The fourth of July seemed an especially auspicious day to start a discussion about the recent supreme court decision concerning the right to keep and bear arms, which ruling doesn't appear to have been mentioned in these forums yet. Here are a couple of links to articles on the subject:

Link 1

Link 2

I have to say that I was taken by surprise when I heard the ruling given the current political climate in this country, but it was for me a most pleasant surprise... a definite 10/10 day.



Tiger


_________________
ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever

Surprised me too Tiger. And like you, I was pleased in that a constitutional freedom/right was not taken away.

On a related note, there is movement here in Texas to allow holders of a concealed hangun license to carry the handgun openly. I have a license to carry but I just don't know about this. I question the wisdom of such a proposal. What are your thoughts?


_________________
"I got up this morning with plans to have a good day. Let's not screw it up!" Bubba Earl

As far as the practicality, I'm of mixed mind. On the one hand open carry unquestionably makes for a more polite society... the petty bullys and thugs who run wild simply because they can (think packs of gang bangers in public places) tend to behave better around those with a visible ability to retaliate, as they do with cops. The flip side of the coin though is that there are inevitably going to be deluded walter mitty sorts who carry just for the stud factor, and largely know nothing about weapons they didn't (mis)learn from tv and movies.

In the overall I'd think the amount of public violence would decrease. Things like drive by shootings don't happen when the punks know they will be getting return fire. Case in point is when two notorious gangs were moving into the Tacoma, WA hilltop neighborhoods and scuffling for turf. Random and drive by shootings had become normal and not many weeks went by that didn't have some call in the press for a solution. The gangers started moving in on one neighborhood that was a mistake... it was largely populated by military people, including some seal team members. Upshot is there was a shootout between the people of the neighborhood and the gangers; made national news for a while, but what the press didn't ever bother to mention was that the gang problem in the hilltop area suddenly went away.

With that and other similar examples in mind I think on balance open carry would be a social plus, although I'm utterly sure there would be cases of individuals stupidly and/or egotistically abusing the law if it went into effect.



Tiger


_________________
ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever

Hello, this particular ruling made my day..year..it's a good thing. I was surprised as well only because I had doubts about the interpretation they would conclude. I honestly believe that in America the right to bear arms can't be taken away, I don't think they can. There are to many people at this point in time that won't buy into it. It's not reasonable that removing firearms from the public make it safer.......and I think this has been proven. It needs to be watched though......I have seen the regs that I have to follow become so complex, there are certain states I just won't deal with because of their state laws, some of these laws have migrated to other states in mimicry. It's the minor things that add to large problems. Cali has a new one called CFLC that is a list of who and who can't receive. It's simple though, just regs man. ......it is more than a background check. Anyway there are maybe 8 states that are near impossible to deal with as far as firearms go.........
The open carry thing BubbaEarlIII, in Arizona we had that and displayed our favorite sidearms and it never caused any trouble....for us. We carried all the time. tourists passing thru Cave Creek were uhh, wondered why we had guns Here in Montana we have open carry but, times are different, we don't display even with the option of doing so. With our permits we can carry concealed......no problems. The only places we disarm are the obvious places, banks, post office, cop shop etc etc. It's really common sense and law. The only problem would be the yahoo hot rods who think it makes them cool. If the concealed carry classes there are anything like here that shouldn't be a problem.......here you really have to know what your do'in to get a ccw......and our chief of police has the final say, it's pretty strict to get a ccw here. Even with the option to open carry, I don't.


_________________
You can tell by the kindness of a dog how a human should be
Don Van Vliet

Thanks for the thoughts. The reason I need some input is that right now I'm against open carry simply because a lot of good people who have no interest in firearms may feel somewhat uncomfortable to see a non uniformed person (or several) in places they frequent such as restaurants, shopping centers, etc. And I believe we will see a lot of macho types flaunting their weapons. Also the police officers could be more tempted to check (spelled hassle) the non concealed wearer to determine if he is legal. I just don't see where non concealed carry will improve my ability to defend myself. Nor do I believe carrying a handgun in plain view is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Just my opinion


_________________
"I got up this morning with plans to have a good day. Let's not screw it up!" Bubba Earl

BubbaEarlIII wrote:

Thanks for the thoughts. The reason I need some input is that right now I'm against open carry simply because a lot of good people who have no interest in firearms may feel somewhat uncomfortable to see a non uniformed person (or several) in places they frequent such as restaurants, shopping centers, etc. And I believe we will see a lot of macho types flaunting their weapons. Also the police officers could be more tempted to check (spelled hassle) the non concealed wearer to determine if he is legal. I just don't see where non concealed carry will improve my ability to defend myself. Nor do I believe carrying a handgun in plain view is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Just my opinion

the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the constitution. i believe its in the Texas constitution as well.

the word bear as a verb means
1:
a: to move while holding up and supporting
b: to be equipped or furnished with

this is from the Websters Dictionary.


