Interesting thought on the 2nd Amendment...

[jkroner659]

I have heard people say the 2nd amendment is our right to bear arms(carry concealed), therefore handing out licenses to carry is only restricting us on where/how/if we can carry. Is it possible that a person could bring a case to the Supreme Court and argue that the 2nd is our concealed weapons permit? We would not have state by state restrictions then, federally(The constitution applies to all Americans in all states) we would be allowed to carry in any state.

So one question is could one argue that to the Supreme Court and possibly win? And my 2nd question is: If the Supreme Court sided with that argument, could the individual states still have the power to not follow that? I mean if it were ruled that the 2nd amendment is our concealed weapons permit, how could an individual state deny the Constitution?

I am just wondering because of all the people who I have heard say that(including the guitar playing hunter). So if they really believe that, why not go to court and make it happen? I would think it would be kinda tough to decipher(or at least convince the jury)exactly what they meant when they wrote the 2nd. Let's not pull each others chains, the 2nd could have been more specific so no one would even argue the anti gun side, but they did not write it that specifically...what you guys think?

[awkx]

Some have argued that the Second Amendment does not protect a specific manner of carrying, so that, e.g., if the gov't allows unlicensed open-carry, then it may regulate concealed carry. There was a court case holding this, but I think it was for a state constitutional provision, not the Second Amendment.

could the individual states still have the power to not follow that?

Originally, the Bill of Rights only limited on the federal gov't, not the several states. Today, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment to 'incorporate' some of these rights against states. It has not (yet) chosen to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. There was one case (US v. Cruikshank (1875)) that held that the Second Amendment was not incorporated, but this was prior to the Supreme Court's adoption of its current doctrine regarding incorporation, and it is probably not good caselaw anymore.

[knight0334]

The likeliness of the USSC ruling that concealed carrying is not allowed to be regulated is very slim. What would most likely happen would be that the USSC would side with previous decisions by most state supreme courts that the concealed carry could be regulated due to devious nature of criminals and their concealing to avoid detection as long as they can before committing violent acts. As a public safety regulation.

You would have a much better chance at presenting an open-carry argument before the USSC as being unconstitutional to limit or regulate. An OC argument could not be contested on the grounds that those who do are concealing ill intent, nor not giving fair warning to possible victims.


Even though the 2A really does protect carrying either way, one of those arguments would never win in front of the Justices even if each and every one of them were NRA card carrying progunners. Which, maybe only of them is in real life.


edit: fixed some grammar errors.

[imperialism2024]

You would have a much better chance at presenting an open-carry argument before the USSC as being unconstitutional to limit or regulate. An OC argument could not be contested on the grounds that the those who do are concealing ill intent, nor giving fair warning to possible victims.

Aye to that!