9th rules concealed carry is not a 2nd amenment right - broad application

[solus]

I think that your posts are unintelligible and I don't know why I haven't already added you to my ignore list.

you know CA, i truly understand and can appreciate why you find my posts and apparently others' posts as unintelligible. what is really sad, tis a shame you have failed to recognize the rational behind why or where the actual problem resides.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

There is no mention of the First Amendment preventing human sacrifice because the Framers of the First Amendment weren't morons.

So you are equating the peaceful possession of a discretely carried firearm to human sacrifice?!?!? Who exactly is harmed if my coat falls down over my firearm obscuring the gun from view?

What is it about wearing a winter coat that covers a self-defense firearm that you and the Framers find so offensive? And where, exactly did the Framers write of this great evil? Citations?

Charles

 

[California Right To Carry]

So you are equating the peaceful possession of a discretely carried firearm to human sacrifice?!?!?

No. You are the one making the argument that human sacrifice is permitted under the First Amendment because the Second Amendment does not explicitly prohibit concealed carry.

Please stop doing that. As I said, it makes gun-owners look too stupid to even own firearms, let alone carry them in public.

 

[utbagpiper]

I don't know of any place that prohibited CC in the first years after the ratification of the US Constitution, but I'd bet we can find some. In 1792, when Ky became a state it was still the western frontier. Weapons were a necessary tool. CC was not a socially acceptable alternative.
Why quote a court case that is archaic and has no value today?

I explained why: To see how the earliest courts interpreted the language of RKBA constitutional provisions.

I am an originalist. If the Framers did not intend to limit RKBA to just OC, then that matters. But how do we discern original intent beyond the black letter words of the document itself? We can look to the writings of the Framers. We can also look to court decisions contemporaneous with the Framers' adoption of the language.

What was, has changed to what is. Bliss has nothing to do with whether carrying a concealed weapon, specifically, is a "right". Bliss answered the question that the court was asked. To expand it to the specific question here, with the laws of today, is deceptive. If you want to argue the point, be honest in the argument. The other option is what the anti's do.

I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. If you'll read my post in context, it should be plain that I did not claim Bliss said anything about what was or wasn't legal today, only that it provided insights into what original intent about keeping and bearing arms was relative to CC. I replied to a post that cited an ca 1846 case that round CC to be not protected. I simply pointed out that an even earlier case found that CC was protected.

Please do not accuse me of being deceptive simply because you were confused.

OC and CC were never illegal in Ky. until 1881. The framers of the Ky. constitution didn't note any distinction.

And the RKBA provision in the Kentucky constitution was adopted very shortly after the federal 2nd amendment was adopted. So we might well surmise that the framers of the 2nd amendment, likewise, did not make any distinction between CC and OC. And that would mean that the original intent of the 2nd was to protect both OC and CC without distinction.

In that era it was so unusual and so ungentlemanly to CC that I doubt that they even considered it.

Do you have citations for that claim of what was or wasn't social mores?

I find it hard to believe that anyone thought it improper to put a heavy winter coat over a firearm while out and about.

The change came about when one state senator stabbed and killed another on the floor of the Ky. senate. The fact that the victim was unaware that he was arguing with an armed man enraged many people. They never considered that any person, other that a criminal or assassin, would carry a concealed weapon.

Because how he carried the weapon was more offensive than the fact that he murdered a man over a political disagreement?

And based on the gross criminal conduct of one man, what was a constitutional right was voted away? Sounds like the progressive diseases of group punishment and blaming the weapon (or mode of carry) goes way back in your neck of the woods. I'm sorry to hear that.

Your words were correct, but it has no relevance to modern circumstances. Your presentation of the 200 year old court case, seemed to imply that this was still in effect in Ky. Your implication was deceptive and unfair. You chose to withhold relevant facts that you had at hand. Bliss will not win a illegal CC case for you in Ky., today. There have been many convictions and many appeals. Almost all of them claimed CC was a right. They all failed with that argument. The Ky. courts seem to think that OC is the right, not CC. Its a dead issue here. You ignored that fact.

