• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Two More Concealed Carry Appeals Lose

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Please show me a quote from the actual framers of the document as to their intent, cause I seem to recall a mentioning of holding their firearms close to their bosom. ( this would be chest back then) and with those awfully long coats it isn't beyond the belief one could hide one of those newfangled rifles that had rifling in the barrel that where used to take out noblemen officers of the red coats.

not asking for some black robes, who places himself on a pedestal, opinion, the original writers intentions only please.


the only thing you could bring about to convince ANYONE otherwise, is the right to use a firearm ends with immoral action that takes away anothers rights either through severe injury or death, E.G. murder or attempted murder.

Why would the Framers of the Second Amendment say that the Second Amendment does not protect concealed carry any more than they would say that the First Amendment does not protect cannibalism?

And why would the decisions by the contemporaneous "black robes" be any less valid today?

When the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791 a person who used a concealed weapon to kill another person was guilty of a crime punished by death. Not "punishable" but punished. There was not, in the language of the time, "benefit of clergy" available (i.e., the crime was unpardonable).

This was the law in 1791. It was the law when the Framers of the Second Amendment were born. It was the law when their parents and grandparents were born. It had been the law throughout England and the American colonies since 1603.

I eagerly await your victory dance proclaiming that you are right because I did not provide a citation to any of the Framers saying that concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right.

Nor can I provide a citation where the Framers said that cannibalism isn't a First Amendment right. :banana::banana::banana:
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
When the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791 a person who used a concealed weapon to kill another person was guilty of a crime punished by death. Not "punishable" but punished. There was not, in the language of the time, "benefit of clergy" available (i.e., the crime was unpardonable).


Can you do a citation to what you state above?

Nemo
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Why would the Framers of the Second Amendment say that the Second Amendment does not protect concealed carry any more than they would say that the First Amendment does not protect cannibalism?
And why would the decisions by the contemporaneous "black robes" be any less valid today?

When the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791 a person who used a concealed weapon to kill another person was guilty of a crime punished by death. Not "punishable" but punished. There was not, in the language of the time, "benefit of clergy" available (i.e., the crime was unpardonable).

This was the law in 1791. It was the law when the Framers of the Second Amendment were born. It was the law when their parents and grandparents were born. It had been the law throughout England and the American colonies since 1603.

I eagerly await your victory dance proclaiming that you are right because I did not provide a citation to any of the Framers saying that concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right.

Nor can I provide a citation where the Framers said that cannibalism isn't a First Amendment right. :banana::banana::banana:

i'm in agreement at this moment, Agent Provocateur.

you again compare apples to oranges, and include MURDER as a 1st amendment right.

in what way does carrying a weapon concealed infringe on anyone elses right?

was the punishment you reference for the carrying of the weapon or THE USE of the weapon? seems to me the punishment is more for the premeditation of the use as well AS the use of said weapon. not because it was carried in such a way.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
i'm in agreement at this moment, Agent Provocateur.

you again compare apples to oranges, and include MURDER as a 1st amendment right.

in what way does carrying a weapon concealed infringe on anyone elses right?

was the punishment you reference for the carrying of the weapon or THE USE of the weapon? seems to me the punishment is more for the premeditation of the use as well AS the use of said weapon. not because it was carried in such a way.

Murder is not a First Amendment right. That is your logic, not mine.

I've already answered your other questions and provided you links to contemporaneous sources.

Out of curiosity, how did you graduate from high school without doing any homework? :D
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
The 1603 Statute of Stabbing, which was expanded to include firearms, was perfectly on point. Had either of you bothered to read the contemporaneous case law then you would have discovered that it was murder to use a concealed weapon in an otherwise fair fight even if one were not the initial aggressor.

But apparently some folks are satisfied with relying on snippets from WikiPedia for the extent of their knowledge.

--Moderator edited per rule #12--

Case law that is near 180 years before the U.S. Constitution was written is routinely and easily deemed irrelevant. Primarily because the 2A came into being that 180 or so years later. You apparently live way way too far in the past.

