Let's make Concealed Carry a RIGHT

[BradAnderson]

I would like to propose that everyone in states that allow open carry, band together to challenge Concealed Carry laws in court.

For example, Michigan CCW-law is unconstitutional by requiring a permit to carry concealed, despite recognizing the right to carry openly. This also goes for many other states which allow Open Carry.

This is a violation of federal privacy-rights, which are defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny, in activities that are in accord with law and public policy.

Since carrying is a right under the Michigan Constitution, then the open-carry requirement is a violation of federal privacy-rights.

By filing a federal suit against the Michigan CC law, we can secure our federal privacy-rights by carrying concealed as a matter of right, not as a matter of privilege.

This means that all Michigan citizens will be able to carry concealed WITHOUT a permit-- just like they are able to carry openly now.

Again, we have the LEGAL RIGHT to carry concealed, but this is being violated by the Michigan legislature. It's our right and duty to take action to take it back.

 

[blkdragon]

Mr. Anderson,

I lived in Michigan for years, left for the service of our country, now vowing to never return as a citizen. You live in one the most liberally run states in the Union. Well, O.K. not including Washington, DC, which really isn't a state, and California. You have my sincerest apologizes.

The one bright spot in all of this garbage that our President is undertaking is that they have so over reached. The tide is turning we may get our wish, sooner than either one of us might think.


Scott Williams
Black Dragon Personal Protection/Firearms Training/Unarmed Combat

 

[BradAnderson]

You HAVE been gone a long time. In 2002, Michigan became a "must issue" state, wherein CCW permits are issued to anyone who applies, unless they have a criminal record-- or have been "diagnosed with a mental illness" (regardless of whether they present a threat to themselves or others).

Likewise, anyone can open-carry, without a permit. Therefore the open-cary law requiring a CCW permit to carry concealed, is therefore a violation of federal privacy laws for reasons I've mentioned.

The Michigan Constitution clearly states that "Every person has the right to bear arms for defense of self or the state;" likewise, federal privacy-law prohibit any law tha exposes a person to public scrutiny in otherwise-lawful activity.

Since bearing arms is a RIGHT in Michigan, then the open-carry law violates federal privacy-laws, since it exposes a person to public scrutiny in bearing arms.

 

[Invisible_Dave]

We are doing it here in California. Click there for 78 pages. September 24 is the date for both the 9th circuit Nordyke hearing and the Sykes MSJ hearing.

 

[XD-Fender]

Concealed and open carry already are our right, as part of the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and extended vis-a-vis the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that the federal and states' governments routinely violate that right, and we citizens have for far too long allowed them to do so, to the point that it is now widely accepted among average Americans that we do not have such a right that cannot be constitutionally infringed on by the several governments.

It is a re-education that is required, from the smallest child to POTUS, everyone needs to be educated about what was commonly known and understood at the founding of the country and for many years thereafter, but which since has been largely forgotten and misconstrued.

 

[BradAnderson]

Concealed and open carry already are our right, as part of the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and extended vis-a-vis the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that the federal and states' governments routinely violate that right, and we citizens have for far too long allowed them to do so, to the point that it is now widely accepted among average Americans that we do not have such a right that cannot be constitutionally infringed on by the several governments.

It is a re-education that is required, from the smallest child to POTUS, everyone needs to be educated about what was commonly known and understood at the founding of the country and for many years thereafter, but which since has been largely forgotten and misconstrued.

There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please.

However state cannot grant gun-carrying as a right, but still impose restrictions on it that violate federal privacy-laws.

 

[Invisible_Dave]

There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please.

However they cannot grant it as a right, but still impose restrictions on it that violate federal privacy-laws.

What case said that? My understanding is that the Heller case actually said the exact opposite.

If you look up Nordyke, the 9th circuit incorporated the 2nd as a federal right. It is now going to be heard en banc on Sept 24 in San Fransicso. If and when the SCOTUS hears it (either on appeal or due to dissenting opinions between the 9th and 7th circuit) they will be forced to rule on incorporation and how it applies at the state level. This could be done in the fall session.

There are some amazing things happening right now, many within the VERY liberal 9th circuit. I'll find some of the wikipedia pages and post links here shortly.

 

[Boomboy007]

Exactly.

