a driving force behind the 14th.
For a lot more details on all this and links to more info, see also:
http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html
Huh?
A good case can be made that the 14th effectively altered the BoR from a "political right" akin to the right to vote, into a "personal civil right to self defense" which in the case of at least some of the people who got that right in 1868 (at the passage of the 14th) would have absolutely required concealed carry.
See, there's strong evidence that the "privileges and immunities" that states were required to honor per the 14th included the 2nd Amendment. And in doing so, a key purpose for the 14th was to make sure the new black citizens of the South could defend against criminals, especially the rising tide of "night riders" (proto-KKK).
It's not just "right wingers" such as law professor Stephen Halbrook saying this (although he did, in his 1984 book "That Every Man Be Armed"). Left-wing Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar found the same thing from primary sources in a pair of law review articles and then his 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights".
Here's the kicker: the blacks thus armed didn't gain the right to vote (or serve in "militias") until the *15th* Amendment a few years later. Which means the 2nd Amendment became disconnected with "militia service" to a large degree; in 1868, the idea of Southern states enrolling blacks in any sort of "militia" is laughable since at that time, Southern "militia" uniforms usually involved bedsheets with eyeholes
.And if blacks got such a personal right to arms, they'd sure as hell need to CCW. The last time the NYPD thought they had an armed black dude in sight, they sent 41 rounds his way, connecting with 18 and killing him deader'n'Elvis. The Atlanta GA police circa 1868 would have been even more trigger-happy at the sight of an openly armed black dude.
By 1868, the idea of CCW weapons was well established. Functional percussion revolvers had existed since 1836 and by 1868 were common on the used market, especially given the surplusses from the recent war. By around 1855, the Mormons had invented the big-bore snub-nose revolver by necessity (36 and 44cals chopped as short as 3" and known as "Avenging Angels" for the Mormon security troops that carried 'em). Colt had a 4" barrel factory 31cal deep-concealment revolver by 1861, and S&W had 22rimfires as early as the 1850s. There were also those cool little "Volcanic" lever-handguns that later got enlarged to rifle length but meanwhile gave the revolvers a run for their money in terms of effectiveness and firepower.
The point is, both the technology and need for CCW was well understood by 1868. And if Amar, Halbrook and the like are correct, this was a driving force behind the 14th.
For a lot more details on all this and links to more info, see also:
http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html
spartacus2002
Member
Don't forget the common-law right to keep and bear arms that preceded the 2d Amendment. The 2A protects the underlying right.
- Status
