Do states have a right to flout 2A entitlements based on 10th amendment stipulations?

[Doug Loss]

Stop being so damn sensitive.  I called your post nonsensical, not you.   I fail to see the connection between openly waving a rifle in public to homosexuals waving their (presumably this is what you meant) penises in a public parade.   Indecent exposure is not protected by the First Amendment,  and open carry is not protected by the Second Amendment.  Laws, if any, involving either are the province of state or local government, not the federal leviathan.

Be thankful you live in Texas.  Just as I'm thankful to live in Pennsylvania.   To each his own - THAT's conservatism.   

You really don't understand what "shall not be abridged" means, do you?  The 2nd Amendment says that the federal government cannot abridge the bearing of arms.  The 14th Amendment extends that prohibition to state and local governments.  That various state and local governments flout that prohibition and try to enforce their own unconstitutional laws changes nothing.  You'll complain yet again that there have been no court cases showing that state and local governments do too have to observe constitutional restrictions to their ability to abridge the rights of the people.  That means nothing. 

[Doug Loss]

States and local communities have regulated open carry for over 200 years.   Yet no one's successfully brought a case under the 2A to challenge it in all that time.   What's obvious to everyone is that you haven't the foggiest notion of federalism and the sovereignty of the several states.

Silly, silly, silly man.  Point to any case that has been brought before the Supreme Court related to open carry, regardless of the outcome.  As for "foggiest notion," I submit that your understanding of federalism and sovereignty is probably the foggiest of any one here.

Perhaps you could provide us with some history of laws in PA and (I'm assuming you're in) Philadelphia abridging citizens' open carry rights.  I was born and raised in PA, and I guarantee you that people open carried all the time with no one complaining and no one being taken to court over the behavior.  Maybe not in your city filled with those insistent on controlling the behavior of others, but in PA outside of there, definitely.

[Cyber Liberty]

Stop being so damn sensitive.  I called your post nonsensical, not you.   I fail to see the connection between openly waving a rifle in public to homosexuals waving their (presumably this is what you meant) penises in a public parade.   Indecent exposure is not protected by the First Amendment,  and open carry is not protected by the Second Amendment.  Laws, if any, involving either are the province of state or local government, not the federal leviathan.

Be thankful you live in Texas.  Just as I'm thankful to live in Pennsylvania.   To each his own - THAT's conservatism.   

I wasn't being sensitive, I drew the comparison, not you.  It's called "Self-depricating."  Lots of people who don't take themselves seriously do it, you should try it sometime, it can be rather liberating.

You don't see the connection between waving a gun and waving a penis?  Probably because you insist on using loaded terms like "waving" and "waltzing."  Somebody carrying a holstered firearm would differ with you about whether he's "waving" it, because if he were waving it around he'd be rightly arrested for it, even in AZ.  Unholstering and waving a weapon around is a grievous violation of the law.  This is why people take you a lot less seriously than you take yourself, you're ignorant of the terms.

BTW, I don't live in Texas.  Gun laws are too restrictive for my tastes.

[Jazzhead]

.  That various state and local governments flout that prohibition and try to enforce their own unconstitutional laws changes nothing.  You'll complain yet again that there have been no court cases showing that state and local governments do too have to observe constitutional restrictions to their ability to abridge the rights of the people.  That means nothing.

I understand your position.  The law means whatever you say it means.   I don't give a damn about you or your pompous-ass opinions.   

[Sanguine]

I understand your position.  The law means whatever you say it means.   I don't give a damn about you or your pompous-ass opinions.   

Seems like there's a bit of projection going on there.

[Doug Loss]

I understand your position.  The law means whatever you say it means.   I don't give a damn about you or your pompous-ass opinions.   

I second @Sanguine's statement.  Your self-awareness is pretty clearly nil, as what you project onto others is exactly what you yourself are doing here.

[INVAR]

So now you're advocating violence against homosexuals?   Somehow that doesn't surprise me in the least, INVAR.

I advocate the use of deadly force against anyone or any agenda that seeks to impose itself upon me or my liberties.

You don't want Texas gun-culture imposed in your liberal bastion there in PA, I don't want your culture of San Francisco faggotry imposed in my Conservative bastion.

All you have illustrated is that you are for infringements and restrictions of enumerated rights written and ratified while at the same time and in the same breath insist that perverted behaviors are 'rights' granted out of thin air by 5 justices in black robes, which were not enumerated, be imposed by force upon the rest of us.

Open-carry is a great incentive to make sure that people like you know when to back down and back off.

[bigheadfred]

To keep and bear arms is a natural law. It isn't a right at all. You are born to do it.

