U.S. appeals court: Constitution gives right to carry gun in public (legal, drugs)
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.
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.
If it does legalize "open carry", IMO its about time!
What an interesting concept: The Constitution means exactly what it says, no more, no less!
I can live with that.
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.
I would not have a problem with that. I do pose a question? Should people be screened in order to be allowed to carry a gun?
Is so, what would be the discriminators that would not allow someone to open or conceal carry?
Notice in the article the disconnect between the headline an the first paragraph:
Headline - "U.S. appeals court: Constitution gives right to carry gun in public"
First paragraph - "A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public"
The headline uses a common linguistic trick to make rights appear as something which the government gives us, where the first paragraph, quoting the court who reference the 2nd Amendment rightly explain that you have the right already and the 2nd Amendment simply protects it. We all have the right to keep and bear arms as a condition of existence, the government of the United States has no enumerated power over the self-defense of the citizens, and the 2nd and 9th Amendments are clear enough. You have the right because you exist, the government has no power over that right, and the government shall not infringe upon that right.
Sloppy journalism to advance an agenda, but pay close attention to these subtleties, because these little sleights of hand and turns of phrase are how rights get eroded.
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.
McDonald v. Chicago made this perfectly clear. All gun legislation is null and void.
It reversed the precedence of what ALL gun legislation is based upon. It finally reversed the very first challenge, after the Civil War, to the 2nd.
What an interesting concept: The Constitution means exactly what it says, no more, no less!
I can live with that.
It's the idea that liberals are opposed to above all else. If they can't pretend the Constitution somehow approves their agenda, when in fact it expressly forbids most of it, they are finished.
I would not have a problem with that. I do pose a question? Should people be screened in order to be allowed to carry a gun?
Is so, what would be the discriminators that would not allow someone to open or conceal carry?
Just like how some people should never be allowed to drive a car or operate heavy machinery there are many that should never be allowed to carry let alone touch a gun. The question is how to keep guns out of the hands of people with anger issues, hot heads, and those prone to drink too much or imbibe in drugs.
We have so many distracted, drunk, high or just plain stupid people operating vehicles and they lead to accidents. No one wants to see a kid pick up a carelessly kept gun and shoot himself or someone else.
I couldn't imagine the carnage we would have if this type of careless person was allowed to carry a deadly weapon.
I believe class room and range training that leads to a license should be required and as in my state of Mass. there are different levels of that license that allows for long guns at 18 and handguns at 21. I also think that the so called assault weapon age of purchase should be raised to 21.
I know this is not what the Constitution spelled out for us but there was no way that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned the brain dead idiots that are willing to murder someone or a group of kids at a drop of a hat.
With all that being said I am for a responsible adult that has been trained in the safe use and handling of a firearm to openly carry that firearm.
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.
