2nd Amendment, what is infringement?

[_Adam_]

I know this will just rile up the pro-gun crowd, but I'm really just curious. . .

How does an amendment that qualifies a right with:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" translate into a right for anyone to carry guns wherever you go?  Who here is in a Militia?  Who thinks that a Militia is still even necessary in this day and age?  I'm not against gun ownership, and own a few, but I never carry one and could live without them.   I really think that this amendment was meant for different times.   You can spin it however you like, but the Militia was necessary at one time in our history, now it's not.   (Unless maybe you're one of those that think the gov't is out to get you and take your guns away like some folks do these days. . . )

Also, talk of law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners being infringed upon.   These laws aren't meant for you.   It is my opinion that laws are written for the knuckle heads that would otherwise be running around wreaking havoc if they weren't there.   Take for instance guys like Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded pistol in the waistband of his sweat pants.   The sweet irony of his situation is that he ended up shooting himself, but it could have easily been anyone else in that club.   I would prefer not to be in public with those idiots like that myself.   So if a concealed weapon law makes it less likely that they will not have one tucked in their waistband, I'm all for it.

I think that is the crux of the problem.  Gun control does nothing to stop criminals.  By nature, criminals don't care about the law.  Gun control typically only restricts the rights of those willing to follow the letter the law in the first place.  With Griff placing his pistol in his pocket he is breaking the law if he doesn't have special permission yet I'd assume that he is otherwise a law-abiding upright citizen that I would [probably] be glad to call a friend.

[griff61]

No, you can't do both.   You can open carry without a permit in AZ, but to conceal you need permission, which is an infringement upon your 2A rights.

I agree, we should stick to the topic at hand. . .

To conceal and enter an establishment, yes you do, to carry in your pocket etc, not so much.
I think I might start another thread, because there's nothing in a concealed carry law that keeps you from owning or carrying a gun. Keep and bear arms. Nope, nothing in my state's laws infringe on that.

I promise you that if you place your pistol in your pocket, you are now concealing it in the eyes of the law.  If you don't have special permission from your state/local government in the form of a CWP, you are breaking the law.

A law-abiding citizen should not need special permission to maintain the element of surprise against those who wish to do him harm.  Licenses are an infringement upon your rights.

Also, 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment, so Heller means little to people in the individual states until it is incorporated.

You are welcome to promise all you desire, hoever I am well aware of my rights. Please point out the part of the 2nd that guarantees you a right 'of surprise'.

Obviously that is not a stated right.  The 2A merely asserts that your rights are not to be infringed upon, but they have.  And they will continue to do so.  As long as there is registration and special licensing, your rights have been infringed upon.

Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.

Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?

[avg_joe]

I know this will just rile up the pro-gun crowd, but I'm really just curious.  .  . 

How does an amendment that qualifies a right with:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" translate into a right for anyone to carry guns wherever you go?  Who here is in a Militia?  Who thinks that a Militia is still even necessary in this day and age?  I'm not against gun ownership, and own a few, but I never carry one and could live without them.    I really think that this amendment was meant for different times.    You can spin it however you like, but the Militia was necessary at one time in our history, now it's not.    (Unless maybe you're one of those that think the gov't is out to get you and take your guns away like some folks do these days.  .  .  )

Also, talk of law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners being infringed upon.    These laws aren't meant for you.    It is my opinion that laws are written for the knuckle heads that would otherwise be running around wreaking havoc if they weren't there.    Take for instance guys like Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded pistol in the waistband of his sweat pants.    The sweet irony of his situation is that he ended up shooting himself, but it could have easily been anyone else in that club.    I would prefer not to be in public with those idiots like that myself.    So if a concealed weapon law makes it less likely that they will not have one tucked in their waistband, I'm all for it. 

I think that is the crux of the problem.   Gun control does nothing to stop criminals.   By nature, criminals don't care about the law.   Gun control typically only restricts the rights of those willing to follow the letter the law in the first place.   With Griff placing his pistol in his pocket he is breaking the law if he doesn't have special permission yet I'd assume that he is otherwise a law-abiding upright citizen that I would [probably] be glad to call a friend.

I know criminals are gonna break the law anyway, I'm really just referring to the all jackasses out there. . .

[_Adam_]

I know criminals are gonna break the law anyway, I'm really just referring to the all jackasses out there. . .

We'll never have a shortage of those.  I think it was Einstein who said...  "There are two things I am sure of, the infinite universe, and human stupidity.  I am not so sure about the first."

[_Adam_]

Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.

Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?

In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission.   That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check.  What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights?  If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.

Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along.  Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them.  California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.

[griff61]

Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.

Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?

In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission.   That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check.  What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights?  If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.

Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along.  Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them.  California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.

