Open Carry of a Dangerous Weapon

[Kamehameha34]

Agreed, but most require renewal for every visit

Of citizenship? I was under the impression that citizenship was permanent once acquired - unless removed via due process.

[ZNFYRH]

Kam

So through "due process of law" your Constitutional rights can be infringed upon.

Now tell me how a law that says CC-only is infringing on your 2nd Amendment right.

It would infringe upon my rights because it puts limits on it outside of protecting the rights of others. How many times do I have to say this?

There you go again with rights. Just because a right isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have it.

If, in the exercise of your Constitutional rights, you endanger the safety of other citizens, the fact that you are exercising your right is not a defense.

You still haven't answered my question, either.

How is CC-only infringing on your right to carry a gun?

All that right says is that you have the right to carry a gun. CC-only lets you carry a gun. Where is the problem?

[Kamehameha34]

So through "due process of law" your Constitutional rights can be infringed upon.
Now tell me how a law that says CC-only is infringing on your 2nd Amendment right.

Through due process the government can seize my property, take my life, or deprive me of liberty. Don't put words in my mouth.

There you go again with rights. Just because a right isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have it.

It does if it somehow means I can't excercise one or more of my enumerated rights. That little clause basically means "and anything we forgot".

If, in the exercise of your Constitutional rights, you endanger the safety of other citizens, the fact that you are exercising your right is not a defense.

Some times it is, sometimes it isn't. What matters is the context.

If someone sees an open carried gun, runs away, and knocks a puppy into a well, I'm not responsible for the damage, constitutionally speaking.

If that gun is pointed at someone maliciously, then there is clear intent to harm or kill. Any resulting action is the fault of the gunman.

How is CC-only infringing on your right to carry a gun?

Already answered.

For the same reason that controlling speech in any way is in violation of the first amendment.

Once you place a requirement on a right, it's no longer a right.

Let's apply a little logic:

1. Bearing arms is a right
2. Once you place a requirement on a right, it's no longer a right.
3. Bearing arms has no requirements.

The only constitutional obligation I have is to not infringe upon the rights of others in my bearing.

It would infringe upon my rights because it puts limits on it outside of protecting the rights of others. How many times do I have to say this?

[ZNFYRH]

You didn't answer the question.

Can you vote?

You're a U.S. citizen, right? So tell me if you can vote at this point in your life.

You can't. You have the right to vote, but there is a requirement first.

Just like I have a right to carry a gun, but there is a requirement that it be registered to me first.

Your little logic example doesn't answer the question... it's just repeating the argument. Remember school? You have to explain your answer, Kam.

How is requiring CC-only denying you your ability to carry a gun?

[Kamehameha34]

Can you vote?

You're a U.S. citizen, right? So tell me if you can vote at this point in your life.

You can't. You have the right to vote, but there is a requirement first.

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say that naming some unconstitutional laws isn't an excuse for more? How do I have to say it so that it will stick? Shall I make a poem of it?

Your little logic example doesn't answer the question... it's just repeating the argument. Remember school? You have to explain your answer, Kam.

I've yet to hear any constitutional grounds from you for CC. You don't have a right not to panic. Your next post should explain how the constitution can be interpretted to protect you from fear of looking at a gun.

How is requiring CC-only denying you your ability to carry a gun?

Rights are entitlements. Entitlements aren't earned.

[ZNFYRH]

I've yet to hear any constitutional grounds from you for CC.

That's because you are under the incorrect impression that if a law isn't Constitutional it is automatically Unconstitutional.

Rights are entitlements. Entitlements aren't earned.

Why are you unable to provide an answer?

You earn your rights as an American citizen by being a citizen. You earn citizenship through birth or through the process to become a citizen.

Now try again.

How is requiring CC-only denying you your ability to carry a gun?

[Kamehameha34]

That's because you are under the incorrect impression that if a law isn't Constitutional it is automatically Unconstitutional.

You're under the incorrect impression that a bill is useful until proven useless. Stop dodging.

Why are you unable to provide an answer?