Concealed and open carry already are our right, as part of the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and extended vis-a-vis the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that the federal and states' governments routinely violate that right, and we citizens have for far too long allowed them to do so, to the point that it is now widely accepted among average Americans that we do not have such a right that cannot be constitutionally infringed on by the several governments.

It is a re-education that is required, from the smallest child to POTUS, everyone needs to be educated about what was commonly known and understood at the founding of the country and for many years thereafter, but which since has been largely forgotten and misconstrued.

+1. Concise and clear and spot-on.

 

[XD-Fender]

There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please.

However they cannot grant it as a right, but still impose restrictions on it that violate federal privacy-laws.

The rationale of the line of Supreme Court cases that address the issue of whether the 14th Amendment extended the 2nd Amendment vis-a-vis the states (the Cruikshank line of cases) has been thoroughly rejected by dozens of subsequent cases on the import of the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS has not reviewed the specific issue of the 2A/14A in over a century. When Nordyke or another case in which the 14A issue is specificially at issue goes to SCOTUS, SCOTUS will overturn the Cruikshank line--it's virtually certain, in light of modern-day 14A jurisprudence. Indeed, SCOTUS effectively indicated as much in its now famous footnote in Heller.

 

[BradAnderson]

The rationale of the line of Supreme Court cases that address the issue of whether the 14th Amendment extended the 2nd Amendment vis-a-vis the states

Where did you get this idea that I was talking about the 2nd Amendment? I didn't say that, YOU said that.

I was talking about the federal right of PRIVACY. To wit:

This is a violation of federal privacy-rights, which are defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny, in activities that are in accord with law and public policy.

OC/CC laws prohibit carrying a gun concealed, but ALLOW carrying openly without a permit.
If carrying a gun is legal, then state laws require carrying openly are in violation of these rights.

You're clearly on a crusade, hijacking other threads. Stop it.

 

[BradAnderson]

+1. Concise and clear and spot-on.

Like hell, every single US citizen can understand the law, but it won't make a whit of difference if the US Supreme Court says "no."
If he's suggesting electing senators and presidents to appoint the right Supreme Court judges, then forget it: rights, by definition, don't invove jumping through hoops.

 

[BradAnderson]

What case said that? My understanding is that the Heller case actually said the exact opposite.

If you look up Nordyke, the 9th circuit incorporated the 2nd as a federal right. It is now going to be heard en banc on Sept 24 in San Fransicso. If and when the SCOTUS hears it (either on appeal or due to dissenting opinions between the 9th and 7th circuit) they will be forced to rule on incorporation and how it applies at the state level. This could be done in the fall session.

There are some amazing things happening right now, many within the VERY liberal 9th circuit. I'll find some of the wikipedia pages and post links here shortly.

No, don't. I was talking about the states: If state laws recognize the right to carry a gun, they can't refuse to allow people to carry concealed-- that's a violation of federal PRIVACY rights.


The 14th Amendment, simply says that all federal rights must be respected by all state laws:

Amendment XIV
Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In my state at least, the state Constitution expressly states that EVERY PERSON has the RIGHT to bear arms for self-defense.
Likewise, NO state can pass laws, which infringe on federal privacy-rights, to be free from public scrutiny.

By requiring a person to carry their gun openly, even though carrying is a right, this is an infringement of the federal right of privacy.

As I said initially: states DO have the right to regulate or ban guns, but if they recognize such a right, then they do NOT have the right to regulate them in a manner which infringes on federal privacy-rights.

This would be different, if the state held that bearing arms was only a PRIVILEGE; then, they could impose various reqirements on carrying-- just like they qualify DRIVING as a privilege; and so require that every driver has a license and insurance, and that every car has a license-plate.

However in contrast, the state CANNOT make you wear a name-tag, live in a glass house in full public view, or carry everything openly on a tray for everyone to see, because that's a violation of your federal privacy-rights.
It's the same thing with carrying a gun. If the state considers it your RIGHT to bear arms, then it cannot require you to carry it openly for all to see, since this is ALSO a violation of your federal right to privacy.

 

[Boomboy007]

Easy, Brad, I agree with you about the right....

Like hell, every single US citizen can understand the law, but it won't make a whit of difference if the US Supreme Court says "no."
If he's suggesting electing senators and presidents to appoint the right Supreme Court judges, then forget it: rights, by definition, don't invove jumping through hoops.

Unfortunately, if every single U.S. citizen understood the law, then we wouldn't HAVE a supreme court, nor would we need one. What SHOULD be the case is not what IS the case.

