Constitutional carry phrase

[utbagpiper]

Actually it does. I can carry ing my state because of the constitution. Which gives me un restricted carry of a firearm

Hiding that firearm like a bad guy, is to be permitted after i have went through a check to see if i was a bad guy that hides my gun.

Remember not everybody that hides their gun is a bad guy. But every bad guy hides his gun

I can understand the states without the constitutional right to carry a firearm. Like TX, TN, SC, FL want to be liberated.
Using a false moniker, like MOMS, Brady bunch, BATF, or anytown. Is just wrong

I don't understand why someone who claims to support RKBA would use pejorative terms like "hides my gun" to describe the peaceful practice of carrying a gun discretely, or protected from the elements.

I am very much in favor of OC. I'm also very much in favor of CC, and CCC. I do not understand those who oppose OC. It is even harder for me to understand those who disparage the choice to carry discretely.

As has been explained, there is nothing "false" about using the term "constitutional carry" to describe a bill, law, or practice of carrying--visibly or discretely--without needing to first obtain a permit.

If you wish to have a civil, intelligent dialogue, you must move beyond simple and repeated emphatic assertion, to actually engage with those who respond to you. You need to either offer rational counters to their points, or concede that they have presented things in a way you had not previously considered. What you are doing in this thread is not how adults discuss or debate issues or views.

 

[Grapeshot]

I don't understand why someone who claims to support RKBA would use pejorative terms like "hides my gun" to describe the peaceful practice of carrying a gun discretely, or protected from the elements.

--snipped--

Because criminals are not being discrete nor protecting their gun from the elements. They are hiding it.

They are also not peace loving.

 

[utbagpiper]

Because criminals are not being discrete nor protecting their gun from the elements. They are hiding it.

They are also not peace loving.

And what do criminals have to do with anyone here or those whose rights we work to protect?

Is it not the anti-RKBA hoplophobes who like to conflate law abiding citizens prepared to defend themselves with criminals and mentally unstable folks? Let us not fall into the same trap. The distinction is not how one carries a gun, but rather how one employs the gun.

A goodly number of us actually believe that even violent criminals should have all their rights respected once they have completed their sentence and been released to live their lives unsupervised. It certainly makes no sense to turn around and claim that because a very small number of people who are criminals tend to hide their weapons until ready to use them, that we law abiding should be subject to any prior restraint on how we carry. Let us remember, it was very plausible claims about criminals favoring "saw off shotguns and machine guns" that were used to support confiscatory taxes and the eventual, effective banning of those items. It was plausible sounding claims about criminals favoring "assault weapons" or of such firearms having no legitimate uses that supported the 10 year federal ban based on cosmetics.

Any infringement of our rights can be justified by pointing out that criminals do one thing or another. Few here would assent to such "logic" applied in any other area. We should not stoop to using it to justify any hostility to CC. Similarly, many here rightly take offense when those who prefer CC denigrate OC. It would be hypocritical, at least, for any such person to turn around and attack CC in any way.

Support for OC, even the strongest support for OC need not and should not ever translate into any hostility whatsoever to peaceable discrete carry, or to peaceably carrying a gun such that it is not exposed to the elements. We should never support government mandated dress codes in order to peaceably exercise our rights.

 

[Grapeshot]

And what do criminals have to do with anyone here or those whose rights we work to protect?

--snipped--

You weave a winding/twisted path to which I will not respond. Has all been covered here before.

Others may chose to as they wish.

 

[OC for ME]

Hide or conceal...call it what you will. The result is the same.

My view is that constitutional carry is carrying while knowing there are no prior restraints on the peaceable carry of my handgun.

 

[hammer6]

i just can't understand how any requirement to purchase a license has been upheld as constitutional. it's like an oxymoron. if it was constitutional, then there wouldn't be any infringements.

do they actually call it constitutional in the SCOTUS cases, or do they call it permissible? (talking about their decisions that have allowed restrictions on carry)

 

[countryclubjoe]

The fact that other humans have the de-facto power/authority to determine when,where and how another human may protect his/her self and family, seems to me not only tyrannical, unconstitutional but also villainous. How anyone with half a brain would follow the dictates of said unconstitutional villainous tyrants is a major mystery unto me. Is it fear or ignorance for such compliance?

" Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights" United States v Minker..

Call me a rebel, but I shall never give another human the power to dictate how I protect myself and my family from those that wish to do me ill will.

" Freedom is not about doing whatever we please, its about not belonging to anyone else".. In matters of protecting ourself and family we need not belong to anyone else.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

Infringed--- Actively break the terms of a law, agreement etc. Act so as to limit or undermine(something) encroach on..

Seems fairly simple to me..

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[color of law]

The fact that other humans have the de-facto power/authority to determine when,where and how another human may protect his/her self and family, seems to me not only tyrannical, unconstitutional but also villainous. How anyone with half a brain would follow the dictates of said unconstitutional villainous tyrants is a major mystery unto me. Is it fear or ignorance for such compliance?

" Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights" United States v Minker..

Call me a rebel, but I shall never give another human the power to dictate how I protect myself and my family from those that wish to do me ill will.

" Freedom is not about doing whatever we please, its about not belonging to anyone else".. In matters of protecting ourself and family we need not belong to anyone else.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

Infringed--- Actively break the terms of a law, agreement etc. Act so as to limit or undermine(something) encroach on..

Seems fairly simple to me..

My .02
Regards
CCJ

Because of your above views I can jump to the conclusion that, even though NJ's constitution doesn't address the right to keep and bear arms, you carry in the public, concealed or otherwise, because the federal constitution, 2nd amendment, does apply to NJ.

 

[Grapeshot]

Because of your above views I can jump to the conclusion that, even though NJ's constitution doesn't address the right to keep and bear arms, you carry in the public, concealed or otherwise, because the federal constitution, 2nd amendment, does apply to NJ.

The 2nd Amedment is a restriction on the government, not to be confused with specifically authorizing any form of carry. Much confused topic.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Because of your above views I can jump to the conclusion that, even though NJ's constitution doesn't address the right to keep and bear arms, you carry in the public, concealed or otherwise, because the federal constitution, 2nd amendment, does apply to NJ.

Indeed, I have expounded here many times... I CC in NJ and while in PA and or DE, I usually OC weather permitting..

I refuse to give authority to others on how I protect myself and my family..

The highest form of a tyrannical action is dictating how a human being should protect him/her self and family..

I would never think fit to tell you you must drive a Cadillac or wear a wool suit, if I did you would tell me to get lost, same sentiment should apply to petty tyrants that attempt to tell us how to protect ourselves and our posterity.. " Tell them to go pound sand and die while doing it"..

If anyone here can find a higher form of tyranny than that of suppressing our God given right for protecting ourselves and posterity, please come forward..

My .02


COL, always a pleasure Sir!

CCJ

 

[papa bear]

A bit off subject here. Just want to say that unrestricted carrying of a fire arm is constitutional. I feel luck to live in a state that honors that. I agree that some states thumb their nose at the constitution. I learned yesterday that CT was one of them. Like i said, I understand non free states not knowing what liberty is. They need to feel freedom. It is amazing when people from a non free state comes here



But make no doubt about it. Hiding your firearm like a bad guy, is a privilege. I wear mine so the honest world can see. Great to ward off bad guys.

It just feels to me like when some moron calls a CCW a CHP

 

[color of law]

A bit off subject here. Just want to say that unrestricted carrying of a fire arm is constitutional. I feel luck to live in a state that honors that. I agree that some states thumb their nose at the constitution. I learned yesterday that CT was one of them. Like i said, I understand non free states not knowing what liberty is. They need to feel freedom. It is amazing when people from a non free state comes here

But make no doubt about it. Hiding your firearm like a bad guy, is a privilege. I wear mine so the honest world can see. Great to ward off bad guys.

It just feels to me like when some moron calls a CCW a CHP

So, when it is 20 degrees outside and snowing heavily it's a privilege to protect my firearm from the weather?

 

[WalkingWolf]

So, when it is 20 degrees outside and snowing heavily it's a privilege to protect my firearm from the weather?