Whether that natural law is created, evolved, or just bad chemistry is another debate.

The Constitution was written to coincide with natural law. Natural law in words.

Mankind, at this point, doesn't understand natural law enough to come up with some of his own.

Until, if ever, he does, debating it is over.

Next!

seeyaluvyabye

[Jazzhead]

I advocate the use of deadly force against anyone or any agenda that seeks to impose itself upon me or my liberties.

You don't want Texas gun-culture imposed in your liberal bastion there in PA, I don't want your culture of San Francisco faggotry imposed in my Conservative bastion.

The difference it that I advocate change by means of elections and rule of law.  You advocate violence.   I hope for the safety of the community the FBI comes knocking at your door.   

[Jazzhead]

To keep and bear arms is a natural law. It isn't a right at all. You are born to do it.

Whether that natural law is created, evolved, or just bad chemistry is another debate.

The Constitution was written to coincide with natural law. Natural law in words.

Mankind, at this point, doesn't understand natural law enough to come up with some of his own.

Until, if ever, he does, debating it is over.

Next!

seeyaluvyabye

The right to safety and security in one's person and home is a natural right.   The RKBA exists to codify that right against infringement by the government.   It does not exist to allow you the unfettered right to carry arms openly in the public square.  Open carry in the public square is a privilege, not a right, and that is the province of your state or your local community. 

[Cyber Liberty]

The right to safety and security in one's person and home is a natural right.   The RKBA exists to codify that right against infringement by the government.   It does not exist to allow you the unfettered right to carry arms openly in the public square.  Open carry in the public square is a privilege, not a right, and that is the province of your state or your local community.

You've been making a distinction, and maybe I missed where you clarified it.  Am I given to understand it would be OK with you if people have the unfettered right to carry concealed in the public square?

[LateForLunch]

States and local communities have regulated open carry for over 200 years.   Yet no one's successfully brought a case under the 2A to challenge it in all that time.   What's obvious to everyone is that you haven't the foggiest notion of federalism and the sovereignty of the several states.

Back the truck up, J. I'd like to play the role of peacemaker here and ask that we all dial down the vituperation a notch. There are ways to stand up for a position without being too personal. I doubt that either position  on either side is being held for the purpose of making the nation less secure or pleasant., which means we are all fundamentally on the same side.

The idea that open carry is NOT a viable position based on Constitutional (exclusionary) grounds is a minority view. This is because some states have already authorized open carry on the basis of overriding Constitutional authority, so QED the case very obviously has been made, (and by very contemporary litigators) regardless of your assertion otherwise.

That being said, the issue will likely land in front of the SCOTUS because of the complex nature of the statues in regard to how it falls into the regime of the entire constellation on federal, state and local law in the U.S.

The one thing that seems obvious to me is that legal minds on all sides of the issues are working diligently to explore every possible facet of the law in order to either affirm or erode the right to carry firearms openly.

BTW why won't you answer the question about why you are so passionately opposed to open carry? That's not intended to be a gotchya question. I'm just curious why this issue elicits such a strong response from some when it comes up? Sometimes the fears that people have about issues can be key to understanding where a basis for amelioration may lie.

[INVAR]

The difference it that I advocate change by means of elections and rule of law.  You advocate violence.   I hope for the safety of the community the FBI comes knocking at your door.

Go ahead and attempt SWATTING.  It's what I would expect from a liberal agent provocateur like you.

As to your pretend fealty to the 'rule of law' - you have NONE.  You just illustrated for the whole board that you are perfectly willing to infringe upon an enumerated and ratified right while demanding to IMPOSE 'rights' made up out of thin air by 5 justices to promote behavioral perversion.

You're a wannabe tyrant that only sees liberty for himself, Islamists and perverts and is willing to impose tyranny on everyone else you think is a threat to 'the community'.

And people like you is exactly why open-carry and the 2nd Amendment is absolutely necessary.

[Bigun]

Back the truck up, J. I'd like to play the role of peacemaker here and ask that we all dial down the vituperation a notch. There are ways to stand up for a position without being too personal. I doubt that either position  on either side is being held for the purpose of making the nation less secure or pleasant., which means we are all fundamentally on the same side.

The idea that open carry is NOT a viable position based on Constitutional (exclusionary) grounds is a minority view. This is because some states have already authorized open carry on the basis of overriding Constitutional authority, so QED the case very obviously has been made, (and by very contemporary litigators) regardless of your assertion otherwise.

