Concealed Weapons (Congress: lease, felony, live in)

[Lovehound]

Due to the remote areas that I camp in I feel better being armed while camping. I doubt that I would carry either open or concealed just to go to the shopping center. However I have no problem with others doing that as long as they are responsible citizens.

[Ria Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Due to the remote areas that I camp in I feel better being armed while camping. I doubt that I would carry either open or concealed just to go to the shopping center. However I have no problem with others doing that as long as they are responsible citizens.

Fair enough.

[Rich V]

Originally Posted by Ria Rhodes

They're out to get us. They're out to get our guns. Dangerous to go outside. Dangerous to drive on pubic roads. Dangerous to talk religion or politics with strangers. How did we ever survive public life in America without our cellphones and guns? Better carry the semi-automatic (or better the less sexy revolver that has less chance of jamming) and concealable holster everywhere (except when bathing) to survive the day-to-day. One day I may be eating my hamburger in mickey D's when a crazy flips-out and starts attacking people, and I'll be carrying and save the day. I'll be hailed as a hero in the local paper (or shot by an off-duty law enforcement officer who mistakes me for a kook).

Are not the paranoid & armed and "twisted crazies" exhibiting some of the same psychoses? This veteran has nothing against the sport of game hunting. I enjoyed my 410 and skeet (and Bear compound bow). I used to hunt when younger. I just don't feel comfortable with people who spend to much time obsessing about firearms. It's really weird.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's there for our individual and collective defence. Read Antonin Scalia's brief on the recent SCOTUS ruling: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ET AL . v. HELLER
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Some key sections from the SCOTUS ruling:

We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment provides: “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.”
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he
Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and
ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”
The two sides in this case have set out very different
interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s
dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the
right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home.

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people”
in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble
(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people”
will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
to anything other than an individual right.6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution
that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset. As we said in United Statesv. Verdugo-
Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed
in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its
uses] suggest that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved
in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that
community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in
the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia”
in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—
those who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as
protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an
organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative
clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the
Second Amendment right is exercised individually and
belongs to all Americans.

Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed”

-----------------------------------------------------------

A question for anyone who thinks AZ open carry and concealed carry laws are a danger to the public, Who has the higher gun crime rate, cities with strict gun laws and outright gun bans(NYC, LA, Detroit, Washington DC) or Az cities like Phoenix and Tuscon where guns are readily available?

[Ria Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Missouri Mule

Well I am happy that you are so well balanced now. Myself, I will continue living in Paranoid Fear, knowing that if I am at the wrong place at the wrong time, I can still try and protect myself.

So I leave you to your chill pills, and hope with proper medications that you too will one day, be able to control your ranting and ravings.

Good Day

Oh pu-lease. Just making my point that carrying a gun around in public is no panacea to ones personal safety concerns. I realize my jabs are not appreciated by many. I'm not one to want to take away the right to bear arms (but civilians who fixate on the use of deadly force worry me nonetheless based on what I've seen and heard in life). Fort Leonard Wood (aka "Fort Lost in the Woods"), Missouri is where I served basic training way back when. Pretty countryside out there.

[Missouri Mule]

Ok I can relate to you, if a person has a total fixation on guns, and stockpiles for the end days, then I suspect he or she may have a problem. I am not against banning assault rifles, or modern 50 cals (sniper rifles). I don't even mind reducing the amount of ammo that a civilian can carry 15 rounds law enforcement, 10 rounds civilian. I don't even plan on using my weapon. But if you have access to it when it is needed. In my 32 years or so of carring concealed, I have never pulled a gun on anyone. in a civilian copasity. But there have been a few times when I was glad I had access to it until the event played out.

I am agaist open carry unless you are hunting, in your car or in a situation where the firearm will not alarm others. Yes I have seen and delt with nut jobs who have carried into banks. But I am against being told by Government that you can't carry at all. There is a time and a place for firearms and distant travel is one of them if the person so choses.

Missouri is a nice state, people are friendly and I do enjoy the woods but not during tick season. I won't discuss Ft Leonard Wood as I am not sure they are even part of the United States, a nation within a nation so to speak.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Missouri Mule

I am not against banning assault rifles, or modern 50 cals (sniper rifles). I don't even mind reducing the amount of ammo that a civilian can carry 15 rounds law enforcement, 10 rounds civilian.

I have a HUGE problem with all these things and would not comply if such ever becomes law here.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Missouri Mule

I don't even mind reducing the amount of ammo that a civilian can carry 15 rounds law enforcement, 10 rounds civilian.

I am agaist open carry unless you are hunting, in your car or in a situation where the firearm will not alarm others.

Why would you limit a law enforcement officer to carry only 15 rounds? That makes no sense to me (nor the 10 for civilian)

In Arizona, we are an Open Carry state - and you will often see people carrying openly. I carry open when riding my bike - and carry concealed most other times. My wife also carrys concealed.

[Missouri Mule]

I will try and and explain to you both in one post.

I am not happy with any restrictions on weapons. Maybe using the term I don't care was wrong. I would further attempt to defeat any legislation to restrict gun laws.

I was trying to explain the the banning of assault weapons and 50 cal type sniper rifles is something that I can live with, I would not be happy. The same goes for 15 round mags. I would not be happy about it, but I would comply. I am more concerned about the right of concealed carry.

I also am not against open carry, again I was trying to explain that there is a time and a place to open carry. A few posts back I used the example of the guy who opened carried in a bank, he did not violate the law but he still found himself on the floor of the bank until things could be sorted out. Someone called about this guy and a gun in the bank. Having a gun on scared someone. The police reacted as a possible robbery. This guy could through his actions got himself shot or others. I was in the bank at the time and watched all the mothers with young children, move to behind desks to hide. This guys legal actions disrupted normal business, and put several people in fear.

If he had been carrying concealed no one would have known and he would have conducted his business and left.

Let me put it this way, are you going to open carry with your wife and kids in Walmart or carry concealed. I myself would carry concealed as it brings less attention to me and will not alarm others.

So I don't see myself as against you at all. I would like people to use their heads and think about the situation before they open carry, that's all.

I am happy that you challenged me on this, and I hope that I explained myself to your satisfaction.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Missouri Mule

Let me put it this way, are you going to open carry with your wife and kids in Walmart or carry concealed.

The answer is yes and yes

Also, my wife would be right next to me carrying concealed also.

[Missouri Mule]

Well that is your prerogative, and its the law. I cannot dispute that.