Should people be allowed to carry handguns openly?

[Guns Guns Guns]

No for multiple reasons. Are you asking because you want a serious answer?

What reasons?

[Abatis]

What reasons?

Ok, here goes . . .

You asked:

Do you believe - as some do - that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own any weapon they want?

Above all else when considering the operation of the Constitution I hold the principles of conferred powers and retained rights paramount.

Within the context of the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the provision. Neither is the right in any manner dependent on the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution generally) for its existence. The right exists because no power was ever conferred to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . .

So to start, I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment "gives" me anything.

Continuing with the principle of conferred powers and retained rights, "WE the People" conferred (surrendered) the powers "To declare war" and "To raise and support armies" etc, to the federal government through the Constitution and that includes the acquisition, ownership, maintenance and deployment of the weapons of war. The powers we granted to the federal government via the Constitution preempt all other entities from acting in similar fashion i.e., states or the people printing their own money, entering treaties with foreign nations or organizing and supporting their own army (this is also the doctrine at issue with the Arizona Immigration law SCOTUS heard arguments on last week).

This doctrine is evident in the Constitution and is actually applied to private citizens and it actually focuses on weaponry believe it or not.

During the Revolutionary War we had no real Navy but many private citizens outfitted ships into Man o' War's and "Privateers" harassed and seized over 600 British ships during the war.

After the war, in drafting the Constitution in Art I § 8 cl. 11 Congress was granted the power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" which were the official permissions and orders to operate these ships, which were the most devastating weapons of the day and again, were OWNED BY PRIVATE CITIZENS. The principle behind that reservation of power can certainly be extended into modern times to restrict the ownership by private citizens the armaments of war like fighter jets, tanks, missiles and rockets and cannon and other indiscriminate weapons and most certainly chem/bio/nuke WMD's even though the framers could not have imagined such weapons.

Since the right to own the major arms of war was surrendered, the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity from laws restricting their ownership.

A little bit on what's left . . .

I don't consider the right to arms to be absolute and the 2nd Amendment is not necessarily injured by state laws concerning concealed carry (although I would like to see Art IV enforced on the states) . I do consider open carry of legal firearms to be a 2nd Amendment right (and after McDonald, enforceable upon the states).

For other small arms the issue becomes a bit more complicated but I will say that the laws restricting the ownership (not banning) of full autos by private citizens could be sustained even under strict scrutiny if ever challenged. I would like to see the 1984 closure for new registrations of Title II firearms repealed.

IMNSHO, if there is any firearm that enjoys near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment it is a semi-auto, hi-cap military style rifle in a military caliber, 5.56, .308, 7.62 (to name a few).

[SmarterthanYou]

unbelievable....from your own link which you highlighed

Arizona law permits private business owners (or their designates) to prohibit weapons from being brought onto their property, whether signs are posted or not.

yurt, i'm not sure if you're just confusing whats being said or you're being too literal, but what we're saying is that there is no law that specifically prohibits someone from carrying in to a bank. There may be a law that says a bank can put up a sign that says no guns, but that's only a law allowing them to add a policy, not make a law.

[gui1tars]

They certainly are not legally armed. As such their deaths are regarded by me as little more than a community service. That their deaths serve as fodder for people like you to advocate gun control on the law abiding, I just consider an annoying but expected defect in the thinking of Liberty despising absolutists and statists.

You are certainly entitled, I love saying that word to rightwingers, to believe or feel anything or way you want, dumborama. You advocate your side of this equation and I'll continue to advocate and agitate mine. At the end of the day we'll both see who is making the greatest contribution to society at large and ourselves particularly.

[Guns Guns Guns]

Ok, here goes . . . You asked: Above all else when considering the operation of the Constitution I hold the principles of conferred powers and retained rights paramount. Within the context of the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the provision. Neither is the right in any manner dependent on the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution generally) for its existence. The right exists because no power was ever conferred to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . . So to start, I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment "gives" me anything. Continuing with the principle of conferred powers and retained rights, "WE the People" conferred (surrendered) the powers "To declare war" and "To raise and support armies" etc, to the federal government through the Constitution and that includes the acquisition, ownership, maintenance and deployment of the weapons of war. The powers we granted to the federal government via the Constitution preempt all other entities from acting in similar fashion i.e., states or the people printing their own money, entering treaties with foreign nations or organizing and supporting their own army (this is also the doctrine at issue with the Arizona Immigration law SCOTUS heard arguments on last week). This doctrine is evident in the Constitution and is actually applied to private citizens and it actually focuses on weaponry believe it or not. During the Revolutionary War we had no real Navy but many private citizens outfitted ships into Man o' War's and "Privateers" harassed and seized over 600 British ships during the war. After the war, in drafting the Constitution in Art I § 8 cl. 11 Congress was granted the power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" which were the official permissions and orders to operate these ships, which were the most devastating weapons of the day and again, were OWNED BY PRIVATE CITIZENS. The principle behind that reservation of power can certainly be extended into modern times to restrict the ownership by private citizens the armaments of war like fighter jets, tanks, missiles and rockets and cannon and other indiscriminate weapons and most certainly chem/bio/nuke WMD's even though the framers could not have imagined such weapons. Since the right to own the major arms of war was surrendered, the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity from laws restricting their ownership. A little bit on what's left . . . I don't consider the right to arms to be absolute and the 2nd Amendment is not necessarily injured by state laws concerning concealed carry (although I would like to see Art IV enforced on the states) . I do consider open carry of legal firearms to be a 2nd Amendment right (and after McDonald, enforceable upon the states). For other small arms the issue becomes a bit more complicated but I will say that the laws restricting the ownership (not banning) of full autos by private citizens could be sustained even under strict scrutiny if ever challenged. I would like to see the 1984 closure for new registrations of Title II firearms repealed. IMNSHO, if there is any firearm that enjoys near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment it is a semi-auto, hi-cap military style rifle in a military caliber, 5.56, .308, 7.62 (to name a few).

