The basis of Open Carry - The LAW

[wrightme]

Exactly. "Constitutional Carry" implies needing only the constitution to keep a government from infringing upon the right to bear arms be it open or concealed. The MS constitution gives the authority to regulate or prohibit concealed carry to the legislature. If the legislature chooses not to regulate it is still not constitutional carry because more than just pointing at the constitution is needed. As it is we can technically get "Constitutional carry" in MS by removing the taboo around open carry as it is not able to be regulated by the legislature. Constitutional carry in MS is open carry.

And to re-address this.

EACH STATE that does have "Constitutional Carry" could revert to a permit-based concealment paradigm. In fact, even though WY is now considered a "Constitutional Carry" state, it is STILL a crime to conceal.

Wyoming Constitutional Carry legislation

6-8-104. Wearing or carrying concealed weapons; penalties;
exceptions; permits.
(a) A person who wears or carries a concealed deadly weapon is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than
seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both for a
first offense, or a felony punishable by a fine of not more than
two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), imprisonment for not more than
two (2) years,or both, for a second or subsequent offense,

But, the exceptions now include "not having a valid permit"

(iv) The person does not possess a permit issued under this
section, but otherwise meets the requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(i) through (vi), (viii) and (ix) of this section
and possession of the firearm by the person is not otherwise
unlawful.

As long as you meet most of the requirements for actually receiving a permit without going to get one.


And yes, should your state choose, it COULD pass such legislation without requiring Constitutional Amendments. Sure, an Amendment sealing it would be perfection, but even WY has what looks like an "ironclad" RKBA.....

State Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

Yet there is still existing statute making concealment illegal........

 

[Daylen]

And to re-address this.

EACH STATE that does have "Constitutional Carry" could revert to a permit-based concealment paradigm. In fact, even though WY is now considered a "Constitutional Carry" state, it is STILL a crime to conceal.

Wyoming Constitutional Carry legislation



But, the exceptions now include "not having a valid permit"


As long as you meet most of the requirements for actually receiving a permit without going to get one.


And yes, should your state choose, it COULD pass such legislation without requiring Constitutional Amendments. Sure, an Amendment sealing it would be perfection, but even WY has what looks like an "ironclad" RKBA.....


Yet there is still existing statute making concealment illegal........

I did not realise that is what Wyoming is considering constitutional carry. I would not consider it such.

 

[wrightme]

I did not realise that is what Wyoming is considering constitutional carry. I would not consider it such.

Constitutional Carry, as implemented, is very much like what WY did.

Alaska simply does not have a statute making concealed carry illegal. That is "Constitutional Carry."

Vermont is the same. No statute making concealed carry illegal.

Then, if you REALLY want a headache, go read AZ statutes 12-3102, 3105, and 3112 and see if you can find the part that makes Permitless Concealed Carry legal.

It must be, but it doesn't read as you would desire....

 

[georg jetson]

And to re-address this.

EACH STATE that does have "Constitutional Carry" could revert to a permit-based concealment paradigm. In fact, even though WY is now considered a "Constitutional Carry" state, it is STILL a crime to conceal.

Wyoming Constitutional Carry legislation



But, the exceptions now include "not having a valid permit"


As long as you meet most of the requirements for actually receiving a permit without going to get one.


And yes, should your state choose, it COULD pass such legislation without requiring Constitutional Amendments. Sure, an Amendment sealing it would be perfection, but even WY has what looks like an "ironclad" RKBA.....


Yet there is still existing statute making concealment illegal........

NO!!! Calling it "constitutional carry" is MISLEADING. Yes, other states are DEREGULATING firearms, but that is NOT "constitutional carry". The difference is very important!!

It's bad enough that a large portion of the populace has trouble understanding the subordinate nature of statues to the constitution. NO need to muddy the waters further. What everyone is calling"constitutional carry" is in fact "permit-less carry".

 

[wrightme]

NO!!! Calling it "constitutional carry" is MISLEADING. Yes, other states are DEREGULATING firearms, but that is NOT "constitutional carry". The difference is very important!!

The point you are missing is that the term as I have presented it is the operative use of the term in those states that have forwarded it.

It's bad enough that a large portion of the populace has trouble understanding the subordinate nature of statues to the constitution. NO need to muddy the waters further. What everyone is calling"constitutional carry" is in fact "permit-less carry".

That is an accurate statement.

 

[georg jetson]

I did not realise that is what Wyoming is considering constitutional carry. I would not consider it such.

Well... that's because you have a reasonable understanding of how the legal system works in a republic.

 

[georg jetson]

The point you are missing is that the term as I have presented it is the operative use of the term in those states that have forwarded it.



That is an accurate statement.

What??

The "term" is misleading period.

 

[wrightme]

What??

The "term" is misleading period.

Yes, I agree. Yet the term is being used exactly as I have presented in those states that did get Constitutional Carry legislation passed.
It is NOT being used to show a constitutional amendment basis for protected permitless carry. Maybe someday, the term will be only used as you desire. That day is not now.


