Jump to content


Photo

Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here.

concealed carry open carry

  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#91 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 17 April 2017 - 08:22 PM

If you are one of those people who claim that the Second Amendment protects a right to concealed carry because the plain text of the Second Amendment makes no mention of concealed carry then you should be aware that isn't a legal argument.

2A speaks of carrying by saying we have a right to bear arms.

2A also says our right shall not be infringed.

 

Saying you must bear or carry arms a certain way would be an infringement on your right to bear or carry the ways that are prohibited.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#92 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 17 April 2017 - 08:35 PM

I just want to know if Mr. Nichols supports our rights to CC or not.  A very simple question.  At that point we can decide of he's indeed friend or foe.

He already answered that question earlier in this thread, which is that he does not. He supports outlawing CC. His goal in advancing open carry is so that concealed can be outlawed entirely without running afoul of 2A protections.

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

#93 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 17 April 2017 - 10:02 PM

From the perception of an originalist, OC was fine. CC was considered nefariois, and you were assumed to be up to no good.

In the modern sense though, I have no intention to ever OC, and only every will CC (while legally allowed). Purely for social acceptance. However, I will also happily support attempts to legalize and socially accept OC. I just won't sacrifice CC in the process.


Ya know, I'm not sure the "originalist" view was open or concealed. I don't think they thought about it that much. As technological advancement has progressed through the ages, weaponry has always trended towards the smallest, lightest weapon that could be used effectively. A quick perusal of handgun offerings throughout American history will reveal that handguns were as small as technology would allow. I would also think it odd that a colonial would have taken any care to make sure his pistol was outside of his overcoat. The same people who said we have an inalienable right to be "secure in our possessions" also said we had a right to bear arms. And it means no more or less than that.

One thing Mr. Nichols has provided by sharing his absolutism regarding the 2A is that it is folly to think that the forefathers intended it to be that narrow. To follow that line of thinking to its logical end, it would be illegal to put an AR in a covert case to and from your car, even to deter theft. How does that square with a right to privacy?

The answer to the OC vs CC debate is yes.

#94 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,188 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 17 April 2017 - 10:32 PM

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

He's a troll.

I haven't really decided if he's an anti, part of the Bloomberg et all machine, or just backwards/luddite.

I also figure he started this thread, and incites other arguments on the board, to try to gather information about how pro-gun people view the situation and to try to get insight into possible legal challenges to his schemes.

I fully expect, if his California scheme goes as he desires, that we would end up seeing some kind of similar legal challenge in Illinois. Bloomberg is all about trying to restrict and reverse the tide of concealed carry liberalization across the country. This is a very viable long term strategy to do just that.

It's not about CC vs OC, it's about making carry so unviable that almost no one does so. Imagine a future where open carry is the only carry option, and anyone who open carries gets swatted by antifa types. If you read leftists on social media, the groundwork is already being laid for that.

Edited by Gamma, 17 April 2017 - 10:35 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#95 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:17 PM

I find it interesting that he has trouble with the members of the opencarry.org forum.



#96 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,380 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 05:24 AM

A quick perusal of handgun offerings throughout American history will reveal that handguns were as small as technology would allow. I would also think it odd that a colonial would have taken any care to make sure his pistol was outside of his overcoat.

 

 

How big were the pistols at the time?   I'd think they were huge, and difficult to conceal carry anyway.

 

I think the OP's argument has the same elements of the "the 2nd amendment only protects the weapons at the time of the amendment's adoption" argument.   The argument is the same wolf, wearing a different color sheep's clothing.


Edited by BobPistol, 18 April 2017 - 05:25 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#97 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 06:00 AM

Can't imagine the Founding Fathers concerned over flashing a pistol butt or entering a GFZ tavern.



#98 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 06:51 AM

A quick perusal of handgun offerings throughout American history will reveal that handguns were as small as technology would allow. I would also think it odd that a colonial would have taken any care to make sure his pistol was outside of his overcoat.
 


 
How big were the pistols at the time?   I'd think they were huge, and difficult to conceal carry anyway.
 
I think the OP's argument has the same elements of the "the 2nd amendment only protects the weapons at the time of the amendment's adoption" argument.   The argument is the same wolf, wearing a different color sheep's clothing.