A handgun is a tool for self protection, a shovel is a tool for clearing snow. How do you protect the shovel from the weather. The problem is no matter how you/I view it the courts have ruled, over, and over again, CC can be restricted, and it can be permitted. Even when the courts have ruled that carry is a right they still protect the permission process. Even in most so called "constitutional carry" states being allowed to carry without permit is given with the stroke of a pen, and can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. Only those states where it is part of the state constitution, and protected by the courts is there constitutional carry. Any thing else is allowed carry at the whim of tyrants.

Most of the handguns I own can survive rain, or snow. I have even drowned a 1911 once after a fall in the creak, even after a good, I mean good soaking the firearm still functioned. And when I had an opportunity to fire the ammo every round went boom.

 

[JamesCanby]

A bit off subject here. Just want to say that unrestricted carrying of a fire arm is constitutional. I feel luck to live in a state that honors that. I agree that some states thumb their nose at the constitution. I learned yesterday that CT was one of them. Like i said, I understand non free states not knowing what liberty is. They need to feel freedom. It is amazing when people from a non free state comes here



But make no doubt about it. Hiding your firearm like a bad guy, is a privilege. I wear mine so the honest world can see. Great to ward off bad guys.

It just feels to me like when some moron calls a CCW a CHP

Really? Did you just categorize every Virginian who legally carries a concealed firearm a Moron because the Commonwealth of Virginia has named its document a Concealed Handgun Permit, i.e., a CHP...???

As for NC honoring the "unrestricted carrying of a firearm" as a constitutional right, doesn't NC require a permit for concealed carry? Hardly constitutional carry, is it? And (gasp) it seems that NC also calls its permit a CHP! So all NC concealed carriers are Morons also?

Your disdain for those who carry concealed when they deem it necessary or appropriate, even though many of them may usually openly carry, does not seem to provide a civil discourse on the subject. To characterize as Morons those law-abiding citizens who carry for their self defense, whether it be concealed or openly is, in my opinion, disgraceful and insulting.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Really? Did you just categorize every Virginian who legally carries a concealed firearm a Moron because the Commonwealth of Virginia has named its document a Concealed Handgun Permit, i.e., a CHP...???

As for NC honoring the "unrestricted carrying of a firearm" as a constitutional right, doesn't NC require a permit for concealed carry? Hardly constitutional carry, is it? And (gasp) it seems that NC also calls its permit a CHP! So all NC concealed carriers are Morons also?

Your disdain for those who carry concealed when they deem it necessary or appropriate, even though many of them may usually openly carry, does not seem to provide a civil discourse on the subject. To characterize as Morons those law-abiding citizens who carry for their self defense, whether it be concealed or openly is, in my opinion, disgraceful and insulting.

I think he has that in reverse, calm down. In NC the permit is a CHP, so calling it a CCW is not accurate. It does not bother me though I do correct people when they do it. He has shown no disdain as far as I can see, like me it appears his message is quit calling something it is not. It is counter to our goal of protecting our rights to make stuff up, even if it is popular made up stuff. A certain gun (cough, cough) rights group is responsible for our plight. They supported the same laws they now claim they are against, and they have twisted the 2A into a money making scheme. I support those that carry concealed, but please do not blow smoke up my arse it is insulting.

Carrying concealed with permission from lawmakers IS NOT A RIGHT. Do it but don't lie about it.

 

[utbagpiper]

Carrying concealed or openly with permission from lawmakers IS NOT A RIGHT. Do it but don't lie about it.

FIFY.

The difference between right and privilege has nothing to do with whether the gun is visible, and everything to do with whether there is prior restraint to doing so.

We must drop the hostility to different, peaceable modes of carry. Those in so-called and much-maligned P4P industry who attack OC are rightly demonized here. Nobody here should be so hypocritical as to turn around and castigate discrete, concealed, covered, or casually concealed carry of a firearm. The 2nd amendment does not impose a dress code.

 

[utbagpiper]

... The problem is no matter how you/I view it the courts have ruled, over, and over again, CC can be restricted, and it can be permitted. Even when the courts have ruled that carry is a right they still protect the permission process.

Will you please provide citations to these multitude of rulings? I'm especially interested in said rulings from the SCOTUS, directly addressing what the 2nd amendment does or does not protect.

