• 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.

Hawaii Takes Gun Control One Step Further

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
If it were possible for the SC to issue a writ bolstering the Second, clarification of two words would help. Those would be "keep" and "bear".

Decades ago I read quite a lot of our Founding Father's numerous letters on our Second Amendment. I whittled down your possible definitions to match what our Founding Fathers revealed via the multitude of their writings the two words meant to them when they wrote them:

KEEP - to have or hold;

BEAR - take along, carry, transport

As to your next question...


The question is this: Where in the Second Amendment does it SPECIFY the "type" of carry? Or is that supposed to be the choice of the individual concerned?

Merely by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," our Founding Fathers declared an absolute moratorium against any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Absent a specified mode of carry, all modes of carry are covered. Thus, prohibitions against OC are an infringement the same as are prohibitions against CC. Making people wait six weeks for a permit? That's an infringement. Limiting magazine capacities, types of firearms, or places of carry? Infringements.

I know the legislative and judicial branches have "claimed" and "ruled" that there "regulations permitted" on carry, regardless of type, but aren't even those "regulations" forms of infringement?

That's the way I see it, but I didn't see it that way until after I read dozens of the many letters penned by our Founding Fathers. People need to stop guessing what they meant and simply read the period manuscripts, where it's abundantly clear what they meant.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I keep my truck keys in my trouser pocket when I am out and about. Am I also bearing my truck keys while I am keeping them in my trouser pocket?

Or is it, keep in the home, and bear outside of the home.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I keep my truck keys in my trouser pocket when I am out and about. Am I also bearing my truck keys while I am keeping them in my trouser pocket?

"...the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed."

You keep your keys in your pocket.

You bear (carry) them at all times. The term "bear" is more suited towards heavier loads than a set of car keys.

A better example would be a rifle: Keep your rifle with you at all time. Bear your rifle as often as practical.

Here's another: Throughout their journey, the settlers kept their firearms in the wagons, but bore them wherever they saw signs of danger.

Or is it, keep in the home, and bear outside of the home.

Not quite. You can keep them in the home, keep them in your vehicle, or keep them in your desk at work. While walking around the work site, however, you might want to bear them so you don't have to rush back to your desk.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"... Not quite. You can keep them in the home, keep them in your vehicle, or keep them in your desk at work. While walking around the work site, however, you might want to bear them so you don't have to rush back to your desk.
I keep my pistol in my holster on my belt...or, do I bear my pistol in my holster on my belt.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Enough of this singular usage of ‘bear’ crap...BS flag thrown...

quote
Selective quotations can prove anything, if you have clever researchers looking for them. But there is a far more robust way to find out what people meant by this or that word in the 18th century. That is to gather a large number of texts into a “corpus”, a searchable body of material, and then look for patterns in thousands of uses of a word or phrase. A corpus can be general, like Google Books, which has around 500bn words of English text. But it can also be specialised. Two newcomers are the Corpus of Founding Era American English, with 139m words across 95,000 documents from 1760 to 1799, and the Corpus of Early Modern English, with 1.3bn words from 1475 to 1800.

Dennis Baron, a linguist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, searched for “bear arms” in these databases, and found about 1,500 instances. Of these, he says, only a handful did not refer to organised armed action. It is true that several state constitutions guaranteed the right to “bear arms” and explicitly mentioned self-defence. So Mr Baron’s digging does not completely close the case. But it has shown that the default meaning of “bear arms” in the founding era was, indeed, military.

Still, the dispute has several other interesting lessons. One is that phrases are more than the sum of their dictionary definitions. Context isn’t just helpful; it is often crucial. The verb “bear” has 44 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), not counting the ursine noun. Which “bear” is meant can only be grasped in context. Bearing interest does not mean literally carrying interest around, nor does bearing a grudge involve physical activity.


