There Are Limits To The 2nd Amendment ...

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by JohnHenry, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. JohnHenry

    JohnHenry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,614
    Location:
    Livingston county, Michigan
  2. WHSmithIV

    WHSmithIV Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,462
    Location:
    Moore, Idaho
    I think that technically, concealed carry is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Pistols certainly existed at the time of the Revolutionary War. Consider the rider on horseback carrying a pistol on a belt, the weather is cold, he has a greatcoat on and the pistol in his belt. The coat covers the pistol so it is concealed carry.

    The 2nd Amendment was written in such clear language that it was not deemed necessary to differentiate as to how a firearm was carried.
  3. barmstrong2

    barmstrong2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Greene, Maine
    The problem that arises is the definition of "reasonable restrictions". The cases cited in these rulings uses tanks and missles as the examples, stating that these are reasonable restrictions. That logic was extended to automatic weapons, as well. But, if we continue to allow the politicians to determine what is reasonable, we see where they're going with it. To a strict anti 2nd amendment person, any restriction is reasonable. They are currently attempting to place reason on the type of weapon, IE. military style, and capacity of magazines. Next, they'll go for semi auto. Then, handguns. They will continue to move the line, as long as we let them. Therefore, I stand that any restriction is unconstitutional. Period.
  4. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,871
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    There is no problem here, other than a personal one. The 2nd Amendment does not SAY that concealed carry is OK, but it does not SAY that concealed carry is not OK. It does not state that you can only conceal carry a hand gun if you pass a back ground check, but it doesn't SAY you can't either. What it does say is that the average citizen of America has the right to BEAR arms. That means that we can BEAR arms, concealed, or other wise. It also states that this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No fees to pay, no back ground checks, etc. And just in case you didn't know it, we are Home Land Security, we are the Militia spoken of in the Constitution!
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  5. Alpo

    Alpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,166
    Location:
    NW Florida
    My copy of the Constitution has apparently been edited, or something. In my copy it does not say, "The right of the people, except for reasonable restrictions, shall not be infringed".
  6. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,133
    Location:
    Texas
    +1 to everything you said, carver. This is clearly a case of people trying to find creative ways to make the 2nd Amendment say something it doesn't. It grants the right to bear arms, and is non-specific in the manner one wishes to bear those arms. Whether it's carrying a sword on your hip, or a rifle over your shoulder, or a derringer in your waistcoat pocket, they are all equally protected as "bearing arms".

    And yes, handguns did exist prior to the Constitution, and they were carried concealed. In those days, carrying a concealed weapon was seen as dishonorable and suspicious, since everyone carried openly. A concealed weapon meant you were up to no good. But regardless of the sentiment of the times, there was no language written to restrict concealed weapons. At least, not at the federal level. Here in Texas, our Constitution actually states that the right to keep and bear arms does NOT protect concealed weapons (which is why they can lawfully require permits for it).

    There simply is no language that would even begin to allow "reasonable restrictions" at the federal level. Any argument in favor of such restrictions is one that is based on thin air. It just isn't there.
  7. lawdawg

    lawdawg Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Location:
    South Alabama
    While I agree that ALL rights come with a degree of personal responsibility; I think the 2nd Amendment is being eroded away by the courts. The common argument given by the left as a reason to ban certain types of guns is that the forefathers did not have these types of weapons and therefore could not envision people possessing them. The implication being that if the constructors of the Constitution had known that people one day would own evil "assault rifles", they would never have written the 2nd Amendment or at least would have placed restrictions in it. That is, of course, BS! They had heavy artillery, and yet I have never read where they wished to restrict ownership of cannons or cannon balls. Concealed carry, while not expressly guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, is not expressly forbidden either. Common sense should dictate that the right to keep and bear arms as written would imply that a person has a right to keep that arm on his person, concealed unless needed. I think had the forefathers had not intended on people carrying concealed, they would have expressly stated that.


    .
  8. barmstrong2

    barmstrong2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Greene, Maine
    I've heard that argument, that the 2nd applies to muskets. It's an invalid argument. My response is to ask if the 1st amendment applies to the internet.
  9. RAJBCPA

    RAJBCPA Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    425
    The 2nd Amendment was written to allow citizens to fend off tyranical governments and, therefore, it should be presumed that citizens should be able to have the same weapons that are being used by the representatives of the tyranical governments - cops and the military.

    ....Yeh, in the modern era that means machine guns, tanks, anti-arcraft missles, drones, tracer ammo, etc. - WHATEVER!

    The 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with the right to own long guns for hunting wild game.....

