The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

[Cyber Liberty]

You're from rural Michigan. You know how free and easy we were with guns in the little Michigan towns. It was not unusual to walk down main street on our way to hunt carrying a shotgun over our shoulder. It wasn't uncommon to make stops along the way like the grocery store, hardware, or even the bank. This wasn't in the 30s or 40s, this was well into the 80s and 90s.

Open carry has never been illegal in Michigan that I'm aware of and its never been a problem.

I agree, things were fine when I lived up there.  Tell me (a little off topic, but not really), did you ever consider somebody who carried to have been "waltzing around" or "gun-totin'" while doing it? 

[Cripplecreek]

I agree, things were fine when I lived up there.  Tell me (a little off topic, but not really), did you ever consider somebody who carried to have been "waltzing around" or "gun-totin'" while doing it?

Strolling maybe or even skipping on opening day but never waltzing or totin.

[Cyber Liberty]

Strolling maybe or even skipping on opening day but never waltzing or totin.

Dittos.  The closest I ever came to waltzing was when I had to climb over barb-wire fences (for obvious reasons).

[Just_Victor]

I'm curious of your opinion (and everyone else's) why the second amendment included the language "shall not be infringed", particularly in comparison to the other 9 amendments of the bill of rights.  What did the founders mean in adding this language to only this one right?  How did they intend that to be different from the others?

It's interesting to compare the 1st and 2nd Amendments wording.  1st: "Congress shall make no law..." vs 2nd: "shall not be infringed."  The first amendment leaves reasonable restrictions within the states as a Constitutional option.  The Texas legislature deciding it is unacceptable to say f@%K (just an example) in public is not Congress making a law.  Where as Texas deciding that a class is required to possess a gun in public is certainly an infringment.

[Jazzhead]

I'm curious of your opinion (and everyone else's) why the second amendment included the language "shall not be infringed", particularly in comparison to the other 9 amendments of the bill of rights.  What did the founders mean in adding this language to only this one right?  How did they intend that to be different from the others?

I strongly recommend the Scalia opinion in Heller to anyone interested in the history and meaning of the Second Amendment.  (I'm sure many here already have; it is exceedingly interesting reading.)

Scalia says that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited".   He states that the Heller opinion "should not be taken to cast doubt" on longstanding reasonable regulations, including with respect to the "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 The peculiar wording of the Amendment,  using the word "infringed", doesn't make the gun right special in terms of its susceptibility to reasonable regulation.   Such regulation is, IMO, reasonable if it satisfies two basic requirements - first, the regulation must be efficacious, and second, the regulation cannot effectively deny the right to keep and bear arms for the Constitutionally protected purpose enunciated in Heller - self-defense.   That's why the D.C. law was struck down - requiring that a gun be kept unloaded or locked in the home defeats the purpose for which the Constitutional right exists.   Self-defense. 

 But in the public space, time, place and manner restrictions on Constitutional rights are common and lawful.   Guns are no different.   And that's entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of "infringe" - to defeat or invalidate.   Reasonable regulation doesn't defeat or invalidate the gun right.  One may have to register one's pistol, or obey local law when carrying in public,  but that doesn't prevent one from acquiring and using it when needed to protect hearth and home.     

The subject at hand is the parading or concealment of weaponry in the public square.  Philly's laws on such matters have always been much different than northern Michigan's.   And that local prerogative is as it should be, and should remain.     

[skeeter]

I strongly recommend the Scalia opinion in Heller to anyone interested in the history and meaning of the Second Amendment.  (I'm sure many here already have; it is exceedingly interesting reading.)

Scalia says that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited".   He states that the Heller opinion "should not be taken to cast doubt" on longstanding reasonable regulations, including with respect to the "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 The peculiar wording of the Amendment,  using the word "infringed", doesn't make the gun right special in terms of its susceptibility to reasonable regulation.   Such regulation is, IMO, reasonable if it satisfies two basic requirements - first, the regulation must be efficacious, and second, the regulation cannot effectively deny the right to keep and bear arms for the Constitutionally protected purpose enunciated in Heller - self-defense.   That's why the D.C. law was struck down - requiring that a gun be kept unloaded or locked in the home defeats the purpose for which the Constitutional right exists.   Self-defense.   But in the public space, time, place and manner restrictions on Constitutional rights are common and lawful.   Guns are no different.   And that's entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of "infringe" - to defeat or invalidate.   Reasonable regulation doesn't defeat or invalidate the gun right.  One may have to register one's pistol, but that doesn't prevent one from acquiring and using it when needed to protect hearth and home.     

