|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 14, 2021 21:04:34 GMT -5
Only being allowed to carry it unloaded doesn’t make any sense. Again agreed 100% Many States allow "open carry" to anyone who can legally own the firearm. Nevada among them. While I don't argue against the premise, I would argue there are many disadvantages to doing so. In many aspects of life, I believe it’s better to not show your hand. Keep it to yourself until it’s time to not keep it to yourself. I feel like open carry is one of those things.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 14, 2021 21:06:00 GMT -5
I believe it’s better to not show your hand. Keep it to yourself until it’s time to not keep it to yourself. Once again, Agreed 100%
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 14, 2021 21:09:14 GMT -5
I believe it’s better to not show your hand. Keep it to yourself until it’s time to not keep it to yourself. Once again, Agreed 100% I’m doing pretty well today!!
|
|
jtheissen
Wholenote
Montana lurker, mostly🎸
Posts: 203
|
Post by jtheissen on Feb 14, 2021 21:23:26 GMT -5
If you open carry, you are the first target of the bad guy. Plus, it may intimidate folks rather than make them feel safe.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 14, 2021 21:32:22 GMT -5
If you open carry, you are the first target of the bad guy. Plus, it may intimidate folks rather than make them feel safe. That’s my train of thought exactly.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 14, 2021 21:58:44 GMT -5
Wow, a rational gun thread.
My take is we don't need a permit or permission to exercise any other right, so why this one?
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 14, 2021 22:25:09 GMT -5
Short answer, because the Constitution says the Supreme Court can make that decision, and the Supreme Court says a State can impose those requirements. It irks me that people insist that 2A gives them an absolute right to own firearms when the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that is not the case and States can regulate gun ownership.
I can’t reconcile someone being so strict with the exact letter of the law of 2A, and ignore the fact that the ONLY entity empowered by that very Constitution to render legal decisions as to its terms has spoken otherwise. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but that disagreement isn’t relevant, because only they are empowered to decide Constitutional issues.
But if you disagree with their authority to interpret the Constitution and make legal decisions in cases involving it, then you aren’t as in favor of strictly interpreting the Constitution as you claim to be.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 14, 2021 22:48:14 GMT -5
Well we can agree to disagree.
I know the SCOTUS is the final answer, I sometimes don't agree. I don't think the founders would agree either, especially on the 2A. But it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 14, 2021 22:55:17 GMT -5
Well we can agree to disagree. I know the SCOTUS is the final answer, I sometimes don't agree. I don't think the founders would agree either, especially on the 2A. But it is what it is. It’s perfectly acceptable not to agree with the way they fall on any issue. But it cannot be argued that they are not the last word, as you said. The founders may not have agreed, but they DID agree that the SCOTUS, and not themselves, were the body that would hear and determine Constitutional issues. Which, of course, means they anticipated there would be issues in interpreting and applying same.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 14, 2021 23:23:44 GMT -5
Right..
|
|
|
Post by HeavyDuty on Feb 15, 2021 12:18:04 GMT -5
@mfitz804, I have a related NY legal question for you. Not legal advice, just curiosity.
Without getting political, NY has a documented history of ignoring Federal safe passage laws regarding the transportation of unloaded, secured firearms interstate from and to states where possession of the same is legal (FOPA.). Example - moving secured weapons prohibited by NY statute from IL to New England, because other than flying or taking a boat you have to cross NY territory. Is there legal basis in NY statute that supports their doing this?
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 15, 2021 12:41:12 GMT -5
@mfitz804, I have a related NY legal question for you. Not legal advice, just curiosity. Without getting political, NY has a documented history of ignoring Federal safe passage laws regarding the transportation of unloaded, secured firearms interstate from and to states where possession of the same is legal (FOPA.). Example - moving secured weapons prohibited by NY statute from IL to New England, because other than flying or taking a boat you have to cross NY territory. Is there legal basis in NY statute that supports their doing this? Short answer is, I have no idea, I would have to research that.
|
|
|
Post by Seldom Seen on Feb 15, 2021 12:44:28 GMT -5
Neither my wife or I feel compelled to carry at all unless we’re working outside the ID cabin or fishing in bear country. In that case both of us are armed. I don’t expect this approach to apply to the concrete jungles of America but I’m glad I’ve chosen to live where restrictions are minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 15, 2021 13:06:32 GMT -5
^ I’m glad the bears aren’t carrying, that would be terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by LTB on Feb 15, 2021 13:27:38 GMT -5
Well we can agree to disagree. I know the SCOTUS is the final answer, I sometimes don't agree. I don't think the founders would agree either, especially on the 2A. But it is what it is. Agreed
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Feb 15, 2021 13:45:47 GMT -5
I live in California so...well...you know...