    Uncle Joe Biden has his facts all wrong. So Joe, - Yes, I do need a machine gun, assault rifle, tank, anti-arcraft gun, drone, heat-seeking missle, etc.
  10. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,959
    The left sticks to this interpretation because they think everyone born before 1960 is/was an idiot. I mean, how did the Founders even communicate before IPads and Twitter? ;):rolleyes:
  11. Pickwick383650007

    Pickwick383650007 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1
    Fending off tyrannical government is EXACTLY the freedom of the second amendment... If someone had suggested back in 1776 that we needed a right to keep arms to hunt they would have been laughed at.
    Some freedoms are worth dying for.
  12. SARGE7402

    SARGE7402 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Messages:
    252
    Location:
    Virginia
    I tend to think that perhaps the case may have been argued using the wrong portion of the Constitution. IRather than the 2nd Ammendment it probably should have been argued along the lines of each state recognizing another states actions. For example when you drive on a Virginia license into Kentucky you are not required to get a Kentucky driver's license. Same is true for marriage licenses. So perhaps it will get argued to the Supreme court along these lines
  13. GilaDan

    GilaDan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    60
    +2 for Carver's post. It is hard for me to understand how 'limits' can be placed on such simple words. I wish we had some spokesman like John Wayne and Charlton Heston to respond to those who want to impose limits. Those guys had simple words that carried a big message. I worry about 'the holy one' and if he has opportunity to seat another Supreme Court judge in the next 4 years...
  14. Munch

    Munch Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    350
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA.
    Merriam Webster defines Bear:

    Definition of BEAR

    transitive verb


    1

    a: to move while holding up and supporting (something)

    b: to be equipped or furnished with (something)

    c: behave, conduct <bearing himself well>

    d: to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother>

    e: to give as testimony <bear false witness>

    f: to have as an identification <bore the name of John>

    g: to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice>

    h: disseminate

    i: lead, escort

    j: render, give

    2

    a: to give birth to

    b: to produce as yield

    c (1): to permit growth of (2): contain <oil-bearing shale>

    3

    a: to support the weight of : sustain

    b: to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry>

    c: to call for as suitable or essential <it bears watching>

    d: to hold above, on top, or aloft

    e: to admit of : allow

    f: assume, accept

    4

    : thrust, press

    intransitive verb


    1

    : to produce fruit : yield


    2

    a: to force one's way

    b: to extend in a direction indicated or implied

    c: to be situated : lie

    d: to become directed

    e: to go or incline in an indicated direction

    3

    : to support a weight or strain —often used with up


    4

    a: to exert influence or force

    b: apply, pertain —often used with on or upon <facts bearing on the question>
    — bear a hand


    : to join in and help out

    — bear arms


    1

    : to carry or possess arms


    2

    : to serve as a soldier

    — bear fruit


    : to come to satisfying fruition, production, or development : to produce a desired result or reward

    — bear in mind


    : to think of (something) especially as a warning : remember

    — bear with


    : to be indulgent, patient, or forbearing with (someone)


    See bear defined for English-language learners

    (It may be possible that our government needs to refer to the line above)
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  15. Petergunn

    Petergunn Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    The dude should have challenged open carry, that's where the real fight is.

    Seems to me if a state issues a permit for CC you and the state agree that it's not a right them by issuing and you by applying
  16. GilaDan

    GilaDan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    60
    I totally agree with you Petergunn! I've tried to represent my own feelings about CC in several posts. You said my feelings in very simple words - thanks.
  17. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,133
    Location:
    Texas
    Yup. And you know what? Everybody is afraid to say this out loud. Especially the NRA. They are trying to "soft sell" the 2nd Amendment as being about self-defense against criminals. It's a valid part, of course, but that's not the true reason for the 2nd Amendment. It seems that the NRA is afraid to boldly say that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against tyranny from their own government. To do so would likely inflame the very government that needs to hear it. The NRA may say it to their members, but you'll never hear them say it in a public political speech.

    I think it's a huge disservice to the 2nd Amendment itself. The public hasn't heard that message in so long that they would be mortified if we told them now. But we are experiencing tyranny by our government because we are too afraid to tell them that this is our defense against tyranny!
  18. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,959
    Not everyone is afraid to point out the original reason for the 2nd. But when you do, expect to be called a lunatic gun nut (or worse) by others who don't share that view, and/or don't want to be informed or educated about it.

    'We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.' George Orwell, or others
  19. cwbys4evr

    cwbys4evr New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    81
    In December a federal appeals court told the Illinois legislature it had to come up with a concealed carry law because a lack of one violates the 2nd Amendment. So which one is right? Which court takes precedence?
  20. ozo

    ozo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,475
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    "Firstly, this case only applies to areas where the 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction – specifically, Colorado, Kansas, most of Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, and may not even apply there, given that an appeal will almost certainly come out of the case, given that it directly contradicts another decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."


    There should have never been a reason to have to get a carry permit, period.
    To keep and bear, and not be infringed....
    If I want to pull a civil war cannon with a horse, even if the cannon is covered with
    canvas....for no other reason but to protect the cannon......

    I am glad to see so many people on the right page concerning the issue,
    it gives my great hope in my fellow Patriots.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits Apr 27, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits Jan 21, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd. Amendment .... Right, or Privilege May 17, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Guards 'Right of Resistance and Self-Preservation' Apr 27, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Modify The 2nd Amendment ......... Feb 22, 2014

Share This Page