You earn your rights as an American citizen by being a citizen. You earn citizenship through birth or through the process to become a citizen.

I have provided an answer. The constitution spells out rights FOR CITIZENS. If you're a citizen, you're entitled to the rights listed in the constitution without exception or diminishment.

Now try again.

You hurt your chances every time you act like an arrogant ass.

[ZNFYRH]

Hurt my chances of what? You actually answering a question?

Answer it, already.

How is requiring CC-only denying you your ability to carry a gun?

[Kamehameha34]

I've answered your question. Replacing the word "right" with "ability" hardly furthers your point.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said:
In this case, the right only specifies "bear arms." It doesn't say how. If the amendment stated "openly bear arms" I would be agreeing with you 100%. But it doesn't. ]

It doesn't NEED to state what condition of carry, since "to keep and bear arms" establishes the right, and to carry arms is an instrumental part of why arms are kept and born.

Your argument here is bordering on childish semantics.

For example......

If the Constitution said you had a "right to polish your nails and this right shall not be infringed", but it didn't specify which size of brush, or which colors you could use, would THOSE ISSUES be up to regulation or prohibition from government?!? NO!

You have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. MY property is where arms that I own are stored, and my BODY is part of my property. I have a right to be secure in my property, as stated. "Property" and "secure" both play an integral role here.

ZNYFRH said:
As I'm sure you'll agree, this gov't was founded on the idea that we all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Agreed.

ZNYFRH said:
Openly carrying a firearm conveys to the average citizen that one or more of those three basic rights is being threatened.

I DEMAND PROOF OF THIS ABSURD STATEMENT!

ZNYFRH said:
So let me ask you... do you believe that something that threatens one of those three should be suppressed as quickly as possible?

Trick question. I believe individual rights should be upheld at all costs.

ZNYFRH said:
From what I've read, I think you do. I think you believe that when something threatens your rights that you should fight to eliminate that thing.

So when you openly carrying a firearm is perceived as a threat by others, how is it wrong of them to want you to carry your firearm concealed?

The arm, nor my body is THEIR PROPERTY, so they have no RIGHT to expect or FORCE VIA LAW that I conceal that arm.

This is basic, fundamental property rights.

ZNYFRH said:
You can still carry your gun, and more power to you for doing so.

Those who feel threatened will no longer perceive any threat.

So, if your neighbor feels threatened by swimming pools that are exposed to nature, does your neighbor have the right to FORCE you to cover your swimming pool with a shelter house at your own expense?

ZNYFRH said:
Both of you can go on your way enjoying your rights.

The point is that your right to bear arms is not threatened by saying that you must bear arms concealed on your person.

Concealment brings along its own unique problems, as does open carry. Both however, are a right.

ZNYFRH said:
But by openly carrying a firearm, you are a perceived threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for others.

Nonsense, and unprovable.

ZNYFRH said:
I don't think you are, not in the criminal sense, but that is their perception.

I am not living to please other peoples perceptions, or to meet the molds of other peoples desires.

[ZNFYRH]

Your argument here is bordering on childish semantics.

That's what laws are... semantics.

You have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. MY property is where arms that I own are stored, and my BODY is part of my property. I have a right to be secure in my property, as stated. "Property" and "secure" both play an integral role here.

I agree. So do you believe that you should be able to carry an armed and loaded SAM launcher on your person, if that is the arms which you choose to carry?

I DEMAND PROOF OF THIS ABSURD STATEMENT!

Don't suggest I'm being childish and then "yell" for proof. See post #12. There is proof that at least one person, educated in how to use firearms, comfortable with firearms, owner of firearms, was intimidated by OC of a gun. He even states a scenario, in a park, where it would be threatening.

I believe individual rights should be upheld at all costs.

Then why don't you believe that my rights to life, liberty, and PoH should be upheld by telling you to CC a gun?

This is basic, fundamental property rights.

Then how come I can't leave my blinds open if I'm watching porn on my TV? There are plenty of restrictions on property rights when you and your property disturb the peace.