Second, there are phrases, sometimes called “phrasal verbs”, that cannot be understood by knowing the component words: consider bear down or bear up. Good dictionaries define these phrases separately. The OED defines “bear arms” in an entry under “arms”: “To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc).” But it also takes note of the contested meaning in America’s constitution.
unquote https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/06/07/what-does-it-mean-to-bear-arms

PS: cite to the Language Log as mention in the economist's article:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=38478
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
No more BS than a OC'd (no permit required) handgun becoming instantly 'concealed' (now requiring a permit) because you sat your butt down in your POV.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
No more BS than a OC'd (no permit required) handgun becoming instantly 'concealed' (now requiring a permit) because you sat your butt down in your POV.

Alas, that is legislative delusion at it’s finest...
 

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
150
Location
STL MO, USA
I still can't wrap my head around how states (and local governments) can impose these restrictions on the ownership and carrying of firearms, when the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which is (supposed to be) the supreme law of the land that ALL states (and the federal government) are supposed to abide by, CLEARLY states that 'The Right To Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. That being said, ANY 'law' that contradicts that is VOID! I just can't grasp how this S*** has been allowed to continue... the 2A isn't really 100 shades of grey... it's pretty black and white. The basic problem is that 'we' are nothing and 'the government' is everything, and it doesn't matter if 'the government' is violating law, because they're 'the government', but if 'we' violate the law, look out, it's going to be interesting.... And costly.... and painful.... Maybe even lethal... We need to figure out a way for 'the government' to be held accountable for their violations of the supreme law of the land.... This Cr** seriously about makes my head explode. I can't imagine how anyone can be so stupid/ignorant.

If you ask me, the entire government, from the top level fed to the lowest level local, is hell-bent on 1984-type control....

Not going to lie.... if I had a container ship full of gold bricks to fund my defense with the best lawyers out there, I would violate EVERY 'gun law' out there and bring the fight to them.. The only reason I 'abide by' these (illegal) laws is because I don't have that financial backing to do otherwise... but to put a point to something I've posed elsewhere (or maybe in another post here).... If every one of the estimated 80 million (plus) gun owners were to contribute $100 to a real, 'balls to the wall, hire the best of the best of the best defense' attack on 'the governments' illegal violation of the law, that would be a HELL OF A LOT of money (something like 8 BILLION) to defend our stance. I would be completely on board with something like that... but current 'pro gun' organizations ('cough' NRA) don't have the balls to put forth what is required and compromise left and right... I would LOVE to spearhead such an attack on our rights.. to make my beliefs my '9-5' vs some bs I do to make money... But I'm a nobody, with no voice, in a world where 'the government' is everything.... so I guess I have little choise but to be a 'good little sheep'.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
357Sigfan, er, uh, um...
Your statement quote; If every one of the estimated 80 million (plus) gun owners were to contribute $100 to a real, 'balls to the wall, hire the best of the best of the best defense' attack on 'the governments' illegal violation of the law, that would be a HELL OF A LOT of money (something like 8 BILLION) to defend our stance. Unquote.

80,000,000 x 100 = 800,000,000 or eight hundred million not 8,000,000,000 [8billion] as you stated...
 

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
150
Location
STL MO, USA
357Sigfan, er, uh, um...
Your statement quote; If every one of the estimated 80 million (plus) gun owners were to contribute $100 to a real, 'balls to the wall, hire the best of the best of the best defense' attack on 'the governments' illegal violation of the law, that would be a HELL OF A LOT of money (something like 8 BILLION) to defend our stance. Unquote.

80,000,000 x 100 = 800,000,000 or eight hundred million not 8,000,000,000 [8billion] as you stated...

Your 'maths' must be borked...

80,000,000 (eighty Million) x 100 (one hundred) = 8,000,000,000 (Eight Billion). See Attachment 1. You missed a decimal point. I sure as hell don't want you to be my accountant! :rolleyes: Go back to school.