Plenty of stuff like this. Pockets would of course confer concealment.

77ae8913d3ccf4145c60d5f933dd2051.jpg

http://www.angelfire...ns_pistols.html

#99 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,532 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:00 AM

There once was a vest pocket pistol on display at Monticello. Obviously, it was intended to be concealed. For some time now, open carry has been mostly unpopular in "polite" society. This is changing in some places, partly I think, due to the increased acceptance of concealed carry. I see no reason to suppress either method even though I would likely take the Jefferson route and politely conceal any evidence that I was armed.

 

The choice to conceal or display (should we ever have that choice here) is pretty personal. Advocating for open carry only seems pretty militant, akin to early gun grabbing practices.

 

From a wiki article:

 

Concealed weapons bans were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. (In those days open carry of weapons for self-defense was considered acceptable; concealed carry was denounced as the practice of criminals.) By 1859, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio had followed suit.[14] By the end of the nineteenth century, similar laws were passed in places such as Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, which protected some gun rights in their state constitutions.[15] Before the mid 1900s, most U.S. states had passed concealed carry laws rather than banning weapons completely.[16] Until the late 1990s, many Southern states were either "No-Issue" or "Restrictive May-Issue". Since then, these states have largely enacted "Shall-Issue" licensing laws, with numerous states legalizing

 

 

There were also a couple pretty functional looking pocket tools (Leatherman or Swiss Army Knife like) on display at Monticello... Cool place to tour if you are in the neighborhood.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#100 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:49 AM

There once was a vest pocket pistol on display at Monticello. Obviously, it was intended to be concealed. For some time now, open carry has been mostly unpopular in "polite" society. This is changing in some places, partly I think, due to the increased acceptance of concealed carry. I see no reason to suppress either method even though I would likely take the Jefferson route and politely conceal any evidence that I was armed.
 
The choice to conceal or display (should we ever have that choice here) is pretty personal. Advocating for open carry only seems pretty militant, akin to early gun grabbing practices.
 
From a wiki article:
 
Concealed weapons bans were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. (In those days open carry of weapons for self-defense was considered acceptable; concealed carry was denounced as the practice of criminals.) By 1859, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio had followed suit.[14] By the end of the nineteenth century, similar laws were passed in places such as Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, which protected some gun rights in their state constitutions.[15] Before the mid 1900s, most U.S. states had passed concealed carry laws rather than banning weapons completely.[16] Until the late 1990s, many Southern states were either "No-Issue" or "Restrictive May-Issue". Since then, these states have largely enacted "Shall-Issue" licensing laws, with numerous states legalizing
 
 
There were also a couple pretty functional looking pocket tools (Leatherman or Swiss Army Knife like) on display at Monticello... Cool place to tour if you are in the neighborhood.


I wonder if there is a correlation between anti-concealed carry laws and the oppression of blacks.

#101 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,398 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 11:19 AM

I wonder if there is a correlation between anti-concealed carry laws and the oppression of blacks.

Bingo!

While technically illegal for everyone, in reality only blacks were ever charged.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#102 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,188 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

I wonder if there is a correlation between anti-concealed carry laws and the oppression of blacks.

Bingo!
While technically illegal for everyone, in reality only blacks were ever charged.

Post Civil War racism is really the bedrock foundation of gun control in the US.

FOID in Illinois is based on racism. You know how the left goes nuts at the idea of requiring an ID to vote, and claim that their minority constituents can't do that? That same mentality is why they want to require an ID to own a firearm.

And still obvious in things like mass transit carry bans.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#103 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 18 April 2017 - 01:20 PM

 

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

He's a troll.

I haven't really decided if he's an anti, part of the Bloomberg et all machine, or just backwards/luddite.

I also figure he started this thread, and incites other arguments on the board, to try to gather information about how pro-gun people view the situation and to try to get insight into possible legal challenges to his schemes.

I fully expect, if his California scheme goes as he desires, that we would end up seeing some kind of similar legal challenge in Illinois. Bloomberg is all about trying to restrict and reverse the tide of concealed carry liberalization across the country. This is a very viable long term strategy to do just that.

It's not about CC vs OC, it's about making carry so unviable that almost no one does so. Imagine a future where open carry is the only carry option, and anyone who open carries gets swatted by antifa types. If you read leftists on social media, the groundwork is already being laid for that.