The subject at hand is the parading or concealment of weaponry in the public square.  Philly's laws on such matters have always been much different than northern Michigan's.   And that's as it should be, and should remain.   

The first 'basic requirement' is utterly meaningless; and as to the second, given the context of the case, the majority opinion argued that the need for self defense implied by the 2nd amendment is 'most acute' in the home. 

I read nothing in the Heller decision that implied limitation of or sought to limit in any way the 2nd amendment as originally defined by its authors in any other context.

[Bigun]

The first 'basic requirement' is utterly meaningless; and as to the second, given the context of the case, the majority opinion argued that the need for self defense implied by the 2nd amendment is 'most acute' in the home. 

I read nothing in the Heller decision that implied limitation of or sought to limit in any way the 2nd amendment as originally defined by its authors in any other context.

Nor do I!

[Jazzhead]

Well, I'm sure the extent to which the gun right can be regulated will be the subject of future court rulings.   But local laws regarding concealed and open carry while in the public space are Constitutional.   Certainly no court has said they aren't.   The issue is forcing local communities that don't want concealed carry to accept it because of the dictate of the federal leviathan.   I thought conservatives respected states' rights.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Nor do I!

Looks like what we have here is an attempt to separate the concept of "gun-grabber" from the concept of "Reasonable gun laws."  "I am not a 'gun-grabber!'" vs "It's OK to have laws that prohibit people from parading the things around the public square."  (I appreciate finally dropping the "waltzing around" garbage, but "parading" isn't any better in intent.)

Apparently somebody hasn't heard of the Camel's Nose.

[Doug Loss]

Such regulation is, IMO, reasonable if it satisfies two basic requirements - first, the regulation must be efficacious, and second, the regulation cannot effectively deny the right to keep and bear arms for the Constitutionally protected purpose enunciated in Heller - self-defense.   That's why the D.C. law was struck down - requiring that a gun be kept unloaded or locked in the home defeats the purpose for which the Constitutional right exists.   Self-defense. 

But in the public space, time, place and manner restrictions on Constitutional rights are common and lawful.   Guns are no different.   And that's entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of "infringe" - to defeat or invalidate.   Reasonable regulation doesn't defeat or invalidate the gun right.  One may have to register one's pistol, or obey local law when carrying in public,  but that doesn't prevent one from acquiring and using it when needed to protect hearth and home.     

The subject at hand is the parading or concealment of weaponry in the public square.  Philly's laws on such matters have always been much different than northern Michigan's.   And that local prerogative is as it should be, and should remain.   

You are assuming that which you need to prove.  The constitutionally-protected right to bear arms (notice, it doesn't say to own arms, but to bear them, i.e., to have them with you ready for use) exists for more purposes than mere self-defense in the home.  Your attempt to restrict the right to self-defense is the very definition of "infringement."

[Bigun]

Looks like what we have here is an attempt to separate the concept of "gun-grabber" from the concept of "Reasonable gun laws."  "I am not a 'gun-grabber!'" vs "It's OK to have laws that prohibit people from parading the things around the public square."  (I appreciate finally dropping the "waltzing around" garbage, but "parading" isn't any better in intent.)

Apparently somebody hasn't heard of the Camel's Nose.

Apparently someone needs to see what the word "infringe" means!

in•fringe (ɪnˈfrɪndʒ)

v. -fringed, -fring•ing. v.t.
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright.
v.i.
2. to encroach or trespass (usu. fol. by on or upon): to infringe on someone's privacy.
[1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken =in- in-2 + frangere to break]

[Cyber Liberty]

Apparently someone needs to see what the word "infringe" means!

in•fringe (ɪnˈfrɪndʒ)

v. -fringed, -fring•ing. v.t.
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright.
v.i.
2. to encroach or trespass (usu. fol. by on or upon): to infringe on someone's privacy.
[1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken =in- in-2 + frangere to break]

Maybe we can pass the hat and buy someone a dictionary?   

[Jazzhead]

You are assuming that which you need to prove.  The constitutionally-protected right to bear arms (notice, it doesn't say to own arms, but to bear them, i.e., to have them with you ready for use) exists for more purposes than mere self-defense in the home.  Your attempt to restrict the right to self-defense is the very definition of "infringement."

Nope.  The constitutionally-protected right is one's natural right of self-defense.   Guns have other uses, of course,  including hunting and recreational shooting,  but I highly doubt these uses fall under the rubric of constitutional protection.  (I've heard some liberals claim that only sportsmen should have guns.  That's back-assward, of course - guns are protected under the Constitution because they are means by which one may protect one's person and property.)