"What everyone is calling"constitutional carry" is in fact "permit-less carry"
That statement IS very accurate. Even the portion "everyone is calling...." Just about everyone, except several people here (you included) use the term "Constitutional Carry" when speaking of "permitless carry." It is a misleading, yet widely used definition.


And, if you want "Constitutional Carry" in Mississippi in your lifetimes, "Permitless Carry" through legislation is likely what you will get. Thus, it would be beneficial to work towards that. And, the prevailing term in use in those states (including Nevada) that are working towards that end is "Constitutional Carry."

 

[georg jetson]

Yes, I agree. Yet the term is being used exactly as I have presented in those states that did get Constitutional Carry legislation passed.
It is NOT being used to show a constitutional amendment basis for protected permitless carry. Maybe someday, the term will be only used as you desire. That day is not now.


"What everyone is calling"constitutional carry" is in fact "permit-less carry"
That statement IS very accurate. Even the portion "everyone is calling...." Just about everyone, except several people here (you included) use the term "Constitutional Carry" when speaking of "permitless carry." It is a misleading, yet widely used definition.

Well... that's BS... and when I see people using that term I'm gonna call 'em on it... It's obvious what the "OC" movement is about... it's about spreading CORRECT information... NOT misinformation.

So... shame on all you OCers out there that let this "deregulation" pass as some type of constitutional issue. Get it straight!!

Edit - you edited you post while I was typing mine. So to your last paragraph... BS!! Deregulation is NOT the answer here. Opencarry can't be regulated in the first place.

 

[wrightme]

Well... that's BS... and when I see people using that term I'm gonna call 'em on it... It's obvious what the "OC" movement is about... it's about spreading CORRECT information... NOT misinformation.

The information I gave you IS correct. The term is being used. And, it is being used to describe deregulation to permitless carry. Claiming it to be BS is a non-starter. YOU might not want that term used that way, but it IS being used that way.

So... shame on all you OCers out there that let this "deregulation" pass as some type of constitutional issue. Get it straight!!

I think I have identified your difficulty. You are confusing the term "Constitutional Carry" as if it were only about a Constitutional Issue.

Edit - you edited you post while I was typing mine. So to your last paragraph... BS!! Deregulation is NOT the answer here. Opencarry can't be regulated in the first place.

Yet it keeps getting regulated.......

You are arguing for ideals. You will find better results if you argue for likely solutions. Call BS all you want, but effort spent towards workable solutions will bear fruit quicker than effort spent towards ideals.

If "Open Carry can't be regulated in the first place," there wouldn't be states like California where it has to be unloaded, or states like Mississippi, where a holster might be called "concealed," or states like Texas where you cannot even Open Carry. So, I call "BS" on your claim that "Open Carry can't be regulated in the first place." It HAS BEEN and IS regulated in some states.

 

[georg jetson]

The information I gave you IS correct. The term is being used. And, it is being used to describe deregulation to permitless carry. Claiming it to be BS is a non-starter. YOU might not want that term used that way, but it IS being used that way.
I think I have identified your difficulty. You are confusing the term "Constitutional Carry" as if it were only about a Constitutional Issue.
Yet it keeps getting regulated.......

Yes... it IS being used that way... and that is a STUPID thing to do. We're already facing confusion... no need to make it worse.

MY DIFFICULTY??!! My difficulty is that I can read and understand English and the term "constitutional carry" means EXACTLY what it says it means.

You are arguing for ideals. You will find better results if you argue for likely solutions. Call BS all you want, but effort spent towards workable solutions will bear fruit quicker than effort spent towards ideals.

NO!! I'm arguing for CLARITY and UNDERSTANDING!!

If "Open Carry can't be regulated in the first place," there wouldn't be states like California where it has to be unloaded, or states like Mississippi, where a holster might be called "concealed," or states like Texas where you cannot even Open Carry. So, I call "BS" on your claim that "Open Carry can't be regulated in the first place." It HAS BEEN and IS regulated in some states.

Most states have constitutional provisions preventing the regulation of arms. This has been a state issue for a long time. I don't think Cali is one of those states so they need to make necessary amendments to their constitution.

The reason there have been encroachments on the limitations of the various legislatures is usually from politically pressure caused from IGNORANCE. A citizenry that puts their nose back in the books will learn to keep their servants in their chains. Word game foolishness is NO way to get things done.

 

[wrightme]

Yes... it IS being used that way... and that is a STUPID thing to do. We're already facing confusion... no need to make it worse.

MY DIFFICULTY??!! My difficulty is that I can read and understand English and the term "constitutional carry" means EXACTLY what it says it means.

And that IS "arguing the ideal."

NO!! I'm arguing for CLARITY and UNDERSTANDING!!

Then you will be fighting against virtually ALL of those who have already been working towards permitless-carry, AND against all of those who have achieved it already.

