Right to carry?

[GoldWinger]

Back in the good old days, no one worried about "right to carry" and where not to carry. I had a LTCF and I carried at Pitt and except for the one idiot cop, no one ever said "boo." I carried at malls, I carried on buses, I carried at bars and restaurants too. I CCed and if it was warm, my jacke came off and I OCed.

Then the universe shifted and a big public fuss was made and everybody started making rules. You can't carry in this mall, you can't carry at this school, you can't carry in the hospital, you can't even leave your gun in your car at work.

So now there's big "right to carry" movement but there's no place to carry. Sure you can walk around with your gat on your side. Yep, you can go hiking with your pistol. But you can't go to the mall. You can't go to the movies. Maybe your favorite watering hole is okay . . . in this state.

So now you can get a permit to carry elsewhere but then you have to find out the silly rules of every other state. Ohio: can't carry anyplace that serves alcohol. Kentucky: only if the restaurant derives less than 50% of its revenue from alcohol sales. Virginia: No concealed carry in a place that serves alcohol. Utah: no Mormon churches. Some places the no guns signs carry the weight of law, other places they are meaningless.

So what has happened to this right? The anti-gunners have made it damned difficult to exercise that right.

[stephpd]

That's one of the problems that I have with the NRA's participation in pushing for 'shall issue'. Sure you can get a license but knowing and keeping up with all these stupid laws is frustrating. DE attempted to craft a clean law but it was amended with so much of this stupid crap that our straight thinking lawmakers just tabled it and stuck with our 'may issue'.

It may be a pain to get and not everyone will get one but it's better them not being able to carry in churches, bars, banks, restaurants etc. That's the problem with compromises, you lose. Negotiating with the enemy never works.

But then concealed carry isn't a right. Even the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the state can impose reasonable restrictions on these privileges.

Thank goodness that open carry is a protected right and hasn't been messed with in some states. Of course not all states acknowledge this right so all they have is their 'shall issue' but not anywhere you might need it. Some of these laws make it a crime if you are printing. They like to claim that it was a victory for gun rights but not in my mind.

Ideally it would be like Alaska. Open or concealed, any and everywhere, no restrictions or license needed.

[GoldWinger]

Ideally it would be like Alaska. Open or concealed, any and everywhere, no restrictions or license needed.

In a perfect world, the crime would be with the use, like our knife laws. Use it in an offensive manner and its against the law. Just carrying, that's okay.

[nailer]

In a perfect world, the crime would be with the use, like our knife laws. Use it in an offensive manner and its against the law. Just carrying, that's okay.

Exactly!!!

[knight0334]

Our carry "rights" have been legislated, regulated, and restricted since the 1800's. When you have to hold a license or permit to practice such things, it is no longer a right. A lot of the initial damage to our rights were not done by any anti-gun groups, they were done by unorganized grassroot tactics and politicians with agendas.

Kentucky and Pennsylvania were two of the first states to rule that concealed carry isn't a right and can be regulated. (BTW, you can carry in hospitals in PA - unless the property owners post and say otherwise)

Under Heller, our right to keep and bear arms only pertains to within our place of abode, and that on top of that reasonable regulation can be made.

If you have a problem with private properties restricting carry, well private properties should always have the right to say what goes on within their lands and buildings. The right to own property and police one's properties is the 2nd most basic right, life being the first. That said right is the basis for the right to keep and bear arms.

[CHEMICAL]

In a perfect world, the crime would be with the use, like our knife laws. Use it in an offensive manner and its against the law. Just carrying, that's okay.

100% correct.

[TinGLOCK]

Ideally it would be like Alaska. Open or concealed, any and everywhere, no restrictions or license needed.

Alaska's not perfect, either:

A person 21 or older may be charged with Misconduct involving Weapons in the 5th degree under AS 11.61.220 if s/he

...carries the weapon concealed within another person's residence, unless s/he has first obtained the express permission of an adult residing there, whether or not the person has a concealed handgun permit.

[headcase]

I was asked to post this for a friend:


History lesson: Kentucky was not one of the first two states to 'rule' that concealed carry isn't a right; on the contrary, Kentucky was the first state whose highest court said a concealed carry law was offensive to their constitution in part and therefore unconstitutional in whole.

The real question we should ask is why concealed carry was destroyed only through a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT in Kentucky, yet simply abrogated by the courts in Pennsylvania, given that both states' Peoples essentially voted on the same constitutional elements which Kentucky's high court found could not be abrogated.

Kentucky has had 4 adoptions of its constitutions in its statehood, in 1792, 1799, 1850, and 1891.
Pennsylvania has had 5 adoptions of its constitutions in its statehood, in 1776, 1790, 1838, 1874, and 1968.
In 1776, PA's constitution, Chapter I, Article XII, read "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
In 1790, PA's constitution, Article IX, Section XXI, read "That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." and Article IX, Section XXVI, read "To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, WE DECLARE, That everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate."
In 1792, KY's constitution, Article XII, Section 23, read "The rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and Article XII, Section 28, read "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, WE DECLARE, that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."
In 1799, KY's constitution, Article X, Section 23, read "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and Article X, Section 28, read "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, WE DECLARE, that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."
In 1822, KY's high court found that a law criminalizing the carry of concealed weapons was unconstitutional and void, because although it was not a complete questioning of the right to bear arms, it questioned it in some part, and therefore could not stand. Instead of the legislature passing more unconstitutional law, which seems to be the regular method for today's legislatures, KY revised the constitution as follows:
In 1850, KY's constitution, Article XII, Section 25, "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms."
Today, the PA constitution, Article I, Section 21, reads "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and Article I, Section 25, reads "To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."

PA's courts have recognized the judicial ability to void constitutional law:
"An act which conflicts with any section of the Constitution is entitled to no further consideration, since, when the will Legislature as declared in statute is opposed to the will of the people as declared in the Constitution, will of Legislature must yield to will of people.” Com. ex rel. Smillie v. McElwee, 193 A. 628, 327 Pa. 148, Sup.1937 (I would say this brings PA's constitutional inline with KY's constitutional explicitness that "all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.")

Our concealed carry laws would have never persisted in that KY court, who so eloquently expressed our liberty in Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) <http://www.guncite.com/court/state/12ky90.html>. What could be so different about the people of Pennsylvania who voted for their constitution than the people of Kentucky? Could the words have been felt to mean so much different? What has Pennsylvania done to our Constitution?

The fundamental rule for construing an article of the State constitution is that the constitution's language controls and must be interpreted in its popular sense, as understood by the people when they voted on its adoption. Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., 842 A.2d 919, 577 Pa. 138, Sup.2004. Constitution must be interpreted in its popular sense as understood by voters who adopted it; related provisions of Constitution must be read in connection with one another so as to properly ascertain their meaning. Berardocco v. Colden, 366 A.2d 574, 469 Pa. 452, Sup.1976. The Constitution is entitled, like other instruments, to a construction, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the intent of its makers. Moers v. City of Reading, 21 Pa. 188, 1853.

By whom have we been cursed?

[headcase]

I wonder how Kentucky managed to abridge a supposedly outside the government powers and inviolate section of their Constitution......