That fact was not what was being discussed. I'm sorry you missed that. No deception intended. Please refrain from accusing me of evil intent.

And to be clear, I don't expect any constitutional provision to win in any RKBA case these days. It is nice when they do, but I cannot expect it. The federal courts have made clear that in total they care very little for original intent or even black letter meaning. The federal judiciary is a super legislature that wraps their edicts in constitutional language to demand respect. Little more.

But when I hear pro-RKBA folks who are seemingly so hostile to CC that they start claiming that the framers were opposed to it as well, I go looking for what evidence might exist. Bliss is an evidence that early understanding of "keep and bear arms" did not draw any distinction between OC and CC. Whether CC was socially frowned upon is very different than whether it did not enjoy constitutional protections from the earliest days. Bliss makes quite clear that CC did enjoy equal protection. Anti-CC cases handed down in other States in the years/decades following Bliss not only get CC wrong, but they tend to adopt the "collective right / militia" view of the RKBA provisions.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

No. You are the one making the argument that human sacrifice is permitted under the First Amendment because the Second Amendment does not explicitly prohibit concealed carry.

You ought to keep track of to whom you are responding. I made no reference to either the 1st amd or human sacrifice until after you did. And then I simply applied your logic to your argument.

Human sacrifice clearly harms others. Who is harmed if I carry my gun discretely or protected from the weather rather than out in the open?

The nation is larger than your Left Coast, and some parts of if have real winters. I'm shocked to see supposed supporters of RKBA expressing open hostility to CC.

Do feel free to provide citations to your implicit claims that the Framers viewed concealed carry as anywhere close to human sacrifice or anything else that would harm another. Social disapproval is not a lack of constitutional protection.

I note that when KY updated their constitution in ca 1890, they added a specific anti-CC provision to ban CC. As gutshot has pointed out, when KY adopted its original constitution, its framers drew no distinction between OC and CC.

So where is your evidence that the Framers of the 2nd amendment drew such a distinction as to intend no protections for the natural right to carry arms discretely?

I claim a natural right to carry firearms in any manner I choose that doesn't give a reasonable man reasonable cause to believe I pose an imminent threat to his well being. The 2nd amendment doesn't grant me any rights; it merely recognizes and protects my pre-existing natural/God-given right to an effective self-defense. Putting on a winter coat that covers my firearm does not materially change anything about my exercise of that right.

I concede readily--and sadly--that courts and legislatures do not currently recognize our rights as they should. But certainly social mores regarding CC do not assume anything untoward about carrying discretely rather than openly. Indeed, today, most gun grabbers would prefer to push us into the closet rather than have us OC.

If you wish to discuss what courts have ruled, I'm fine with that. If you wish to argue about what the Framers intended, you'll need more than emphatic assertion and insults on your part or even court cases decided 100 years after the 2nd amendment was adopted and well into the period when the powers-that-be were doing their level best to disarm freed slaves and other socially undesirable groups.

Charles

 

[California Right To Carry]

You ought to keep track of to whom you are responding. I made no reference to either the 1st amd or human sacrifice until after you did. And then I simply applied your logic to your argument.

Your argument that concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment because that amendment does not explicitly say that concealed carry is not a right is consistent with the equally flawed argument that there is a right to commit human sacrifice because the First Amendment does not explicitly prohibit it.

As I have said multiple times now, that is a moronic argument to make. Please stop doing it. It makes the rest of us gun-owners look stupid by association.

 

[solus]

mate, seems you need to consider expanding your ignore list

seems to be getting tougher huh mate...that is the ground screaming towards you...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Your argument that concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment because that amendment does not explicitly say that concealed carry is not a right is consistent with the equally flawed argument that there is a right to commit human sacrifice because the First Amendment does not explicitly prohibit it.