 

 

Gamma, I REALLY appreciate you trying to help by translating your interpretation of his goals and objectives. A lot of others have offered their ideas as well. However again, I am trying to get Mr. Nichols to come clean.  

 

While I've read this thread, and a number of others more times that I'd really care to, I do fully understand he as a preference for OC. That is part clear.

 

I also know the way the greater Pro-2A community, including myself, views the right to keep and bear arms means, OC AND CC. Recent decisions have stated that keep and bear arms also means outside of the home. We get all that.

 

The VERY specific point I'm getting at is, fine he prefers CC - That's cool.  And, I'd even go as far as to say that he feels OC is getting marginalized by CC.  But, does his dislike go to the level that he would actually try to undermine CC, if he felt that would improve his case for OC?  And worse, even take it one step further in sabotaging both in favor of less overall carry rights?  That is the $64K question.

 

I still cannot see enough to actually accuse him of the later, as some have. However, the reach is logical. While it's amusing to entertain the romantic visions of "honorable carry" and "cowardly scoundrels" from the wild west days, the fact is, there has been a total role reversal between concealed carry and open carry as viewed by the society of today.  So, while I have no doubt he loves to play dress up with his fancy cowboy outfits and six shooters, is he really that determined to go mutually assured destruction and screw us all over, if he can't get his way?

 

His stated objective of this is thread was, is CC a 2A right?  We have all asked, why is there a need to parse out CC vs OC? He can pose the question anyway he wants. One of us can even flip it around, and ask is OC a 2A right?  But who cares? The question should be is "CARRY a 2A Right?"  What is the benefit of parsing them out against each other. Why play into his hand, if indeed his end game is to sink both?

 

So there, Mr. Nichols, with all due respect, we know you are a troll - That point is clear.  I just wonder if you are an honorable 2A supporter with a flair for fringed leather, stamped tin, and ivory grips, or are you a cowardly scoundrel?  You have to know by now, you are not well regarded by much of anyone in the Pro-2A circles, and I'd like to give you the opportunity to clarify your position in the event your critics have it all wrong.  If you want to clear the air, the podium is all yours...



#104 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,188 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 18 April 2017 - 01:30 PM

Might be instructive to read the amicus briefs he filed on the California carry cases.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#105 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 18 April 2017 - 01:35 PM

Please Gamma?



#106 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 19 April 2017 - 11:05 AM

 

From the perception of an originalist, OC was fine. CC was considered nefariois, and you were assumed to be up to no good.

In the modern sense though, I have no intention to ever OC, and only every will CC (while legally allowed). Purely for social acceptance. However, I will also happily support attempts to legalize and socially accept OC. I just won't sacrifice CC in the process.


Ya know, I'm not sure the "originalist" view was open or concealed. I don't think they thought about it that much. As technological advancement has progressed through the ages, weaponry has always trended towards the smallest, lightest weapon that could be used effectively. A quick perusal of handgun offerings throughout American history will reveal that handguns were as small as technology would allow. I would also think it odd that a colonial would have taken any care to make sure his pistol was outside of his overcoat. The same people who said we have an inalienable right to be "secure in our possessions" also said we had a right to bear arms. And it means no more or less than that.

One thing Mr. Nichols has provided by sharing his absolutism regarding the 2A is that it is folly to think that the forefathers intended it to be that narrow. To follow that line of thinking to its logical end, it would be illegal to put an AR in a covert case to and from your car, even to deter theft. How does that square with a right to privacy?

The answer to the OC vs CC debate is yes.

 

I'm no lawyer but I also prefer your "originalist" view of 2nd Amendment regarding Open/Concealed Carry. Reading other posts it seems like 1800's politicians found a way to complicate the 2A with their personal negative opinions of concealed carry. Interesting how those personal judgments from 1800's don't always line up with 2017's. People might have a personal preference, but most don't care if Open/Concealed Carry coexist. Just like our politicians are also screwing up the original Constitution with their "nanny" personal judgments for our descendants to fix.

 

It was refreshing talking with an Indiana State Policeman to better understand their carry laws. Their License to Carry (LTC) doesn't differentiate between Open Carry or Concealed Carry... you just Carry... no difference between OC or CC. After he corrected me when I referred to "concealed carry", it greatly simplified my understanding of the Indiana gun laws. And seems to fit the scope of the 2nd amendment just fine.