[Jazzhead]

Maybe we can pass the hat and buy someone a dictionary?   

My definition comes from Webster's New College Dictionary, right beside my desk at work.   Stop with the condescension.

[Just_Victor]

Nope.  The constitutionally-protected right is one's natural right of self-defense.   Guns have other uses, of course,  including hunting and recreational shooting,  but I highly doubt these uses fall under the rubric of constitutional protection.  (I've heard some liberals claim that only sportsmen should have guns.  That's back-assward, of course - guns are protected under the Constitution because they are means by which one may protect one's person and property.)

So, we agree I have a right to self defense on my private property.  Why shouldn't my right to self defense exist on a public street?

[Bigun]

Nope.  The constitutionally-protected right is one's natural right of self-defense.   Guns have other uses, of course,  including hunting and recreational shooting,  but I highly doubt these uses fall under the rubric of constitutional protection.  (I've heard some liberals claim that only sportsmen should have guns.  That's back-assward, of course - guns are protected under the Constitution because they are means by which one may protect one's person and property.)

you forgot one's liberty!

[Cyber Liberty]

My definition comes from Webster's New College Dictionary, right beside my desk at work.   Stop with the condescension.

You started it with the gun-totin' and waltzing around with guns crapola.  I was just following your lead.

BTW, you're still wrong, but I'm tired of talking to the wall.  I'll just await that glorious day when you understand what they meant in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified by 3/4 of the several States) by "infringe."

[Cyber Liberty]

you forgot one's liberty!

He thinks "liberty" is whatever a majority of the SCOTUS says it is. 

[Bigun]

My definition comes from Webster's New College Dictionary, right beside my desk at work.   Stop with the condescension.

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

infringe
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.64/images/ahd5.jpg


verb
in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
verb
, transitive
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
verb
, intransitive
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
Origin of infringe
Latin &imacron;nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in–2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.

Looks very similar to what I posted earlier.

What part do you not understand?

[Jazzhead]

You started it with the gun-totin' and waltzing around with guns crapola.  I was just following your lead.

BTW, you're still wrong, but I'm tired of talking to the wall.  I'll just await that glorious day when you understand what they meant in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified by 3/4 of the several States) by "infringe."

Your gracelessness is palpable.  Damn right I don't want folks waltzing around downtown Philly totin' rifles.   You go right ahead with that hillbilly shit if you wanna,  just don't pass a law forcing my town to put up with it.   

All I'm saying is local communities shouldn't be forced to compromise the safety of their citizens as they see it.  No CC reciprocity.    You want to carry a gun here,  obey the law here.   

[Bigun]

He thinks "liberty" is whatever a majority of the SCOTUS says it is.

I guess someone needs to post the definition of that word as well!

[Jazzhead]

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

There it is, just like I said.   I note it's a "obsolete" meaning, but that just confirms it's the meaning likely intended by the Founders.   

Besides,  the Heller opinion represents the current law of the land.  Scalia says the gun right is subject to reasonable regulation.  Deal with it.   

[Bigun]

Your gracelessness is palpable.  Damn right I don't want folks waltzing around downtown Philly totin' rifles.   You go right ahead with that hillbilly shit if you wanna,  just don't pass a law forcing my town to put up with it.   

All I'm saying is local communities shouldn't be forced to compromise the safety of their citizens as they see it.  No CC reciprocity.    You want to carry a gun here,  obey the law here.   

As I see it ANY infringement of a citizen's right to carry a gun compromises his safety ipso facto!

[Cyber Liberty]

Your gracelessness is palpable.  Damn right I don't want folks waltzing around downtown Philly totin' rifles.   You go right ahead with that hillbilly shit if you wanna,  just don't pass a law forcing my town to put up with it.   

All I'm saying is local communities shouldn't be forced to compromise the safety of their citizens as they see it.  No CC reciprocity.    You want to carry a gun here,  obey the law here.   

I get it that you think the Bill of Rights aren't applicable to local laws, and natural rights can go hang, and like I said, I may as well as be talking to a wall.  You are on the wrong forum, we're constitutional conservatives here, not gun-grabbers.  Tote that.

[Bigun]

There it is, just like I said.   I note it's a "obsolete" meaning, but that just confirms it's the meaning likely intended by the Founders.   

Besides,  the Heller opinion represents the current law of the land.  Scalia says the gun right is subject to reasonable regulation.  Deal with it.

   The definition of the word "infringe" includes the word "obsolete" meaning (to make) obsolete.  As in make the right obsolete!