I see. So you feel government has the right to restrict or prohibit citizen ownership of weapons?

[gui1tars]

I see. So you feel government has the right to restrict or prohibit citizen ownership of weapons?

That's what it looks like.

[Guns Guns Guns]

That's what it looks like.

Does SmarterThanFew agree?

[gui1tars]

Does SmarterThanFew agree?

I would imagine that dumberthananyoneIevermet could read that 1,000 times and it would never sink in. We'll see.

[Guns Guns Guns]

I would imagine that dumberthananyoneIevermet could read that 1,000 times and it would never sink in. We'll see.

Abatis seems rational. Let's see if SmarterThanFew will debate him/her.

[Abatis]

I see. So you feel government has the right to restrict or prohibit citizen ownership of weapons?

Government has no rights only powers that we grant to it.

Rights are exceptions of power and in the case of the fundamental rights recognized in the Bill of Rights, exceptions of powers never granted.

I would say that, as a blanket statement, government would have exactly the same ambit of power to restrict or prohibit citizen ownership of weapons as it has to restrict or prohibit citizen assembly, speech or press/publishing or exercising their religion.

Free speech is regulated by laws that define what speech is unacceptable, obscene, offending or injurious.
The press is regulated by laws defining what is obscene also, and libelous or what is a slanderous accusation.
Religion is regulated in ways that restrict the citizen's free exercise. Animal and human sacrifices, polygamy and use of illicit substances are all declared illegal.
Assembly and Petition is regulated as to where and when one may protest, the permits required to do so, payment for police overtime, requiring bonds to be held for damage etc.

None of these regulations can be described as having prohibitory action on the right itself.

Not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater does not silence you.

Laws against libel don't prevent you from writing and publishing.

Laws against sacrifice don't prevent you from worshiping your God (or not).

Laws requiring 200,000 abortion-rights protesters to get a permit doesn't affect your local, 50 member Democratic club from having a picnic and softball game in the park.

All these regulations have at their core, a proscription against certain behavior that is an abuse or could lead to an immediate abuse of the right in question.

Gun laws don't follow this model. Prior restraint is the model. The acts of brandishing, threatening, shooting at someone without just cause, unjustifiable homicide etc, etc, are illegal. No problem with that. Such illegitimate action against your fellow man is most certainly an abuse of the right to be armed.

The problem rises when, in an additional response to these events, the protected means to possibly commit these offenses is targeted. No where else except with guns, is the means attacked. You are not required to wear a gag in a theater, you are not impeded in writing or submitting a manuscript. You and your political club are not forced underground, your church is not nailed up.

Restrictive gun laws have as there core, just say no to everybody, all the time, no exceptions; or at a minimum, one must first prove that he is worthy to exercise.

So . . .

Just as with the 1st Amendment's near absolute protection of political speech (you can pretty much say anything when opining about government short of death threats to officials) the citizen's right to own and use firearms that have militia usefulness (and thus are useful to secure the free state) and in common use at the time, is near absolute (See US v Miller, DC v Heller). The right can only be disabled for crimes committed, mental infirmity, dishonorable discharge from the military and abuse of intoxicants after due process.

[Guns Guns Guns]

So, does the government have the power to deny citizens the right to bear certain arms, or not?

[gui1tars]

So, does the government have the power to deny citizens the right to bear certain arms, or not?

Strange question, slasher. Of course the government has that power and the government uses it all the time. That is what we as citizens pay government employees to do.

[Guns Guns Guns]

I'm interested in Abatis's opinion on the subject.

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I do not agree. It's the height of ignorance to even remotely believe that the framers of the constitution, who had just experienced decades of oppression by their own central government (the last straw being that the british were attempting to confiscate all arms and powder from them to prevent them from defending themselves), would knowingly and willingly provide their new central government with any power whatsoever to restrict the populace to inferior arms so that they would be forced to be subservient to that new government. In this particular instance, 'reasonable' means nothing more than submission. Something that is the exact opposite of what the framers intended.

[Don Quixote]

No, I do not agree. It's the height of ignorance to even remotely believe that the framers of the constitution, who had just experienced decades of oppression by their own central government (the last straw being that the british were attempting to confiscate all arms and powder from them to prevent them from defending themselves), would knowingly and willingly provide their new central government with any power whatsoever to restrict the populace to inferior arms so that they would be forced to be subservient to that new government. In this particular instance, 'reasonable' means nothing more than submission. Something that is the exact opposite of what the framers intended.

would reasonable include the combination assault rifle with grenade launcher