As I have said multiple times now, that is a moronic argument to make. Please stop doing it. It makes the rest of us gun-owners look stupid by association.

What is moronic is attempting to equate the peaceful possession of a discrete firearm with the taking of a human life. THAT, sir, is moronic.

The black letter language of the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not go on to say, "unless the gun holds more than 9 rounds, or carried discretely, or is too big or too small for the tastes of Left Coast loonies."

The earliest court case I can find on RKBA found that language essentially the same as the 2nd amendment did protect concealed carry on equal footing with open carry.

I have also provided some modest historic evidence that those at the top of society in the period shortly after the adoption of the 2nd amendment commonly carried concealed weapons (cane swords and cane guns specifically). This would seem to rebut sweeping claims about society being wholly opposed to concealed carry.

I have pointed out that the earliest court cases dealing with RKBA that were hostile to CC, were equally hostile to the entire notion of an individual right, but instead put forth the erroneous theory that RKBA was a "collective 'right'" to be in a militia.

Now, perhaps rather than throwing insults at those who disagree with you, you'd like to provide some evidence that the 2nd amendment was not intended to protect the discrete possession of self-defense weapons along with the visible possession of such weapons.

Charles

 

[solus]

What is moronic is attempting to equate the peaceful possession of a discrete firearm with the taking of a human life. THAT, sir, is moronic.

The black letter language of the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not go on to say, "unless the gun holds more than 9 rounds, or carried discretely, or is too big or too small for the tastes of Left Coast loonies."

The earliest court case I can find on RKBA found that language essentially the same as the 2nd amendment did protect concealed carry on equal footing with open carry.

I have also provided some modest historic evidence that those at the top of society in the period shortly after the adoption of the 2nd amendment commonly carried concealed weapons (cane swords and cane guns specifically). This would seem to rebut sweeping claims about society being wholly opposed to concealed carry.

I have pointed out that the earliest court cases dealing with RKBA that were hostile to CC, were equally hostile to the entire notion of an individual right, but instead put forth the erroneous theory that RKBA was a "collective 'right'" to be in a militia.

Now, perhaps rather than throwing insults at those who disagree with you, you'd like to provide some evidence that the 2nd amendment was not intended to protect the discrete possession of self-defense weapons along with the visible possession of such weapons.

Charles

chuckling quietly...mate, wish you well when it finally sinks in...

ipse

 

[solus]

thanks gutshot for quantifying that...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

How about this? This is a passage that Scalia quoted in his writing of the majority opinion for Heller. We have all seen how invested you have become with this nonsense, but try to twist this to fit into the morass you have built.

gutshot,

Have I done something to offend you? Is there some reason for what seems to be a hostile response over my position that the 2nd amendment protects a more expansive right than the courts have yet found it to protect? Certainly we can have a civil discussion even when we might disagree a bit.

You freely admit that in the early days of the Republic there were no laws against CC and that when Kentucky adopted its original constitution, nobody saw any distinction between OC and CC. So why do you think the Framers of the 2nd amendment saw some distinction where the Framers of the KY constitution did not?

The question is, why did Scalia and the majority choose to quote an 1850 case out of Louisiana rather than the 1822 case out of Kentucky? The latter seems to be 28 years closer to the adoption of the 2nd amendment than is the former. Admittedly, the former dealt with a State Court's view of the 2nd amd itself, while the latter dealt with a State constitutional provision. But the language in the State constitution and the federal constitution are all but identical.

Furthermore, the quote taken from the Chandler case is little more than emphatic assertion about what the intent of the 2nd amd was from the Judge who also wrote:

This law [against carrying concealed weapons] became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality.
​

Is this not the same rational upon which every infringement of our RKBA (whether to acquire, own, or carry in whatever form) is based? Our rights to own short barreled shotguns and full auto rifles was greatly infringed on the premise that such laws were necessary to curb the gangland violence of the Prohibition era. Is there any evidence that the GCA of 1934 did anything to reduce gangland violence? Or is L. Neil Smith correct in his essay, "The Ithaca Auto and Burglar" when he writes:

Who was really protected by the Ithaca and Auto Burglar and the Tommy Gun? Shopkeepers, householders, and especially truck drivers whose vehicles were often stopped and stolen (just as Florida pleasure boats are today) to serve as disposable conveyances for illicit alcohol. One store proprietor with a "sawed off" scattergun could discourage three or four goons who'd come to collect. One truck driver with a "Chicago Piano" could run off a dozen highwaymen.