And just so you can't go back and edit your post.... Attachment 2 ;)

BUT... even if my 'maths' was wrong and yours was right... 800 million is still a LOT of raw cash to put to OUR cause, not some political BS.

See, I DON'T support the NRA because they DO NOT support my beliefs. They take all the money from their members and they bend and give at every turn. If they did what they SHOULD do, they would be obsolete PDQ. That IS NOT what we need - we need a person, people or organization with BALLS to to actually STAND UP for our constitutional rights. The 2nd amendment is damn clear on it's meaning and intent. there is NO grey area. The ONLY area I have no issue with 'infringement' on our 2nd amendment rights is if you've been convicted of a crime - but even then, I don't believe it should be ABSOLUTE from the get go. You should be able to be given a real chance to get ALL of your rights back - let's be honest - lots of people make stupid mistakes when they were young that they regret that cling to them like snot and have moved on to be model citizens - should they be denied their rights for life?
 

Attachments

  • calc1.JPG
    calc1.JPG
    72.8 KB · Views: 16
  • post1.JPG
    post1.JPG
    39.9 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Your 'maths' must be borked...

80,000,000 (eighty Million) x 100 (one hundred) = 8,000,000,000 (Eight Billion). See Attachment 1. You missed a decimal point. I sure as hell don't want you to be my accountant! :rolleyes: Go back to school.

And just so you can't go back and edit your post.... Attachment 2 ;)

BUT... even if my 'maths' was wrong and yours was right... 800 million is still a LOT of raw cash to put to OUR cause, not some political BS.

So, an apology is out of the question?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
When a judge is held to criminal account for a "ruling" from the bench that clearly contravenes the plain language of the US Constitution, all prior restraint laws will drop like flies. Absolute immunity is why these prior restraint laws remain on the books.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Both modes were well known to those who wrote our Second Amendment.

Absent any specification of mode of carry, the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" applies to BOTH modes of carry. Most specifically, it applies regardless of one's mode of carry.

Limiting carry to open carry is an infringement.

Limiting carry to concealed carry is an infringement.

When are people going to wake up and realize that nearly all laws -- written, case, or precedent -- dealing with who, what, where, why, and how people can keep and bear arms are infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Even out Founding Fathers wanted some laws, but very wisely, they realized that any such laws would lead to a slippery slope, so they banned ALL laws involving firearms. But the overcontrolling bastards who fail to understand the concept of freedom had begun penning one gun control law after another, long before we even declared our Independence, and they're still doing it today, both in the legislatures as well as the courts.

The only way We the People will ever be free from their arrogantly stupid ignorance is to tell the all they can go to hell and back it up by force, if necessary.

Thankfully, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partial panel ruling is a step in the right directly. Sadly, it will most likely soon be overturned by a full panel.


Now these are the laws for our leaders, by there oath they must take !

There is the only way to make our leaders accountable to we the people " Title 5 section 7311" here is a short
reading on it, and there oath of office.

https://samssimplefacts.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-oath-of-office-and-article-5-u-s-c-7311/

More info on it .


http://www.article5.org/Federal Laws.htm
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I keep my pistol in my holster on my belt...or, do I bear my pistol in my holster on my belt.

You keep your pistol in your holster. You bear your carry rig when you strap it on with your belt.

But you're missing the point:

Keep: To own or possess

Bear: To carry

When they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" they weren't talking about the people "keeping" their arms in an armory, as they would not then be able to bear (carry) them. They meant "keeping" it on or about their person as well as with them, whether in the home or elsewhere. This grew out of Virginia legislation which required people to keep arms with them at all times, even bearing them to church. A disarmed church full of people is one big sitting duck against soldiers who barricade the doors and set it ablaze. Interestingly enough, law were changed a couple of centuries ago not only to require two separate entrances, each of which could empty a church in minutes, but also for windows to be set low enough that they could be broken and people climb out. Many older (16th century) churches only had windows up high to let in enough light to see.
 
Top