Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In California if you have a permit you can carry anywhere in the state beside few places like courthouses. It is just if you live in a county that does not issue you will never get a permit but if you live in a county that does you will. I have a fundamentally different civil right to protect myself outside of my home than another ca citizen 20 miles away in a different county.
Someone from an issuing county can carry right in front of San Francisco city hall legally, it is just the county of San Francisco has issue zero permits in the last decade to the close to 800k people that live in that county.
No, it is a government issued privilege... There is no longer a right to keep & bear arms anywhere in the USA.
If government can regulate or ban rights, they have become way more powerful than any person.
Why would WE THE PEOPLE, declare ourselves the right to Militia, in order to maintain a free state, away from governments eye?
Declaring WE THE PEOPLE will keep & bear our arms, not the arms government says we are allowed, with government not being able to say a word, unless they had intentions of taking rights from the people. Which would be the sign a free state was not being maintained by government.
We The People make our own choices. There was no intention of government making choices for us.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
How can one bear arms, if the arm is at home, locked in a gun safe?
Bearing arms, has always mean to have on ones person.
That's your interpretation, others may well interpret the 2nd to mean kept at home in case the 'well regulated militia' should be activated the arms will be ready. Legally, if not in the minds of many, the only interpretations that matter are those of the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
At the time of the constitution, sidearms were a luxury, but still a fire-arm. Long guns were often carried by every male. Modified by the owner, to their liking. Cutting stocks, cutting barrels off to shorten, even rifling the barrels.
So, pistols were so big, they could not be concealed in a pocket, only holstered by the wealthy. Most had knives, for close confrontations. They didn't have to conceal weapons. No one was scared of the tool that kept them safe from evil. and the constitution says the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. so no need to conceal it from governments eyes.
That's the thing, what was at the time of the Constitution isn't what is now. The founders obviously believed it should be a 'living' document by including provision to amend it. Over the years some things have been changed without amendment, as in you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater despite the 1st Amendment.
I have no problem with people owning guns but believe there should be some degree of control. Do we really want a 10 year old who's been shooting people in video games and magically re-setting them back to life for half their life being able to save their $$$ and buy a gun with no training whatsoever? If we don't, that's gun control. It's true 'guns don't kill people, people.......................' but far too many of those people have no concept of what power that little piece in their pocket has, I just see nothing wrong with trying to teach them that.
That's your interpretation, others may well interpret the 2nd to mean kept at home in case the 'well regulated militia' should be activated the arms will be ready. Legally, if not in the minds of many, the only interpretations that matter are those of the courts.
That's the thing, what was at the time of the Constitution isn't what is now. The founders obviously believed it should be a 'living' document by including provision to amend it. Over the years some things have been changed without amendment, as in you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater despite the 1st Amendment.
I have no problem with people owning guns but believe there should be some degree of control. Do we really want a 10 year old who's been shooting people in video games and magically re-setting them back to life for half their life being able to save their $$$ and buy a gun with no training whatsoever? If we don't, that's gun control. It's true 'guns don't kill people, people.......................' but far too many of those people have no concept of what power that little piece in their pocket has, I just see nothing wrong with trying to teach them that.
The constitution doesn't mean "how things were in the late 1700". It has never been interpreted that way, ever.
Plus in the 2nd amendment is specifically states keep AND bear arms.
Fun fact, the example you give about shouting fire in a movie theater was the legal justification used to uphold a law that banned speech to protest the draft for ww1. I find it amusing how often that is quoted as some sort of justification for very law when the original reasoning is abhorrent to most.
When you apply for concealed carry, notice the word APPLY
So in that state it believes you need a license to carry.
So the state has said you need to prove to us you have a right to carry a weapon on your person.
So here is what this means.
You want to protect your life, ask permission, and or call 911
Yet in other states they also have this "apply for concealed carry" and also have open carry which in most cases some states are more "friendly" to guns in their state.
CA has never been a state interested in gun rights or uses.
The second amendment does not "protect the right" to carry LEGALLY.
The question is the law where you need to prove you need to ask to carry even pro life and liberty of individual
WHERE/WHEN did I mention leaving "pesky constitutional rights" up to the states?
As I've said, the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of CC, you know, what I actually said could be left up to the states?
"Bear arms" seems pretty clear to most people.
By your own words, individual states should have the right to restrict constitutional rights as they see fit. But when Texas wanted teens to watch a video before having an abortion, the ACLU screamed. When states have enacted voter ID laws, the liberals cry racism. When Arizona said they were going to enact their own version of immigration law, Obama sends his goons.
Liberals are all about enforcement of laws important to them and the **** all over the rest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