Most states have constitutional provisions preventing the regulation of arms. This has been a state issue for a long time. I don't think Cali is one of those states so they need to make necessary amendments to their constitution.

I would not agree with that blanket statement. And in those that do, it does not stop them from regulating arms.

The reason there have been encroachments on the limitations of the various legislatures is usually from politically pressure caused from IGNORANCE. A citizenry that puts their nose back in the books will learn to keep their servants in their chains. Word game foolishness is NO way to get things done.

Frankly, IMHO, the best route (though not the easiest or most likely) would be to implement FULL incorporation of the 2A against the states, and get rid of the wiggle-words of DC v Heller about concealed firearms.

 

[Daylen]

I care about the laws, constitutional and codified, of three states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. I don't care if Kali has a protected right to bear arms that is regulated illegally. I care about keeping the states I listed lawful, constitutional and free. In MS, by the constitution and most laws, openly carrying a weapon is not regulated. The problem is not really the law in MS it is taboo and confusion about the law. Eliminating three words in 97-37-1 will HELP in this effort of eliminating confusion; that is all that is needed however. I think this is a very important point to remember, in MS we do not NEED deregulation we need clarity. Some deregulation of the concealed carry laws would be nice, but that is all, heck I'd love to see it completely deregulated. However concealed carry laws and regulation can not affect the right to carry just the privilege of concealing the weapon that is being carried.

 

[georg jetson]

And that IS "arguing the ideal." .

No!!! Raising an issue of maintaining clarity and understanding is NOT arguing an "ideal"... at least not YET anyways...

Then you will be fighting against virtually ALL of those who have already been working towards permitless-carry, AND against all of those who have achieved it already.

Again No!!! This is a state by state issue. Those in other states are opting to use the "constitutiona carry" term and that's their business. I will do EVERYTHING I can to keep that type of CRAP outta Ms. and La.

AND NO ONE HAS ACHEIVED PERMIT-LESS CARRY YET!!!

I would not agree with that blanket statement. And in those that do, it does not stop them from regulating arms.

That's fine.

The only thing that stops encroachment on rights is for the citizenry to maintain an educated and fighting position which does NOT include WORD GAMES.

Frankly, IMHO, the best route (though not the easiest or most likely) would be to implement FULL incorporation of the 2A against the states, and get rid of the wiggle-words of DC v Heller about concealed firearms.

Maybe... but we must be carefull when we get the SCOTUS involved. They tend towards MINIMUM protection. At this point I think we need to get the appropriate people in the US legislature with the mandate to start REPEALING law.

 

[wrightme]

AND NO ONE HAS ACHEIVED PERMIT-LESS CARRY YET!!!

Does Vermont require a permit to carry?

Does Alaska require a permit to carry?

Does Arizona require a permit to carry?

Does Wyoming require a permit to carry?

 

[wrightme]

The only thing that stops encroachment on rights is for the citizenry to maintain an educated and fighting position which does NOT include WORD GAMES.
.

So, your claims that state constitutions prevent regulation of arms is false. It is an ideal, not a reality. Once that ideal becomes reality, THEN true Constitutional Carry will be possible. And, the BEST method to achieve that is to fully incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states, ensure that it covers open AND concealed carry, and ensure that neither the states, nor the federal government/s can infringe upon the Right.

 

[wrightme]

Maybe... but we must be carefull when we get the SCOTUS involved.

Correct. That is why I added the comment about "wiggle words" from dc v heller.

They tend towards MINIMUM protection.

Not exactly. They tend towards ONLY responding to the specific presented by the case before them.

At this point I think we need to get the appropriate people in the US legislature with the mandate to start REPEALING law.

And that is what I have been stating all along. But, if you start with your state, you can get permitless carry, without a constitutional amendment.

 

[georg jetson]

Does Vermont require a permit to carry?

Does Alaska require a permit to carry?

Does Arizona require a permit to carry?

Does Wyoming require a permit to carry?

YES!!! A permit is required in EVERY state within a fed gfsz... see 18 USC 922(q)

 

[georg jetson]

So, your claims that state constitutions prevent regulation of arms is false. It is an ideal, not a reality. Once that ideal becomes reality, THEN true Constitutional Carry will be possible. And, the BEST method to achieve that is to fully incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states, ensure that it covers open AND concealed carry, and ensure that neither the states, nor the federal government/s can infringe upon the Right.

NO!! In La. specifically, the legislature has passed legislation that attempts to regulate OCing in certain instances... some of these UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws have NOT been challenged... yet...

The reality is that the LEGISLATURE CANNOT regulate. That's NOT an IDEAL!! That's FACT! This is getting off the subject. Permit-less carry is permit-less carry and that's just the way it is... IN REALITY!!

AGAIN!!! There are issues with using SCOTUS to secure a right so we must be carefull. This may backfire and that is the REALITY of things.

 

[wrightme]

YES!!! A permit is required in EVERY state within a fed gfsz... see 18 USC 922(q)

The exception does not prove the rule......