That being said, the issue will likely land in front of the SCOTUS because of the complex nature of the statues in regard to how it falls into the regime of the entire constellation on federal, state and local law in the U.S.

The one thing that seems obvious to me is that legal minds on all sides of the issues are working diligently to explore every possible facet of the law in order to either affirm or erode the right to carry firearms openly.

BTW why won't you answer the question about why you are so passionately opposed to open carry? That's not intended to be a gotchya question. I'm just curious why this issue elicits such a strong response from some when it comes up? Sometimes the fears that people have about issues can be key to understanding where a basis for amelioration may lie.

We also know that SCOTUS has very recently affirmed that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.  Any forthcoming decisions from them on these matters must take that into consideration. Let that soak in for a minute.

[thackney]

You really don't understand what "shall not be abridged" means, do you?  The 2nd Amendment says that the federal government cannot abridge the bearing of arms...

I believe you meant "infringed".

[Jazzhead]

You've been making a distinction, and maybe I missed where you clarified it.  Am I given to understand it would be OK with you if people have the unfettered right to carry concealed in the public square?

I have no objection to concealed carry.   However, while I'd support appropriately licensed concealed carry in my state,  I don't support a uniform federal rule on the subject.  It should be left up to the individual states.   As I've said time and again, that's federalism and, IMO, consistent with American conservatism. 

That said,  I would encourage voluntary reciprocity among states so that a traveler isn't made subject to arrest merely because of carrying a firearm properly concealed and holstered under the laws of his jurisdiction of residence.   

[Doug Loss]

I believe you meant "infringed".

Thanks; slip of the fingers.

[thackney]

The right to safety and security in one's person and home is a natural right.   The RKBA exists to codify that right against infringement by the government.   It does not exist to allow you the unfettered right to carry arms openly in the public square.  Open carry in the public square is a privilege, not a right, and that is the province of your state or your local community.

We didn't fight against the oppressive British in our homes.  We had to take the fight to them in the cities and countryside.  To claim this is only a right inside our homes is a foolish attempt to ignore why the 2nd amendment was written.

[Cyber Liberty]

I have no objection to concealed carry.   However, while I'd support appropriately licensed concealed carry in my state,  I don't support a uniform federal rule on the subject.  It should be left up to the individual states.   As I've said time and again, that's federalism and, IMO, consistent with American conservatism. 

That said,  I would encourage voluntary reciprocity among states so that a traveler isn't made subject to arrest merely because of carrying a firearm properly concealed and holstered under the laws of his jurisdiction of residence.

Say I live in a state that requires no license to carry concealed.  Should there be reciprocity then?

[bigheadfred]

The right to safety and security in one's person and home is a natural right.   The RKBA exists to codify that right against infringement by the government.   It does not exist to allow you the unfettered right to carry arms openly in the public square.  Open carry in the public square is a privilege, not a right, and that is the province of your state or your local community.

Now see, you insist on confusing a right, an invention of man, with natural law.

I have a suggestion. Find a way to observe the behavior of honeybees. Then come back here and refute that behavior.

[EC]

To keep and bear arms is a natural law. It isn't a right at all. You are born to do it.

Whether that natural law is created, evolved, or just bad chemistry is another debate.

The Constitution was written to coincide with natural law. Natural law in words.

Mankind, at this point, doesn't understand natural law enough to come up with some of his own.

Until, if ever, he does, debating it is over.

Next!

seeyaluvyabye

@bigheadfred

Fred, why you bringing sense into this? They's happy working out how many pins can dance on the head of this angel.

[Jazzhead]

We didn't fight against the oppressive British in our homes.  We had to take the fight to them in the cities and countryside.  To claim this is only a right inside our homes is a foolish attempt to ignore why the 2nd amendment was written.

Disagree, fundamentally.   It's an individual right, meant to codify against infringement the natural right of self-defense of person and home.    See Heller.  I could care less about the circumstances of the redcoats and the American revolution.  We have elections and a Constitution now to combat tyranny in government.  I understand your opinion is different.   

[Jazzhead]

Now see, you insist on confusing a right, an invention of man, with natural law.

I have a suggestion. Find a way to observe the behavior of honeybees. Then come back here and refute that behavior.

Don't be ridiculous.  Open carry in the public square is not a natural right.   

[Jazzhead]

Say I live in a state that requires no license to carry concealed.  Should there be reciprocity then?

I support voluntary reciprocity (concealed carry; not open carry).   The conditions for reciprocity are to be worked out between the reciprocating states.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I support voluntary reciprocity (concealed carry; not open carry).   The conditions for reciprocity are to be worked out between the reciprocating states.

Like drivers licenses then?