So, if your neighbor feels threatened by swimming pools that are exposed to nature, does your neighbor have the right to FORCE you to cover your swimming pool with a shelter house at your own expense?

Don't suggest I'm being childish and then give "what-ifs" like this. A swimming pool is not carried on your person, nor is it a lethal weapon. But the law in some places does require that you cover your swimming pool, else you be legally responsible if someone sneaks onto your property and drowns in your pool.

Stupid, I know, but that's the law.

Nonsense, and unprovable.

Post #12 again. The reason you can't dismiss that as "nonsense and unprovable" is because it's about personal opinion. So far, at least 2 people in this thread have said that it is their opinion.. That means you can't dismiss it as nonsense.

I'll put to you the same simple question that Kam has been so desperately avoiding...

How is requiring CC-only denying you your ability to carry a gun?

And no, Kam, you didn't answer the question. You're evading.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said:
That's what laws are... semantics.

ZNYFRH, let's take a look at context, which is critical to semantics in law.

The forefathers answered that question directly.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire.

"The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

"In England...A large proportion of the most valuable of the provisions in Magna Charta, and the bill of rights in 1688, consists of a solemn recognition, of limitations upon the power of parliament; that is, a declaration, that parliament ought not to abolish, or restrict those rights. Such are the right of trial by jury; the right to personal liberty and private property according to the law of the land; that the subjects ought to have a right to bear arms;..." Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 718, § 1858. Chapter. Whole Book.

"Here, let us again pause, and reflect, how admirably this division, and distribution of legislative power is adapted to preserve the liberty, and to promote the happiness of the people of the United States…Fifthly, and lastly; by the separation of the judiciary from the legislative department; and the independence of the former, of the control, or influence of the latter, in any case where any individual may be aggrieved or oppressed, under colour of an unconstitutional act of the legislature, or executive. In England, on the contrary, the greatest political object may be attained, by laws, apparently of little importance, or amounting only to a slight domestic regulation: the game-laws, as was before observed, have been converted into the means of disarming the body of the people:…" Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…" Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950). See more discussion on this quote HERE.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back and the quote follows.

"Accept my acknowledgments for your favor of the 18th. instant. The printed remarks inclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here [New York] ... The amendments ... will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen." James Madison in a response letter to Tench Coxe above supporting the interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right.




ONCE AGAIN,
What you people are asking, is that the historical context which PUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS TOGETHER, be ignored.

ZNYFRH said:
I agree. So do you believe that you should be able to carry an armed and loaded SAM launcher on your person, if that is the arms which you choose to carry?

Is a SAM launcher a reasonable form of self-defense from another individual?

Is this not a petty, diversionary question of opinion of justification as opposed to RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL?

ZNYFRH said:
There is proof that at least one person, educated in how to use firearms, comfortable with firearms, owner of firearms, was intimidated by OC of a gun. He even states a scenario, in a park, where it would be threatening.

No one person, or majority of people may remove the rights of others, on any basis or pretext.

That one person had "insecurity issues".

ZNYFRH said:
Then why don't you believe that my rights to life, liberty, and PoH should be upheld by telling you to CC a gun?

FEELING secure, is not a right. BEING secure, is a right. Arms are a means to that end, and a means Constitutionally protected, explicitly.

ZNYFRH said:
Then how come I can't leave my blinds open if I'm watching porn on my TV? There are plenty of restrictions on property rights when you and your property disturb the peace.

You ask this as if I recognize and justify that infringement of privacy? This is diversionary, again, and deflective debate tactics at best.

Stick to the subject you are arguing.

ZNYFRH said:
Don't suggest I'm being childish and then give "what-ifs" like this.

LOL, ROFLMAO.....

You can give plenty, but can't take any, eh?

ZNYFRH said:
Post #12 again. The reason you can't dismiss that as "nonsense and unprovable" is because it's about personal opinion. So far, at least 2 people in this thread have said that it is their opinion.. That means you can't dismiss it as nonsense.

Reality check! Opinion is SUBJECTIVE, logical reasoning is OBJECTIVE, as is the law.