|
|
|
Post by gato on Feb 15, 2021 13:56:50 GMT -5
I live in California. I always carry a pistol in my waistband and a song in my heart.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 15, 2021 15:21:13 GMT -5
Short answer, because the Constitution says the Supreme Court can make that decision, and the Supreme Court says a State can impose those requirements. It irks me that people insist that 2A gives them an absolute right to own firearms when the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that is not the case and States can regulate gun ownership. Allow me to offer a counterpoint. While it is true that SCOTUS has a history of allowing the states to ignore the Bill of Rights, that changed with the Fourteenth Amendment which obligated the states to recognize the protections contained therein. The 2A was finally ruled to be protected under the 14A in 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) and specifically stated that firearm ownership *is* an absolute right and cannot be restricted by the states without due process. The only reason I can't walk into my LGS and buy an AR15 is the SCOTUS has not yet agreed to hear the many challenges to the state's restrictions. It's just a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 15, 2021 17:12:26 GMT -5
Short answer, because the Constitution says the Supreme Court can make that decision, and the Supreme Court says a State can impose those requirements. It irks me that people insist that 2A gives them an absolute right to own firearms when the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that is not the case and States can regulate gun ownership. Allow me to offer a counterpoint. While it is true that SCOTUS has a history of allowing the states to ignore the Bill of Rights, that changed with the Fourteenth Amendment which obligated the states to recognize the protections contained therein. The 2A was finally ruled to be protected under the 14A in 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) and specifically stated that firearm ownership *is* an absolute right and cannot be restricted by the states without due process. The only reason I can't walk into my LGS and buy an AR15 is the SCOTUS has not yet agreed to hear the many challenges to the state's restrictions. It's just a matter of time.
You don’t irk me, relying on the Constitution to support one position and then ignoring it on another does. The fact that the Supreme Court has not heard any cases seeking to invalidate State laws since McDonald is 100% within their purview, which is given to them by, that’s right, the Constitution. Will it eventually happen? Maybe. But it certainly hasn’t been decided that way yet, and they are the only ones who can decide what is unconstitutional. Personally, I think 2A is horribly written and it needs Amendment either way. Make it clear either way. A lot of people argue it is, but if it was, there wouldn’t be such a debate about it.
|
|
|
Post by Seldom Seen on Feb 15, 2021 17:49:01 GMT -5
^ I’m glad the bears aren’t carrying, that would be terrifying. Bears don’t need to carry. Neither do wolves. Personally, I think the last thing we need is a bunch of “legal minds” rewriting 2A.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 15, 2021 18:00:33 GMT -5
Personally, I think 2A is horribly written I agree with that. It's the pre-amble that makes it unclear to some people. It should only say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Reading the federalist papers the pre-amble was put there to appease some people at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 15, 2021 18:23:18 GMT -5
^ Agreed, a well organized militia isn’t really relevant to 2021.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 15, 2021 18:25:24 GMT -5
Personally, I think the last thing we need is a bunch of “legal minds” rewriting 2A. You already have a bunch of legal minds trying to figure out what it means and how it should be applied. Personally, I’d rather it be made clear to resolve the debate and all of that effort isn’t required, be it one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by HeavyDuty on Feb 16, 2021 15:44:46 GMT -5
I might be applying for my NH resident the week after next after I apply for my NH DL.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 16, 2021 15:46:23 GMT -5
You don’t irk me, relying on the Constitution to support one position and then ignoring it on another does. Are you suggesting that I am ignoring some part of the Constitution? I don't disagree that the SCOTUS is not obligated to hear every (or any) case that challenges a state law. In this case I'm assuming they are waiting for a case that is sufficiently broad that can be applied to all the states. I recognize the court, particularly under Justice Roberts, is averse to taking a case that may result in any radical change, but given the stark division of opinion regarding the 2A, it seems inevitable that they will have no choice but to hear something.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 16, 2021 16:48:59 GMT -5
You don’t irk me, relying on the Constitution to support one position and then ignoring it on another does. Are you suggesting that I am ignoring some part of the Constitution? I don't disagree that the SCOTUS is not obligated to hear every (or any) case that challenges a state law. In this case I'm assuming they are waiting for a case that is sufficiently broad that can be applied to all the states. I recognize the court, particularly under Justice Roberts, is averse to taking a case that may result in any radical change, but given the stark division of opinion regarding the 2A, it seems inevitable that they will have no choice but to hear something. I’m not suggesting anything about you. I’m suggesting that the Supreme Court is just as much a part of the Constitution, and while you are free to disagree with them, they have not found against State’s rights to have separate gun laws to date. You can yell “that’s Unconstitutional” until you are blue in the face, but the fact is, it isn’t until they say it is. I think it quite obviously is a very divisive issue that definitely needs some sort of determination. Like I said above, it’s terribly written and does not really apply (at least not all of it) to today’s world. It needs correction, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 16, 2021 16:52:51 GMT -5
"^ Agreed, a well organized regulated militia isn’t really relevant to 2021."
Debatable.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 16, 2021 16:55:50 GMT -5
"^ Agreed, a well organized regulated militia isn’t really relevant to 2021."
Debatable.
It’s not, really. How many of you are part of a State militia? They don’t exist anymore.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 16, 2021 18:04:12 GMT -5
It’s not, really. How many of you are part of a State militia? They don’t exist anymore. I am. You are. In the context of the 2A, "Militia" was understood to be any adult male citizen (although ladies were not specifically excluded) who was not part of the standing army, and who was willing and able to help defend the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Seldom Seen on Feb 16, 2021 18:16:52 GMT -5
^ Correct ^
|
|