The most recent cite you claim is relevant is:

A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors – Sixth Edition – Volume 1 – Oldnall – 1896

Please note that is a Treatise. A treatise is a general theory and explanation/interpretation of law. Those are generally helpful and sometimes persuasive informaiton for a judge to consider. Can you please cite a statute or some relevant Appellate Court decision on a relevant case. Can you try again? I think not.

But I am interested, where did you go to law school or did you just get your Bar Cert from reading the law or sitting at it?

Nemo
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The 1603 Statute of Stabbing, which was expanded to include firearms, was perfectly on point. Had either of you bothered to read the contemporaneous case law then you would have discovered that it was murder to use a concealed weapon in an otherwise fair fight even if one were not the initial aggressor.

But apparently some folks are satisfied with relying on snippets from WikiPedia for the extent of their knowledge.

--Moderator edited per rule #12--
Apparently you rely upon laws that do not apply to this country as the foundation of your efforts to restrict/remove the ability of Californians to carry a handgun within the confines of the laws of California.

OC will not be permitted in California until the state legislature is made liberty centric via the vote of the citizens of California. Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Editing for the benefit of all.

Requesting moderation lock and or delete this thread as it has evolved into nothing more then a baiting thread intended to infuriate posters outside of the OP.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Editing for the benefit of all.

Requesting moderation lock and or delete this thread as it has evolved into nothing more then a baiting thread intended to infuriate posters outside of the OP.

We sometimes suffer the slings and arrows to get pratice time in responding. Discussing/debating the points of circumstances and the laws can be of great benefit - strongly suggest no anger or personal remarks.

This occasionally applies to trolls and agent provocateurs....for a time.....and to a point.

I don't think the camel's back has been broken - most posts are well thought out.

For now, we shall leave the thread open.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Look up the Statute of Stabbing 1603.

Can you cite the laws regarding carrying a concealed weapon (not using it to commit murder, but peacefully carrying and using only in legit self-defense) in the Independent United States, in any of the States under the articles of confederation, or in the States at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791?

And of course there are all those contemporaneous black robe decisions you
dismissed

Interestingly the Nunn State Supreme court decision permitted a State ban on concealed carry while overturning a ban on handguns while using the following language to protect the right to own and carry said guns:


"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

...

But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.

In other words, laws adopted prior to the passage of the 2nd amendment, prior to the American Revolution, that trampled on rights were the very reason we had a revolution and adopted the Bill of Rights. To cite an English law of 1630 (or other English laws restricting the ownership or public possession of weapons as you have previously done to support your position) is to utterly fail to understand or acknowledge the reasons for our Independence. At best, they are circular logic claiming that because there is no right to conceal, laws against such are not offensive, and because such laws existed in England long ago, there must not be any right to conceal.

Even in this early win for OC, the court using some double-speak. It recognizes the natural, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. But then claims a limitation on carrying concealed is acceptable? How is it I might posses a natural right to bear arms, but only to do so visibly? I have no natural right to cover my property with a coat in inclement weather? Consider on the usability of a flintlock pistol exposed to the elements on a rainy day. I know parts of Cali have 366 days a year of perfect weather. But in most of the United States, inclement weather of one form or another is not uncommon.

Nunn cited Bliss. Bliss overturned a statute banning concealed weapons with the rational that: "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the [Kentucky State] constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the [Kentucky State] constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the [Kentucky State] constitution."

The Kentucky State constitution did not specifically authorize concealed carry. It simply said, "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned"

A State ConAmd was required to overturn Bliss and allow the State to encroach upon the pre-existing, natural right to carry weapons concealed.

Of note, Nunn, Bliss, and the far more offensive Aymette and Buzzard all come out of slave States. The political and social concerns of slaves or other "undesirables" carrying firearms cannot be ignored in reading these decisions. Cramer's "Racist Roots of Gun Control" provides several examples of both overt and subtle racial bias in gun laws, court decisions, and constitutional provisions dealing with RKBA.