#107 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 19 April 2017 - 12:11 PM

I really  like that -- shall issue, right to carry with manner as a matter of choice (and I can live with training [probably a good idea really] and even a reasonable fee).  BUT is it too logical? too simple? what the Second actually meant?


Edited by Plinkermostly, 19 April 2017 - 12:12 PM.


#108 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 19 April 2017 - 12:30 PM

I really  like that -- shall issue, right to carry with manner as a matter of choice (and I can live with training [probably a good idea really] and even a reasonable fee).  BUT is it too logical? too simple? what the Second actually meant?

 

Training and fees?  No & No.

 

What other rights require fees and training to exercise?


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#109 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,380 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:52 PM

 

 

What other rights require fees and training to exercise?

 

 

 

Fees?  I can think of one:   The right to private property.   Property taxes, license plates, income taxes,

Training?  Same thing:  You need to know building codes, zoning codes.....


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#110 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:43 PM


 
 
What other rights require fees and training to exercise?
 


 
 
Fees?  I can think of one:   The right to private property.   Property taxes, license plates, income taxes,
Training?  Same thing:  You need to know building codes, zoning codes.....


I am referring to exercising enumerated or fundamental rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#111 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 19 April 2017 - 10:48 PM

From the perception of an originalist, OC was fine. CC was considered nefariois, and you were assumed to be up to no good. In the modern sense though, I have no intention to ever OC, and only every will CC (while legally allowed). Purely for social acceptance. However, I will also happily support attempts to legalize and socially accept OC. I just won't sacrifice CC in the process.

 

If you are one of those people who claim that the Second Amendment protects a right to concealed carry because the plain text of the Second Amendment makes no mention of concealed carry then you should be aware that isn't a legal argument.

2A speaks of carrying by saying we have a right to bear arms.

2A also says our right shall not be infringed.

 

Saying you must bear or carry arms a certain way would be an infringement on your right to bear or carry the ways that are prohibited.

 

Neither method should be "outlawed" as both have their "pros & cons".

OC - don't have to worry about "printing";

more comfortable as not inside waistband of pants, making them even tighter;

less exposed to sweat in the summer time;

can carry a larger firearm;

can be positioned for easier draw (lower on the leg - advantageous for people with arthritis); etc.

CC - won't create a "panic" among those "sheep" so inclined to panic attacks;

you won't forget it because it is pushing into your hip and you would miss that sensation if you DID forget it; etc.

 

I would prefer OC (sans permit - "Constitutional carry!) as I could carry my 4" GP-100 in .357 Magnum instead of my .380.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#112 nulloverride

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 13

Posted 26 April 2017 - 01:59 PM

 

It is true that if it were up to me then I would ban concealed carry subject to the 19th century exceptions (e.g., travelers while actually on a journey) but that is not the purpose of my creating this topic.

 

There are those here who insist that the Second Amendment protects concealed carry despite nearly half a millennium of case law and prohibitory laws saying it isn't. Here is where they are provided with the opportunity to make their case that concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment.

 

So far, not a single person has even taken a stab, as it were, at making a case.

 

I don't expect that anyone will but one never knows.  Perhaps someone here will surprise me and do something that none of the so called gun-rights lawyers were able to make in any of their concealed carry lawsuits, and that is a case which supports the proposition that concealed carry is a Second Amendment right.

 

 

 

 

 

He already answered that question earlier in this thread, which is that he does not. He supports outlawing CC. His goal in advancing open carry is so that concealed can be outlawed entirely without running afoul of 2A protections.

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

 

 

If you see the post above he says pretty clearly on page 2 of this thread that he would ban CC with some explicit exceptions.  Why badger him to say it again?

 

Personally from the guy's tone and his posting of multiple case references, I think he just wants to feel like he's "teaching" people.  Like we're all a bunch of slack-jawed yokels or something.  Maybe he is a troll, maybe he's not, but I find his attitude annoying so I'm pretty much not going to say much beyond this in this thread.



#113 nulloverride

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 13

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:01 PM

 

 

 

What other rights require fees and training to exercise?