As surely as the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed to disarm the militant non-nonviolent blacks who were threatening to overturn the political apple cart ...

As surely as the Brady Bill was passed because a certain variety of men -- well-represented in politics -- are mortally afraid to see women begin to arm themselves ...

As surely as Bill Bennett and Bill Clinton's rifle and magazine law was passed because -- in this dangerous age of multiple assailants, when a single individual's only chance against a gang is often firepower, and the ideal weapons of self-defense are semiautomatic rifles and pistols -- both right wing and left wing socialists couldn't bear the humiliation of Korean store owners successfully defending themselves against their clients during the LA riots ...

The Ithaca Auto and Burglar was stamped out because it threatened gangsters and hijackers who were the real constituency of the congressmen who outlawed it.
​

Why should we place credence in what a judge in Louisiana emphatically asserts about the intent of the 2nd amendment in 1850 when in the same paragraph, that judge justifies an infringement of our RKBA on the basis that said infringement is needed to reduce criminals? Do we think criminals in the 19th century were any more disposed to obey the law than they are today?

Looked at another way, why shouldn't the 2nd amendment protect a right to carry discretely on equal terms with carrying openly?

Certainly, you are not opposed to concealed carry as a personal choice. But can you play devil's advocate and put forth a rational argument for why the personal choice to cover a firearm should not receive equal protection to carrying the gun visible to others? Especially in light of our now ~30 history of growing numbers of persons doing exactly that with zero evidence that concealed carry contributes to anything shady or "unmanly"? (I'm well aware that most who legally carry concealed do so pursuant to a permit rather than a recognized right. My point is that some 13 million persons who have permits to carry concealed provide strong and growing evidence that there is nothing unmanly, untoward or improper about choosing to carry a defensive firearm discretely.)

Is there evidence from the Framers or their contemporaries that the 2nd amendment was intended only to protect OC?

So far we have the emphatic assertion of a judge in 1850 Louisiana (which as we all know derives its legal system from France, while the rest of the nation derives from English common law), and modern judges seeking not to overturn a whole bunch of victim disarmament laws.

My theory is that Scalia chose to quote an old case--but not the oldest available--to establish an individual right to own guns, but without going so far as to recognize a right to carry guns concealed outside the home (the most common method of legally carrying today) as going that far would have pushed Kennedy to the other side for a complete loss. Recognizing a constitution RIGHT to carry guns concealed would have upset the apple cart on almost every law regarding carrying guns. That was almost certainly a bridge too far for Kennedy.

All the best.

Charles

 

[California Right To Carry]

The black letter language of the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think you meant to say the "plain text" or the "plain English reading" because the "black letter" law relevant to the Second Amendment is that there is no right to carry concealed weapons under the Second Amendment or under the preexisting right to which the Second Amendment is a codification.

This, boys and girls, is why we keep losing. Our morons are dumber than the anti-gun morons. Strike that. "Our" morons are opposed to the Second Amendment as well while at the same time claiming to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Which makes them worse than the scum on the other side.

Speaking of morons. Did you guys watch Cam & Co last Friday where Peruta's lawyer Chuck Michel was interviewed? Chuck Michel finally conceded that the NRA claimed that states can ban Open Carry. Then he reverted to his old pathologically lying self by saying that the Peruta case was about "carry" and not concealed carry.

The same state statute by which his clients applied for a concealed carry license also provides for the issuance of a handgun Open Carry license, but only in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

Did Peruta challenge that population limitation? No! Which means that had he been successful the only thing the sheriff could have issued him was a concealed carry permit.