To argue that the SCOTUS does not (currently/yet) recognize any right to carry concealed is a honest and defensible position. Of course, the same thing would have to be said about the SCOTUS and OC. Heller deals with keeping a usable gun in your home, not carrying in public. Nor do we yet have a single, modern federal court decision declaring that OC is a fundamental right. Indeed, so long as any permitting process for carrying in public is tolerated by the courts, the courts are not truly recognizing the public possession of usable arms for self defense as a fundamental right on par with other fundamental rights. It is beyond comprehension of any federal court today tolerating a permit requirement to preach a sermon, attend a worship service, print or read a newspaper, access an attorney if accused of a crime, to avoid a warrantless wiretap, or even to get an elective abortion.

So to rely on Heller or other recent federal court decisions to argue there never has been any right to carry a gun concealed is either ignorant or dishonest.

ETA:

I believe those same State and left coast federal courts that are shooting down discrete carry with your full support, will turn around and likewise shoot down open carry. After all, California's history regarding Open Carry quite well mirrors that of the antebellum slave states as bans on OC were put into statute after the Black Panthers took to patrolling the streets and watching police officers while carrying shotguns. Those who think a ban on discrete carry will somehow "force" the courts to accept permit free OC have clearly not read enough court decisions to understand the tremendous "flexibility" (is the nicest word we might use here) of the judicial mind.

Charles
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Case law that is near 180 years before the U.S. Constitution was written is routinely and easily deemed irrelevant. Primarily because the 2A came into being that 180 or so years later. You apparently live way way too far in the past.

The most recent cite you claim is relevant is:



Please note that is a Treatise. A treatise is a general theory and explanation/interpretation of law. Those are generally helpful and sometimes persuasive informaiton for a judge to consider. Can you please cite a statute or some relevant Appellate Court decision on a relevant case. Can you try again? I think not.

But I am interested, where did you go to law school or did you just get your Bar Cert from reading the law or sitting at it?

Nemo

I would argue that the right to self defense of ones life and ones family dates back to BC.. The natural law.
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
" The Constitution preserves " the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.. James Madison Federalist Papers No. 46


' Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunder in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would endue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them... Thomas Paine

Two great quotes on the right to keep and bear arms by two of the greatest Patriots our country ever known...

Here is one from one of the biggest tyrants the world had ever known..

" The most foolish mistakes we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing" Adolph Hitler...

When ever arguing with an anti tyrant query them as to what quote they favor best.

Regards

CCJ
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

Possession of a firearm is an innocent act. Carrying a weapon concealed has never been a right under the Second Amendment, not in 1791 or 1868 and not today. The Right To Carry has always been Open Carry under both the Second Amendment and under California common law.

I don't have a forum at my website but thanks for playing.

The 2nd Amendment is about freedom, and freedom has been around much longer than our constitution.
" Freedom is not a gift bestowed on us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and Nature'.. Benjamin Franklin

Man may have given us the Constitution but not our rights.. They come from God and nature...

I suggest you do some research on laws of nature... Since I am in a quoting mood today, I have one just for you.

" We are all born ignorant but one must work hard to remain stupid".... I wish it were mine however it is attributed to Doctor Franklin
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The infuriated should exercise more discretion rather than deprive others that don't feel so put upon. Use the ignore list Luke.

' i am loth to risk a conjecture about old kraut. He is such an un[in} intelligible curmudgeon that, no rule of interpretation can possibly be found out by which to unravel his designs".

My .02
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
We sometimes suffer the slings and arrows to get pratice time in responding. Discussing/debating the points of circumstances and the laws can be of great benefit - strongly suggest no anger or personal remarks.

This occasionally applies to trolls and agent provocateurs....for a time.....and to a point.

I don't think the camel's back has been broken - most posts are well thought out.

For now, we shall leave the thread open.

Indeed, I vote to keep it going, the fun is just beginning..

Regards
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Thanks for your unwavering support !

Lawyers are "bound by ethics" ROFL ... you have not dealt with many .govs, have you? I whip them in court routinely .... they make outrageous claims and defenses that they know are wrong right from the get-go....

And your claim that I "lie like a cheap rug"? No evidence of this at all, just a wacky statement that has no merit.