 

 

 

Fees?  I can think of one:   The right to private property.   Property taxes, license plates, income taxes,

Training?  Same thing:  You need to know building codes, zoning codes.....

 

 

I didn't need to know any building or zoning codes to buy my house.  No training what-so-ever, and yet I have property.



#114 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,380 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 26 April 2017 - 06:07 PM

 

 
 
What other rights require fees and training to exercise?
 


 
 
Fees?  I can think of one:   The right to private property.   Property taxes, license plates, income taxes,
Training?  Same thing:  You need to know building codes, zoning codes.....


I am referring to exercising enumerated or fundamental rights.

 

 

Unless I'm missing something (i.e. 4th amendment *cough*) private property is a fundamental right. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#115 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:54 AM

 

It is true that if it were up to me then I would ban concealed carry subject to the 19th century exceptions (e.g., travelers while actually on a journey) but that is not the purpose of my creating this topic.
 
There are those here who insist that the Second Amendment protects concealed carry despite nearly half a millennium of case law and prohibitory laws saying it isn't. Here is where they are provided with the opportunity to make their case that concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment.
 
So far, not a single person has even taken a stab, as it were, at making a case.
 
I don't expect that anyone will but one never knows.  Perhaps someone here will surprise me and do something that none of the so called gun-rights lawyers were able to make in any of their concealed carry lawsuits, and that is a case which supports the proposition that concealed carry is a Second Amendment right.

 
 

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

 
If you see the post above he says pretty clearly on page 2 of this thread that he would ban CC with some explicit exceptions.  Why badger him to say it again?
 
Personally from the guy's tone and his posting of multiple case references, I think he just wants to feel like he's "teaching" people.  Like we're all a bunch of slack-jawed yokels or something.  Maybe he is a troll, maybe he's not, but I find his attitude annoying so I'm pretty much not going to say much beyond this in this thread.

 

 
Thanks again for another person feeling the need to answer for Mr. Nichols. Great - I get your input, it is filed away, thank you very much.
 
I want to know why in his mind OC and CC cannot coexist.  This has nothing to do with simply being a OC supporter.  Its more about setting the record straight about purposely sabotaging CC whether or not it offers any ultimate benefit to OC.
 
This is his thread - I'm still waiting for him to give us the big picture.



#116 gangrel

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,797 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:50 AM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  It doesn't get much more clear than "shall not be infringed."

 

I advocated for, practice, and teach concealed carry.  I would not open carry.  I am not an opponent of open carry.  I do not advocate for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry.  I do not understand the logic of advocating for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry, and I most certainly do not understand the logic of advocating for open carry to the detriment of concealed carry.  Period.


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#117 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:16 AM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  It doesn't get much more clear than "shall not be infringed."

 

I advocated for, practice, and teach concealed carry.  I would not open carry.  I am not an opponent of open carry.  I do not advocate for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry.  I do not understand the logic of advocating for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry, and I most certainly do not understand the logic of advocating for open carry to the detriment of concealed carry.  Period.

 

x2



#118 mcspider

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 14

Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:48 AM

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  It doesn't get much more clear than "shall not be infringed."

 

I advocated for, practice, and teach concealed carry.  I would not open carry.  I am not an opponent of open carry.  I do not advocate for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry.  I do not understand the logic of advocating for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry, and I most certainly do not understand the logic of advocating for open carry to the detriment of concealed carry.  Period.

 

x2

 

X3



#119 Soutsidr

  • Members
  • 35 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 02 May 2017 - 08:42 AM

I just want to know if Mr. Nichols supports our rights to CC or not.  A very simple question.  At that point we can decide of he's indeed friend or foe.

He already answered that question earlier in this thread, which is that he does not. He supports outlawing CC. His goal in advancing open carry is so that concealed can be outlawed entirely without running afoul of 2A protections.

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.
Hee still has not responded in this thread, but in post 172 of the Peruta thread (April 29), he stated the following:

"Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here." After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand."

#120 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 02 May 2017 - 01:20 PM

Yes, it looks like the POS coward isn't going to come back.  F' him.  He can just go back to prancing around his house in his girlie cowboy outfit with the pink fringe he's dying to share with the world.  Hopefully, he gets ran over by a SA truck.


Edited by mrmagloo, 02 May 2017 - 01:21 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: concealed carry, open carry

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users