You play stupid games and you win stupid prizes.

 

[utbagpiper]

I think you meant to say the "plain text" or the "plain English reading" because the "black letter" law relevant to the Second Amendment is that there is no right to carry concealed weapons under the Second Amendment or under the preexisting right to which the Second Amendment is a codification.

Can you provide citations prior to 1825 to back this up?

This, boys and girls, is why we keep losing. Our morons are dumber than the anti-gun morons. Strike that. "Our" morons are opposed to the Second Amendment as well while at the same time claiming to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Which makes them worse than the scum on the other side.

Or maybe it is because some of our self-professed experts care more about being right than about being persuasive in a civil manner.

Or perhaps we are talking past each other.

Are you opposed to CC being recognized as a constitutional right?

Or are you merely writing of what current court rulings hold?

Or both?

Charles

 

[solus]

troubling how fast it sets in...

ipse

added...notice mate, you and CA are the only two self professed experts trying to be right...

would be interesting to be a fly on the wall bout now

 

[California Right To Carry]

Can you provide citations prior to 1825 to back this up?

Did you not read the Peruta decision? Have you not read any of my past posts where I have provided citations?

It seems to me that you are one of those people who claim to have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed because the plain text of the Second Amendment doesn't say you can't carry arms in a secret and cowardly manner.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Laws do not change rights. The 2nd amendment is just a law .. it does not create a true right.

OC/CC .. who cares? Its part of your natural right to defend/protect yourself.

As Jack said in Mars Attacks "Can't we just all get along?" whereafter he was vaporized .... if I recall correctly

 

[utbagpiper]

Did you not read the Peruta decision? Have you not read any of my past posts where I have provided citations?

I must have missed the citations to evidence prior to 1830. Seems you are not inclined to summarize. What a shame.

It seems to me that you are one of those people who claim to have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed because the plain text of the Second Amendment doesn't say you can't carry arms in a secret and cowardly manner.

It seems to me you assume a lot and get rather worked up rather than having a rational and civil discussion. What exactly is cowardly about protecting a firearm from the winter elements? Do you consider 13 million fellow gun carriers to be "cowardly" for carrying discretely? Is it "cowardly" for 10 States to remove criminal penalties for carrying concealed without permits?

Welcome to my ignore list.

I guess it isn't just liberals who like to put their head in the sand. At no time have I been anywhere as impolite to you as you have been to me. I have simply asked for additional information and explanation.

From your language, it appears you are personally hostile to how the majority of gun owners choose to carry their guns. That means you have far too much in common with gun grabbers.

I prefer to advocate for the widest possible recognition of the right to bear arms.

Good luck with your issues.

Charles

 

[hammer6]

I must have missed the citations to evidence prior to 1830.

but did you read the peruta decision? because they go back to the 1500's when talking laws and case law and stuff.

oh and you do bring up some interesting points and all, but, you're missing out on a few things that matter: precedent.


you can't look at the kentucky case because that case wasn't a 2nd amendment case. it was a case that dealt with the kentucky constitution. and for the kentucky supreme court to rule that, based on the kentucky constitution, concealed carry was not protected, then they would in essence in that same breath rule that open carry was not protected either. but they couldn't do that, because they knew that open carry was the right protected by the 2nd amendment. but, kentucky, via the 10th amendment, codified concealed carry as a protected right in their state, as well as open carry.

this makes sense because of all the other court decisions in the same era ruled the complete opposite, because they dealt either with 2nd amendment issues or state constitutions that had wording allowing for restriction on concealed carry.

 

[utbagpiper]

Have you done something to offend me? You offend my sense of good sense.
...
I can't stand any more. I am done. This is very painful.

It seems you are not interested in civil discourse. Your choice.

 

[hammer6]

It seems you are not interested in civil discourse. Your choice.

but did you read the peruta decision?