Personally, I see the whole bloated, corpulent entity that is our federal government being far more akin to a cancer than an actual government as set out in our founding documents. Little by little, over a period of a couple of hundred years, our liberties have been chipped away, like healthy cells, to be replaced with multiple legislative tumors that suppress the "immune system" that is our liberty.

The original vision of our federal government was small, with a very few clearly defined roles. What we have now is a mess, and I don't think that it is repairable. Sometimes one must simply excise the tumor.

 

[BradAnderson]

Unfortunately, if every single U.S. citizen understood the law, then we wouldn't HAVE a supreme court, nor would we need one. What SHOULD be the case is not what IS the case.

Actually the court only exists to resolve disagreements about the meaning of the law where it's unclear.
However this situation is perfectly clear.

Personally, I see the whole bloated, corpulent entity that is our federal government being far more akin to a cancer

That's great, but let's stick to open-carry laws, ok?

There is a federal right of privacy, which supersedes state laws that violate it.

Open-carry laws are an example of this.

 

[Debray]

HOUSE RESOLUTION 45
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing
and Record of Sale Act of 2009



The Congressional Plan to Disarm Americans

No legislator in their right mind would vote for this bill now but you need to be aware of what is going on in Congress regarding gun ownership. I'm sorry; did I assume our House of Representatives were in their right minds? The Blair Holt Act is sweeping legislation that forces you to take extensive and numerous actions in order to own a gun or you will be criminalized.

Bill: House Resolution 45

Sponsor: Rep. Bobby Rush, Democrat from Illinois

Referred to: House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

1. Everyone will need a firearms license to own a gun and there will be a fee paid to the Attorney General.
2. You will be required to turn your guns into a firearms dealer for any transfers. Transfers include passing down your firearms to family members.
3. Report any address change to the Attorney General within 60 days.
4. Restrict you from having access to a loaded gun if there is someone under 18 in your home.
5. Fine and imprison you for failure to comply with any of the regulations.

These points are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[vn6869]

XD-Fender - You're over my head - SCOTUS? :to_pick_ones_nose:

But they took the right from us state by state. Maybe it's time we took it back, state by state. My lovely state of Illinois is severly lagging behind in its gun rights laws - thanks to the Chicago politicians. :cray:

 

[XD-Fender]

XD-Fender - You're over my head - SCOTUS? :to_pick_ones_nose:

But they took the right from us state by state. Maybe it's time we took it back, state by state. My lovely state of Illinois is severly lagging behind in its gun rights laws - thanks to the Chicago politicians. :cray:

Sorry--SCOTUS is "Supreme Court Of The United States" (like "POTUS" is "President Of The United States").

Where did you get this idea that I was talking about the 2nd Amendment? I didn't say that, YOU said that.

Missing the point: You stated that "There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please." The statement that "states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please" is not correct. They are subject to the same restrictions on regulating firearms that the federal government (and the District of Columbia--thank you Heller) are under the 2A, because those restrictions have been extended to the states via the 14A. SCOTUS will recognize this when one of the presenty pending cases involving this issue is before it, reversing the century-old line of cases from Cruikshank. So your point is effectively moot (and will be "officially" so when SCOTUS rules on this).

 

[Desertrat]

Agreed!

 

[BradAnderson]

Sorry--SCOTUS is "Supreme Court Of The United States" (like "POTUS" is "President Of The United States").



Missing the point: You stated that "There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please." The statement that "states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please" is not correct. They are subject to the same restrictions on regulating firearms that the federal government (and the District of Columbia--thank you Heller) are under the 2A, because those restrictions have been extended to the states via the 14A. SCOTUS will recognize this when one of the presenty pending cases involving this issue is before it, reversing the century-old line of cases from Cruikshank. So your point is effectively moot (and will be "officially" so when SCOTUS rules on this).

Until then, Federal courts have ruled that the 2A only protects a state's right to a well-regulated militia, NOT an indiviidual right to keep and bear arms; therefore the states are NOT required to respect the right to bear arms.
However again, that's not what I'm talking about, so please cease from decorating this pie-in-the-sky.

My point is that if a state Constitution does spell out this right, then both the state supreme court and the federal district courts, are required to enforce federal requirements of equal protection and privacy.

 

[Invisible_Dave]

Sir you're panicing.