The Annoyed Man -
I like the way you think!
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Open-Carry is a right, but concealed carry is not?”
- Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:19 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Open-Carry is a right, but concealed carry is not?
- Replies: 52
- Views: 8052
- Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:53 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Open-Carry is a right, but concealed carry is not?
- Replies: 52
- Views: 8052
Re: Open-Carry is a right, but concealed carry is not?
Charles-
Excellent post! I am in complete agreement with your thoughts here. Heller was, and is, a great start on returning our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. But it is only a first step. Heller did confirm an individual right in the constitution to own a firearm, but that is almost all that it did.
I am a strict constitutionalist. We are either a nation of and under law, or we are not. There is no gray area there. I believe that the Constitution is written in plain language and that it needs very little interpretation to be fully understood both by our system of courts and by the general population. “Right of the people” means just what it says, a right of the people. That’s me and you and everyone else. If you don’t like that, change the constitution by the built in amendment process. Just don’t try to twist the original intent to fit your own idea of what you want it to mean.
I do believe that the Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right to not only “Keep” but also to “Bear” arms. The document does not differentiate between concealed and open carry, in fact no method of bearing or carry is mentioned. I would therefore conclude that the method of bearing is up to the individual under our constitution.
Excellent post! I am in complete agreement with your thoughts here. Heller was, and is, a great start on returning our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. But it is only a first step. Heller did confirm an individual right in the constitution to own a firearm, but that is almost all that it did.
I am a strict constitutionalist. We are either a nation of and under law, or we are not. There is no gray area there. I believe that the Constitution is written in plain language and that it needs very little interpretation to be fully understood both by our system of courts and by the general population. “Right of the people” means just what it says, a right of the people. That’s me and you and everyone else. If you don’t like that, change the constitution by the built in amendment process. Just don’t try to twist the original intent to fit your own idea of what you want it to mean.
I do believe that the Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right to not only “Keep” but also to “Bear” arms. The document does not differentiate between concealed and open carry, in fact no method of bearing or carry is mentioned. I would therefore conclude that the method of bearing is up to the individual under our constitution.