_________________
statistics can be used to prove anything
14% of people know that.

never attribute to conspiracy that which can amply be attributed to the actions of a bunch of greedy stupid self serving men in power

yes i can read minds. yours is blank most days..

The thing I see is that they were supposed to be ruling on District of Columbia vs. Heller, not on changing the Second Amendment!
Like the first link says:

Quote:

"The right of the people to keep but not necessarily bear some but not all kinds of arms in public (and certainly not in all public spaces) shall not be infringed, though by that we don't mean that guns can't be regulated in many ways."

That is not what the Second says, it leaves things open where they can say that you can only own a bb gun, but no bb's! Or they can issue a permit for 1000's of dollars, and after you have had a complete dna check, background check (whoops, speeding ticket at 18, no permit, no refund of fees!), or any other stupid thing they want, deny the permit!
The Second was there to permit the overthrow of a corrupt government (which ours is becoming). That means that an individual can have any weapon the government troops has. Without a permit! You don't need a permit for a right!


_________________
Jim
The U.S.A. is a Constitutional Republic!
The U.S.A. is NOT a Democracy!

I will repeat:
Nor do I believe carrying a handgun in plain view is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Just my opinion.

I understand the constitution perfectly, Mini. The constitution states what rights we have. The Supreme Court interprets laws in terms of whether that law is constitutionally correct or not.

No where in the constitution does it say an individual has the right to carry a weapon without concealing said weapon. The Supreme court may have to make that determination. And I appreciate the english lesson regarding the word bear. One can bear arms concealed. Also bear is a large animal that lives in the woods. Except polar bears and they live on the ice, Of course I could be wrong, cause I recall seeing a polar bear at a zoo once.


_________________
"I got up this morning with plans to have a good day. Let's not screw it up!" Bubba Earl

Of course, there is the flip side of that argument also. Nowhere in the constitution is a distinction made between types of carry, but from the historical context open carry was the expected norm for the time when the second amendment was framed, and by inference would have been the favored interp between open and concealed as far as intent of the language is concerned. Imo, of course.

From a practical, pragmatic standpoint I'd say it'd be a good thing to allow open carry. I'm not terribly concerned about the tender feelers of those whose emotional baggage has them going all adither at the sight of a piece of hardware. Perhaps some harmless exposure to the sight of the equipment would do them a bit of good.

Anyone who displays such irrational reaction to (for instance) automobiles is automatically a candidate for serious counseling by common social standards, so why should a constitutionally protected right be abridged in the one case and not in the other when the far more statistically lethal item is accepted by all and sundry?



Tiger


_________________
ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever

the usual reasons against concealed carry are the criminals (who will concealed carry anyways) , or public safety, or some such drivel.
i am for carry, concealed or not. the constitution does not state either (only that you can),therefore is a states rights issue, by the 10th amendment.

i personally think that a person should not be allowed to buy a gun unless:
a. they take a gun safety course (or prove they took such a course)
b. they are in or have been in the military
3. have no history of felonies or severe mental illness (current doctrine in the psychology field mandates that pretty much everyone is mentally ill, so they can keep themselves and big pharma in business ).

then again as i think more about it, gun safety should be part of high school curriculum, along with drivers ed.the students do not have to handle/fire a weapon, but the weapons could be demonstrated to the class by local police or military.


_________________
statistics can be used to prove anything
14% of people know that.

never attribute to conspiracy that which can amply be attributed to the actions of a bunch of greedy stupid self serving men in power

yes i can read minds. yours is blank most days..

I think the ruling is as it should have been, primarily because it pertains to the right of the individual to protect his or her life, if need be, (by the possession and use of fire arms) against those who threatened it. This not only pertains to brute thugs who would be out to rob one's possessions or harm (or take away) one's life (or the life of one's family) but also to crooked cops and/or those who abuse their positions within the law to violate the rights of others. Just take a look at how the totalitarian/communists governments use their military towards the execution and bloodshed of its citizens. While some might say that such countries do not have the concept of "rights" (as the United States does) and so do as they please, the occurrence of these atrocious acts is NOT relative and does not change the objective fact that their citizens' HUMAN/God-giving rights are totally being violated.

Regards



Last edited by SuspendedMatter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:42 pm; edited 2 times in total