Shouldn't all states be open carry since we have the right to bear arms?

Well, I don’t know about the right to “bare arms” but I think that the right to bear arms is quite important even though its one of the most abused. However, with the police and militia and everything…the need to have a holstered gun on you whenever you go out becomes less and less.

The right to bear arms was, in the founding father’s eyes, having a standing REGULATED (read: gun laws) militia. So bear arms does not necessarily mean carry the gun at all times with you, as much as own one and being able to go get it when the town was under attack. This is hardly an issue, as we have Police, Sherriffs and the National Guard.

Do I think that we have the rights to own firearms safely and responsibly? Yes. Should anyone be able to walk around with their hunting rifle strapped to their back? Nope.

P.S.- Federal Law trumps state law, and this is a federal issue since you are bringing the Bill of Rights into the discussion.

P.P.S.- The wild west wasn’t really part of the nation during the “wild west” years, and existed much later than when the constitution and bill of rights was written. I mean it was there and had Americans living in it, but it didn’t follow federal law as well as the rest of the states that had statehood.

The founding fathers had no knowledge of a weapon as deadly as the revolver or the Winchester lever-action rifle. They were accustomed to muskets and flint lock pistols, which took up to a minute to reload, not weapons that could shoot 6 or more accurate rounds in less than a few seconds. Their laws applied to these cumbersome weapons that could not be concealed very easily.

And the West really was lawless. Just watch the history channel.

You have a right to assemble too but the authorities can still require a parade permit. Rules RULE!!!

Yeah, that’s just what we need, an entire society of over-worked, over-stressed time bombs all walking around packing heat. Sounds like an ideal society to me…

Studies show countries with stricter gun laws actually have more gun related crimes… Laws only keep good people from having guns but the bad guys just break the laws and get them anyway. Furthermore knowing the people they are committing crimes to are unarmed they become increasingly more brazent in robberies and home invasions. Furthermore the second amendment DOES guarantee the right to bare arms… while we dont have much in the name of militias anymore and we have national guard and police, the amendment does not say the right of the militia to keep and bare shall not be infringed. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed.

Having a right doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated or limited in a fashion. For instance, I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn’t mean I can steal or murder if it makes me happy. Governments can put reasonable limitations on any right (obviously, the devil is in the details as to what “reasonable” means).

I support the right to bear arms but I’m not sure everyone should be carrying them on their person. I don’t feel a need to but if I’d been attacked before, I might feel different. Do I want the laws to be the same state to state as far as transporting my firearm and being able to have it in my vehicle and home? Yes. The pistol I own right now is not “on the list” for another state I frequently visit which really bugs.

I don’t want any Tom, Dick or harry armed with a weapon to use their judgment about what is a threat to them or when it is OK to shoot someone.

A well-regulated militia may be necessary to the security of a free state, but allowing any old jerk to walk around with a handgun probably isn’t.

@ShiningToast While you make some good points I feel the need to point out the the term “bear” means to carry. Therefore, I believe that if you are not a convicted felon or something that would prohibit you from bearing, you should be able to. That is where the states come in. We live in a country that lets the states make up its own rules under the Constitution. Therefore, we have the right to live in a state that allows us to open carry or not. If I lived in a state that didn’t allow it, I could and probably would move.

As to the founding fathers not knowing about six shooters you are correct. However, the founding fathers were very forward thinking. I bet they could have imagined a lot. Six shooters maybe not but advanced weapons probably. Benjamin Franklin was one of them and he was way ahead of his time.

One more thing on the subject. I can’t think of any state where it is illegal to bear arms. If it were, you could not purchase a gun and leave the store to get it home. The issue is open carry or conceal carry. This too is where the states make their own laws. Even in states that don’t allow open carry, you can transport a firearm, you just can’t holster a loaded weapon, or more importantly, conceal a loaded weapon without a license.

But yes every state should be open carry.

@misterx – Studies show countries with stricter gun laws actually have more gun related crimes: links for two such studies, please. Although one can argue, it is not the strictness of the law that matters so much as its enforcement.

@missingbite Yes, I’m well aware that bear means carry, but we have to look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the eyes of our founding fathers.