At least you again used words that do not require a run over to a dictionary or thesaurus. Its unlike you ... are you ill ?
LOL

Old curmudgeons like word -salad are constantly ill by their very own existence!

regards David
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Can you cite the laws regarding carrying a concealed weapon (not using it to commit murder, but peacefully carrying and using only in legit self-defense) in the Independent United States, in any of the States under the articles of confederation, or in the States at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791?



Interestingly the Nunn State Supreme court decision permitted a State ban on concealed carry while overturning a ban on handguns while using the following language to protect the right to own and carry said guns:


"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

...

But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.

In other words, laws adopted prior to the passage of the 2nd amendment, prior to the American Revolution, that trampled on rights were the very reason we had a revolution and adopted the Bill of Rights. To cite an English law of 1630 (or other English laws restricting the ownership or public possession of weapons as you have previously done to support your position) is to utterly fail to understand or acknowledge the reasons for our Independence. At best, they are circular logic claiming that because there is no right to conceal, laws against such are not offensive, and because such laws existed in England long ago, there must not be any right to conceal.

Even in this early win for OC, the court using some double-speak. It recognizes the natural, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. But then claims a limitation on carrying concealed is acceptable? How is it I might posses a natural right to bear arms, but only to do so visibly? I have no natural right to cover my property with a coat in inclement weather? Consider on the usability of a flintlock pistol exposed to the elements on a rainy day. I know parts of Cali have 366 days a year of perfect weather. But in most of the United States, inclement weather of one form or another is not uncommon.

Nunn cited Bliss. Bliss overturned a statute banning concealed weapons with the rational that: "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the [Kentucky State] constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the [Kentucky State] constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the [Kentucky State] constitution."

The Kentucky State constitution did not specifically authorize concealed carry. It simply said, "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned"

A State ConAmd was required to overturn Bliss and allow the State to encroach upon the pre-existing, natural right to carry weapons concealed.

Of note, Nunn, Bliss, and the far more offensive Aymette and Buzzard all come out of slave States. The political and social concerns of slaves or other "undesirables" carrying firearms cannot be ignored in reading these decisions. Cramer's "Racist Roots of Gun Control" provides several examples of both overt and subtle racial bias in gun laws, court decisions, and constitutional provisions dealing with RKBA.

To argue that the SCOTUS does not (currently/yet) recognize any right to carry concealed is a honest and defensible position. Of course, the same thing would have to be said about the SCOTUS and OC. Heller deals with keeping a usable gun in your home, not carrying in public. Nor do we yet have a single, modern federal court decision declaring that OC is a fundamental right. Indeed, so long as any permitting process for carrying in public is tolerated by the courts, the courts are not truly recognizing the public possession of usable arms for self defense as a fundamental right on par with other fundamental rights. It is beyond comprehension of any federal court today tolerating a permit requirement to preach a sermon, attend a worship service, print or read a newspaper, access an attorney if accused of a crime, to avoid a warrantless wiretap, or even to get an elective abortion.

So to rely on Heller or other recent federal court decisions to argue there never has been any right to carry a gun concealed is either ignorant or dishonest.

ETA:

I believe those same State and left coast federal courts that are shooting down discrete carry with your full support, will turn around and likewise shoot down open carry. After all, California's history regarding Open Carry quite well mirrors that of the antebellum slave states as bans on OC were put into statute after the Black Panthers took to patrolling the streets and watching police officers while carrying shotguns. Those who think a ban on discrete carry will somehow "force" the courts to accept permit free OC have clearly not read enough court decisions to understand the tremendous "flexibility" (is the nicest word we might use here) of the judicial mind.

Charles

Good stuff there. I also find it odd that if CC was so unanimously thought to be divorced of the RKBA, that many state constitutions after Bliss were changed to specifically exclude CC (or state that the mode could be regulated). Bliss would simply be a freak outlier which no other state would buy into and in any other event not be bound by.
So if a state has a statute that says "X", then is changed to "X" but EXCEPTING "Y", it seems to logically follow that originally "X" included "Y", otherwise why the change?
 
Top