Federal Court Finds No Constitutional Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon

[LukeEDay]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to hunt off your own property. Presumably, one doesn't need a license on his own property. If he does, then there is a more serious problem.

The Second Amendment clearly is no respecter of states rights. It guarantees an existing right to keep and bear arms.

You wouldn't feel that way if you had to exit the highway in Oakland California for a nonexistent construction activity, and were dumped in a scary and desolate worst part of Oakland (warehouses, dead ends, houses with bars, no people, could be trapped by a gang) . Your right and need for self defense go wherever you do- that right should not hinge on the opinion of Kamala Harris.

That has no affect on States rights and laws. Every state is different. And here in Pa, I believe you are allowed to hunt on your own property without a hunting license, as I know A LOT of farmers in my area that do it .... They have never had any issues, and a couple even had hunt parties with state troopers and game commissioners ...

[NJCardFan]

Theoretically. The language of the Second Amendment refers to the right of the people to "keep and bear arms." Private ownership doesn't automatically tranlate to openly carrying in public areas, just as it doesn't automatically permit open carrying on private property if the owner chooses to restrict it.

Then what does "bear arms" mean then?

[Odysseus]

Then what does "bear arms" mean then?

It means just that, but remember that the Bill of Rights was part of the federal Constitution, and did not prevent the states from regulating some aspects of bearing arms. For example, in STATE v. ROBERT S. HUNTLEY, the state court in North Carolina had to deal with a defendant who had armed himself, gone out in public and made threatening speech. Neither going about armed nor speaking was, in itself, illegal, but together, the court found that the two constituted a breach of the peace.

The defendant was tried upon the following indictment:

The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Robert S. Huntly, late of the county aforesaid, laborer, on the first day of September, in the present year, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, did arm himself with pistols, guns, knives, and other dangerous and unusual weapons, and being so armed, did go forth and exhibit himself openly, both in the daytime and in the night, to the good citizens of Anson aforesaid, and in the said highway and before the citizens aforesaid, did openly and publicly declare a purpose and intent, one James H. Ratcliff and other good citizens of the State, then and there being in the peace of God and of the State, to beat, wound, kill, and murder, which said purpose and intent, the said Robert S. Huntley, so openly armed and exposed and declaring, then (p.419)and there had and entertained, by which said arming, exposure, exhibition, and declarations of the said Robert S. Huntley, divers good citizens of the State were terrified, and the peace of the State endangered, to the evil example of all others in like cases offending, to the terror of the people, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

The defendant's attorney argued that if these facts were true, they did not constitute a crime under the common law. The court disagreed, and its findings against the defendant were in three parts:

1. The offence of riding or going armed with unusual or dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, is an offence at common law, and is indictable in this State.
2. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose of business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon, to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.
3. The declarations of the defendant are admissible in evidence, on the part of the prosecution, as accompanying, explaining, and characterizing the acts charged.

Thus, while there is a right to carry, the states can determine that there are times or places where the exercise of that right would result in a breach of the peace. Mostly, the concern in colonial times was against groups under arms, especially during public gatherings such as church services, or using a weapon against persons under judicial protection. The 1776 Delaware Constitution barred carrying weapons at elections in order to prevent coercion at the polls, stating that "no person shall come armed to any of them, and no muster of the militia shall be made on that day.” So clearly, there was an understanding that the right to keep and bear arms could be abused, and the brandishing of arms in certain venues would constitute such an abuse. In addition, an owner of private property would be within his rights to bar weapons from his property.

BTW, the courts usually found that concealed carry was less likely to be protected by the Second Amendment than open carry, since assassins, criminals and others who were trying to conceal arms tended to be more likely to do so in the commission of a crime, while those who carried openly were less likely. It was the intent of the carrier, and the abuse of the right, which was restricted, rather than the right itself.

[FlaGator]

Where in the Constitution does it say, "shall not be infringed except by California?

You comment is beyond the scope of the ruling. The ruling merely said that one state is not constitutionally obligated to recognize the law of the other when the issue in question is not a constitutional one.

What you stated is an issue between the people of California and their congress. If they don't like the laws then they should vote for the right people to change the law. If they feel they are being denied a constitutional right then they should take it up with the Surpreme Court.

[Rockntractor]

The framers of the Constitution could have used many words other than 'shall not infringe', had they intended for every state, county and municipality to add their own regulations too this to the point where in many places it is virtually impossible to own a gun or carry one they would have said so.
I seriously think they meant for no one to fuck with this right in any way.

[LukeEDay]

The framers of the Constitution could have used many words other than 'shall not infringe', had they intended for every state, county and municipality to add their own regulations too this to the point where in many places it is virtually impossible to own a gun or carry one they would have said so.
I seriously think they meant for no one to fuck with this right in any way.

That could very well be the case, and I believe it was. But the 10th Amendment which adds states right, changed that.. In my opinion.

[FlaGator]

The framers of the Constitution could have used many words other than 'shall not infringe', had they intended for every state, county and municipality to add their own regulations too this to the point where in many places it is virtually impossible to own a gun or carry one they would have said so.
I seriously think they meant for no one to fuck with this right in any way.

So if Crazy Uncle Joe, who has a long history of mental instability wants to go and get a gun, his right should not be infringed upon?

[Rockntractor]

So if Crazy Uncle Joe, who has a long history of mental instability wants to go and get a gun, his right should not be infringed upon?

If crazy uncle Joe wasn't safe you didn't blame the tool, you locked up uncle Joe, unlike the irresponsible circle jerk this country has become the criminals were dealt with not the sharp pointy things or bricks or baseball bats or guns, individuals were dealt with. murderers were killed for their crime and not after 20 years of appeals.

[FlaGator]

If crazy uncle Joe wasn't safe you didn't blame the tool, you locked up uncle Joe, unlike the irresponsible circle jerk this country has become the criminals were dealt with not the sharp pointy things or bricks or baseball bats or guns, individuals were dealt with. murderers were killed for their crime and not after 20 years of appeals.

I am not blaming the tool. I want to know if you think that it is ok to sell crazy uncle Joe a gun?

[NJCardFan]

Thus, while there is a right to carry, the states can determine that there are times or places where the exercise of that right would result in a breach of the peace.

In NJ, this means in your own house meaning that if someone breaks into your house, you must use every means of egress meaning you must leave your house to the robber. If you shoot them and you had a means of egress, not only can you be arrested but the robber or their family can sue you. I don't have to because I'm law enforcement but John Q. Homeowner does.