People could carry guns, but since they were about 6 feet long and very heavy, they didn’t. They stayed at home on the mantle, until they were needed.

The second amendment is worded how it is because during the time period before the American Revolution, American colonists could not have weapons. You had better hope that the Red Coats were sober enough to keep the peace.

The English Monarchy and Parliament had the colonists under their collective thumb, and the Bill of Rights reflects what they could not do under English rule, and how they wanted that different in their new nation. They wanted to be able to defend themselves, by bearing arms in times of trouble.

@Mamradpivo Sums up my argument in a very small nutshell. :) Lurve.

With so many people bringing up what the founding fathers had in mind or what was the rule of their day the Constutution guarantees that you are innocent until proven guilty and that you have the right to make bail and that the amount be reasonable. When a guy or gal gets arrested for 5 assaults and 2 carjackongs they are pressumed guilty maybe not by their family until they are cleared in court. It is also why if they are given bail it is usually in the 100s of thousands if not millions pretty reasonable for a person who most likely never seen $30,00 in income in a single year. Bail is set so high so that most can’t make it. Why? Because they are considered flight risk and guilty and the authorities don’t want them skipping town. Trying to keep an innocent person locked up so they can’t make rent, pay utilities and such sounds reasonable? They are de facto innocent but not really until they are said to be not guilty in a court of law unless you were OJ, that is not what the founding gathers thought, it was modern society that reinvented that part of the Constitution, so they can reinvent open carry too.

@Hypocrisy_Central No, we can’t reinvent the constitution.

I really don’t see how this relates to interpreting the Bill of Rights, but I’ll try to respond.

I get the feeling that you’re making these numbers up as you go along. If someone has a history of crime, then I could see that their bail would be more than the average bear. I’m pretty sure this whole concept of jail has been around along time, so the same thing happened to people accused of crimes during the 18th century. When you break the law/are accused of breaking the law, you sit in jail until your trial. Just because someone is being held in jail before trial DOES NOT make them guilty of anything. There’s this thing called Habeas Corpus, and it mean that you are being held in jail because you are accused of a crime, and you are not guilty of it until proven so in a court of law. You can’t be held in jail and not charged.

The actual words are ”presumed innocent until proven guilty”, which means that the court has to prove that you comitted the crime in order to send you to prison. This is not the same as being innocent. This means that in the eyes of the judicial system you are innocent, but they have to hold you until you go to trial because you haven’t actually been tried yet.

There’s also this thing called the 8th amendment, that prohibits unfair bail. A judge sets the bail and it is public knowledge, so setting unfair bails doesn’t really happen. He/she would get in fat ass trouble. You mention million dollar bails. The last time I saw bail of one million dollars or more was for a high profile murder case. MURDER. Please link me to something that is unfair if I’m mistaken

As for us “reinventing the constitution” so that people are “de facto innocent but not really” in today’s society, this is a social problem, not a judicial one. In the eyes of the court, a person is innocent until proven guilty. To the populace, this may or may not be the case. How people act in today’s society has nothing to do with the sovereignty of the Constitution.

@ShiningToast When the forefathers came up with the 8th amendment they had a reason it a method for doing so, just as the 1st through 7th amendments. When they came up with there should not be excessive bails maybe they thought mankind could or would get more heinous and barbaric or they didn’t. I am sure it went in unison with the other amendments of double jeopardy, self-incrimination, illegal search and seizure etc. In my mind, when I read it, is was because they did not want to see innocent men sitting in jail or prison, which may have happened a lot in old Europe, you could be hauled away by some secret witness on some trumped up charge, taken before the authorities without a lawyer and no way to contest the accusations against you and end up being tossed in prison. The loophole modern society makes of it is that if your crime is this or that you can get bail, if those over there you can’t. Likewise if you do this or that and you are offered bail it will be so high compared to your income it effectively is a token offer that really can’t be used. If it were in the spirit of the founding father “No excessive bail and fines…” it was in relation to the ability of the accused to have a shot at making it. Since its creation as you pointed out, society makes a lot of revisions or actual changes which they try to pass of as technicalities. As when you said, “There’s this thing called Habeas Corpus, and it mean that you are being held in jail because you are accused of a crime, and you are not guilty of it until proven so in a court of law. You can’t be held in jail and not charged.” If it went as the founding fathers envisioned it a person would be arrested, go to court, get charged or not, if charged he would make bail and be free and innocent UNTIL the state made its case to deny the man his liberty because he was proven guilty.

