It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ninth Circus rules that concealed carry is not protected by the Constitution.

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutOmatIc
I have open carried every single day since the law was passed here in Texas. Not one time have the police been called on me for being a "dangerous gunman on the loose". In fact, everyone who sees me usually smiles (even the local cops) and says "Hell yea man!". The people working at businesses adjacent to mine constantly tell me that they feel much safer having me around, and all of them tell me they wish their employers allowed them to open carry in their businesses as well.

Not one time in the six months I started carrying have I had to even pull my weapon. And I hope it stays that way. But should a situation present itself where I am in fear for my life or the life of another, you can bet your ass that I will defend myself and others.

a reply to: DAVID64



That's just it. The crybabies that are worried that 'guns make then afraid' aren't thinking logically. None of us want's to shoot anyone. I'd love it if I never ever had to use any of my weapons on anything but a tin can, paper target or whatever animal I was hunting. But in the real world, that's not always an option. And the day someone needs to step up and use their weapon to save themselves or others, will be the day that the few who were saved begin to understand what it's all about.




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: gladtobehere

Suprem courts already ruled on this. And on those grounds can dismiss it with prejudice.


The Supreme Court has never ruled on the concealed carry issue. And the Rethuglican refusal to consider Scalia replacements is going to bite them in the ass. When it goes up to the Supremes again, it will be a 4-4 tie which will leave the 9th Circuit ruling as the law. They had a chance to get a centrist 2A supporter, but no. Wait till Hillary wins and appoints Obama to the court.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The way I see it is that if you want to concealed carry then maybe you do want to shoot someone. If someone can't see your gun, then they don't know to behave themselves, right? And if they don't know that, then they might do something. And if they do something, you can justify shooting them.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

Did the girl possess a gun but didn't bring it with her? Did the girl wish to obtain a gun but was prevented due to laws?

I thought you were better than this, DBC.


Pick a side. Either we have this freedom or we don't.

I haven't seen this much waffling since I went to IHOP.



Which freedom? The freedom to carry, or the freedom to carry concealed? Is there a law stating that it's illegal to concealed carry a deadly weapon?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
People say it's the liberals who whine, but Jesus f*cking Christ the other side is just as bad.

The constitution gives you a right to keep and bear (meaning "carry") arms, it does not give you a right to concealed carry.


Why do you care? Someone wishing to do you harm is going to do it no matter what the law is. How do you not understand this basic concept?


I don't understand it in the same way I don't understand the people who scream about how the transgender bathroom stuff is going to lead to their kids being molested.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

This reasoning is totally rediculous and is equivalent to an attempt to say,

"It's unconstitutional to shoot or fire arms"

because it's not specified in the 2nd amendments wording.

Same illogical thinking applied to the 1st would have these folks in coniption fits.


It's not illogical, it's a literal interpretation. It's logic to the point of absurdity. However, luckily for you, the Supreme Court is supposed to take the intent of the law along with its written meaning into account when ruling. It's not unconstitutional to shoot or fire arms, it's just not a constitutionally protected right (when read literally.) But, as I said, intent is taken into account and obviously you're supposed to be able to do that, so it's an invisible part of the constitution. (Same with ammunition, I suppose.)

My argument is actually more similar to this, if you compare it to free speech. What you say is protected, but how you say it is isn't (within reason.) Carrying arms is protected, but how you carry them isn't (within reason.)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

Did the girl possess a gun but didn't bring it with her? Did the girl wish to obtain a gun but was prevented due to laws?

I thought you were better than this, DBC.


Pick a side. Either we have this freedom or we don't.

I haven't seen this much waffling since I went to IHOP.



Which freedom? The freedom to carry, or the freedom to carry concealed? Is there a law stating that it's illegal to concealed carry a deadly weapon?


You're waffling. Freedom to carry. . carry concealed is the same thing.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If there's a law stating it's illegal to carry a deadly weapon concealed then it's not a second amendment violation. The only argument can think of is if it's a law specifically aimed at guns. The right to free speech doesn't supersede the law against too much noise in urban areas, no?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What part of "Right to bear arms" has you confused?



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

What part of "you can't belt out your free speech with a megaphone inside a shopping center" has you confused?



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

We'll never agree on the 2nd Amendment.

I think it is a right. Not something to be infringed.

Have a nice day.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you believe that you should be allowed to carry a gun at all times, in any circumstance? Such as... Being tried for murder. Or entering a court. Or a prison. Or a military installation?

As long as the anti-concealed-carry legislation is "all deadly weapons" rather than guns specifically and there is no legislation that would also prevent open carry then it is not a 2A violation.
edit on 11/6/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Now you're being silly and hyperbolic.

You want to make gun ownership a privilege that the state grants.

I want it to remain a right.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



You want to make gun ownership a privilege that the state grants.


Wherever did I say that? Who's being silly and hyperbolic? What I "want" has nothing to do with it, and we aren't talking about ownership we're talking about how they're carried. The simple fact is that creating a law against the concealed carry of deadly weapons (if one does not already exist) or applying that law to guns (if it does already exist) is not a second amendment violation so long as the option to carry openly is available.

So, do you think you should be allowed to carry guns in those situations I described? I seem to remember you saying something about having this freedom or not having it. Doesn't seem to cut and dry after all.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: gladtobehere

Suprem courts already ruled on this. And on those grounds can dismiss it with prejudice.


The Supreme Court has never ruled on the concealed carry issue. And the Rethuglican refusal to consider Scalia replacements is going to bite them in the ass. When it goes up to the Supremes again, it will be a 4-4 tie which will leave the 9th Circuit ruling as the law. They had a chance to get a centrist 2A supporter, but no. Wait till Hillary wins and appoints Obama to the court.


Teh Supreme court ruled on the Second. They said it was solid. nowhere does it say in the second that you have to openly carry your weapon.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The Second does not tell you how you are to carry your weapon. It sup to the individual american.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join