...
Even in most so called "constitutional carry" states being allowed to carry without permit is given with the stroke of a pen, and can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. Only those states where it is part of the state constitution, and protected by the courts is there constitutional carry. Any thing else is allowed carry at the whim of tyrants.

Which State constitutions contain explicit language prohibiting any permit requirement to carry? The North Carolina State Constitutional protection of RKBA is not worded any stronger than many other States have. I note that their current State constitutional RKBA provision contains a specific allowance for the legislature to impose penalties for concealed carry that was passed in response to an earlier court ruling in favor of RKBA North Carolina enjoys a strong, pro-OC decision from its highest State court. But that could be taken away with a change in social/political leanings of judges on that court. States that have passed statutes to recognize permit-free carry (OC, CC, or both) could not re-impose penalties with the stroke of a pen. It would instead require changes to statute via the normal legislative process. That is the same process used to select judges in North Carolina.

Precedence is powerful, but not a sure thing. Public sentiment can and does shift, sometimes unexpectedly and quickly and judges (whether elected or appointed) are not wholly immune to that. We currently are seeing significant attacks on 1st amendment freedoms of speech and religion for example. So far, the SCOTUS has protected free speech. On freedom of religion the court does pretty well unless there is a perceived conflict between religious freedom and sexual minority acceptance, in which case religious freedom takes a back seat. The same thing can happen with RKBA which currently has far less history or strength of judicial support than do our 1st amendment rights.

Bottom line, anyone who thinks any of our rights--much less any right related to bearing arms--are secure enough not to need eternal vigilance is dangerously kidding himself. Especially as increasing numbers of people relocate from either the rust belt or the liberal coasts into the sunbelt and conservative areas with good economies, voting patterns change. People move. They rarely change their political views as a result.

 

[utbagpiper]

A bit off subject here. Just want to say that unrestricted carrying of a fire arm is constitutional. I feel luck to live in a state that honors that.

Really? You have no State level restrictions on how you carry your gun, which gun you carry, or where you carry it? No gun free school zones?

Or did you mean to say that carrying a gun the way you like to carry it is protected in your State and you just don't care about others' choices?

But make no doubt about it. Hiding your firearm like a bad guy, is a privilege. I wear mine so the honest world can see. Great to ward off bad guys.

Actually, the North Carolina constitution does not explicitly protect OC. It declares a right to bear arms and then explicitly grants the legislature the right to punish concealed carry. That is different than explicitly protecting the right to OC. I can't see where the federal constitution imposes any dress code at all.

There are those in the P4P crowd who are not really pro-RKBA so they attack OC.

There are also those in the dress code crowd who chose to attack CC. I can only conclude such persons don't really respect the full RKBA.

I contend that OC provides more benefits to the individual, while CC provides more benefits to society as a whole. I support both, equally, as personal choices that should not be subject to prior restraint.

It just feels to me like when some moron calls a CCW a CHP

On the internet we have the term "grammar/spelling Nazi" to capture appropriate disdain for those who think there are points to be won by pointing out others' non-material errors in English usage. We need a similar term for those who get so uptight about "clip" vs "magazine" or "CCW" vs "CHP" vs "LTC" vs whatever other term is used across the nation. Why some morons actually get all uptight about what "constitutional carry" means and who has a right to use it.

 

[utbagpiper]

You weave a winding/twisted path to which I will not respond. Has all been covered here before.

Well then, let me brief and direct.

Does OCDO as a site/organization have any negative position toward the lawful carrying of a firearm in a discrete, concealed, or casually concealed manner?

Do you, Grapeshot, have any personal, negative views toward the lawful, personal choice to carry a self-defense firearm in a discrete, concealed, or casually concealed manner?

Does OCDO or its moderators encourage or actively tolerate attacks on the lawful carry of a firearm in some manner other than OC?

 

[utbagpiper]

Indeed, I have expounded here many times... I CC in NJ and while in PA and or DE, I usually OC weather permitting..

I refuse to give authority to others on how I protect myself and my family..

Do you do this in compliance with existing statute? Or are you violating Rule #15 by advocating illegal acts?

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.