As with the 2nd Amendment: “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.” We can go by the spirit of the amendment or the exact words. Which would lend one to believe that unless you were using your gun or weapon for a militia to protect the state or government you don’t have any right to bear any arms, not a deer rifle, a gator gun, a skeet shooter, nothing. There is that loophole “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, shall not be infringed.” If you look at the broader application of that (as many do) you have the right to bear arms to protect your home, live stock, and property, militia be damned. If you are going to go by that interpretation of the amendment then you should be able to own, and carry them. To do otherwise it is like telling someone you have the right to use the road but you can’t take your car out on it.

We need to look at the words of the first sentence of Amendment Two from the standpoint of 18th century word meanings. Those definitions convey the intent of the authors.

“Well regulated” meant the ability to load, aim and fire efficiently. “Militia” was all able-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 60 years. If the framers had intended something like the National Guard, such was called the “Organized Militia” and was a State matter. “Common defense” meant the right to common people to defend themselves and their property; as opposed to the system in Britain where only nobles and the Crown could own or carry arms.Commoners could only bear arms in service of the Crown or the nobility (gamekeepers, etc).

If the Second Amendment had been intended as a State right, rather than an individual right, its text would have appeared in the main body of the Constitution. The reason why the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were separated out of the main body of the Constitution was to distinguish them as individual rights. The main body describes the structure of the federal government and its relationship to the States. The States rights to “organized militia” is described in the main body of the Constitution. The recent Supreme Court decision against D.C.s firearms law clearly states that distinction.

The various States and municiplalities each have there own definitions of what “reasonable restrictions” to place on this right, ranging from highly restrictive (most major cities) to Vermont (which does not issue permits to carry, as it is considered a right under the State Constitution “for any lawful purpose”).

In most rural areas today, open carry is not at all remarkable and doesn’t raise an eyebrow. In the north woods of Maine or in Alaska, being unarmed in the woods is considered stupid; a sign of a tenderfoot or cheechako. In the north woods anyone but a guided tourist carries at least a large calibre handgun. This is for protection against dangerous wildlife (four- and two-legged) and for signalling. Three shots means “I’m lost or hurt”, two shots in reply means “stay put, I’m coming to help you”.

Carrying a handgun for personal protection, even if your State has “shall issue” laws is a heavy reponsibility. You must know exactly when it it appropraiate to use deadly force. These laws vary not just from state to state, but by county, city and town as well. If you are not prepared to know these rules, as well as basic firearms safety and marksmanship skills (and also retaining your weapon against an attacker trying to take it from you), you really should not be carrying even if you have a right to. Stick with a Taser or pepper spray. N.B. A multi-shot version of the Taser is desperately needed.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land I’m not sure that’s what they meant by “well-regulated.” I thought it meant “answerable to local officials” (and as an extension, the people themselves).

@Dr_Dredd The “organized militia” was the term used for the “answerable” status. As I understand the 18th century meaning “regulated” basiclly meant being able to shoot straight, a word more like “competant” or “practiced” in modern usage. They intended people to be able to defend themselves, as opposed to being at the mercy of the state as in the British model.

The “well-regulated” term is the most confusing in that Amendment. But the positioning of this in the Bill of Rights rather than the main body of the Constitution clarifies it as an individual rather than a State right.

Those of us who are licensed to carry concealed weapons, and those who openly carry are answerable to local officials in any case, since there are laws limiting where we can carry and under what circumstances we may use deadly force. But we are answerable in a different way than peace officers or the National Guard. Carry for personal protection is a different matter than upholding the law or asserting the authority of the State. It is an assertion of an individual right, subject to reasonable restriction.

@tb1570 Yeah, that’s just what we need, an entire society of over-worked, over-stressed time bombs all walking around packing heat. If some of those over worked people would have been able to open carry in Tucson AZ Jared Loughner might have hit 3 people but then he would be firing to save his life as I am sure at least 2 people would have started to return fire saving the lives of some who didn’t make it.