If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated, then the States are pretty much free to regulate as they see fit. That's the law. It isn't even, legally, an abuse of power. Whether it sucks or not isn't really a legal issue.

My question was, Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun? your example restricts ownership of a single type of weapon, maybe it will be struck down, but it doesn't ban all gun ownership, not even handguns.

[_Adam_]

Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.

Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?

In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission.   That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check.  What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights?  If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.

Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along.  Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them.  California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.

If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated, then the States are pretty much free to regulate as they see fit. That's the law. It isn't even, legally, an abuse of power. Whether it sucks or not isn't really a legal issue.

My question was, Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun? your example restricts ownership of a single type of weapon, maybe it will be struck down, but it doesn't ban all gun ownership, not even handguns.

I gave you a specific example of an infringement happening in Portland Oregon.  In Portland city limits, if you have a loaded firearm, your right to bare arms has been infringed.

[griff61]

Your personal opinion is nice, but it ain't the law.
Just like the opposite opinion that when the people are referenced everywhere else it means citizens, except in the second amendment, where it means government.

Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun?
For even an more fun tangent, does the Constitution apply to the Feds only or is it binding on the states as well?

In Portland, Oregon, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun within the city limits unless you are granted special permission.   That permission is granted when a citizen pays a fee and passes a background check.  What if that citizen cannot afford the fee, does he/she no longer have 2A rights?  If a poll tax is unconstitutional, so should fees for registration and fees for concealed weapons permits.

Recently, Heller established an individual right, which has been my "nice" opinion all along.  Here is the kicker, the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights, and the states can still infringe upon them.  California and New York seem to enjoy stomping on your 2nd amendment rights.

If the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated, then the States are pretty much free to regulate as they see fit. That's the law. It isn't even, legally, an abuse of power. Whether it sucks or not isn't really a legal issue.

My question was, Which part of registration or conceal carry laws keep you from owning or carrying a gun? your example restricts ownership of a single type of weapon, maybe it will be struck down, but it doesn't ban all gun ownership, not even handguns.

I gave you a specific example of an infringement happening in Portland Oregon.  In Portland city limits, if you have a loaded firearm, your right to bare arms has been infringed.

The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.

[_Adam_]

The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.

I am tired of this conversation.  If you want to play sematics, do it with someone else.  Thank you for the spirited debate.

[griff61]

The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.

I am tired of this conversation.  If you want to play sematics, do it with someone else.  Thank you for the spirited debate.

You, yourself pointed out that "the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights" which part of that is my semantics?

In other words, my statement would be, how can the state be guilty of infringement, if there is no law that prohibits it?

[_Adam_]

The 2nd applies to the Feds, not the States, a fact you pointed out yourself. Therefore, your example is invalid.
If you'd like to split hairs, it isn't an infringement if only for the fact that it doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun, it only restricts carrying a loaded handgun, so you can carry it unloaded all day long.

I am tired of this conversation.  If you want to play sematics, do it with someone else.  Thank you for the spirited debate.

You, yourself pointed out that "the 2A has not been incorporated against the states as of yet, so it only applies to the feds infringing upon our rights" which part of that is my semantics?

In other words, my statement would be, how can the state be guilty of infringement, if there is no law that prohibits it?

And I also told you that many states have provisions in their constitution that further articulate a right to keep and bare arms yet those very states infringe upon the rights of the citizens.

I think the primary difference between us is that you see what you believe and I believe what I see.

[Bryan]

The Constitution & Bill of Rights grants nothing.  It is a statement of specific issues the federal goverment is to keep thier nose out of.  The federal goverment is supposed to be set up to promote commerce and harmony amongst these united states.
Unfortunatly it is rapidly mutating in to what our founders feared it would become.

[griff61]

And I also told you that many states have provisions in their constitution that further articulate a right to keep and bare arms yet those very states infringe upon the rights of the citizens.

I think the primary difference between us is that you see what you believe and I believe what I see.

I was only addressing the example you gave of Portland, Oregon. Does its State Constitution address this, because if it does, you didn't mention it.

[_Adam_]

And I also told you that many states have provisions in their constitution that further articulate a right to keep and bare arms yet those very states infringe upon the rights of the citizens.

I think the primary difference between us is that you see what you believe and I believe what I see.

I was only addressing the example you gave of Portland, Oregon. Does its State Constitution address this, because if it does, you didn't mention it.

You are right, I didn't and I should have.  There are only a few states that do not have a provision concerning arms in their respective constitution.

[Winterfire2008]

It is the duty of the individual states to enact laws that govern whether there should be gun control, how gun licenses and weapon permits should be issued,  and what kind of guns should be legal.  It's is the Federal Government responsibility to ensure it is constitutional.

Doesn't it strike people  that there hasn't been many challenges to the 2nd amendment.  The latest one in 2008 was the first in decades and really only addressed the issue that banning hand guns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.