24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
.280Rem Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
VA, posted this list earlier of States that have some part of their constitution dealing with the RTKBA. I've bold-ed the states that mention specifically regulation of carry or concealed carry.

I feel sure that some, or maybe even all of these have been amended at some time since their original writing, to include the language regarding "concealed carry" or that relating to the method of carry. I'd be curious to know if any of these is in it's original form if any of y'all care to look at your state's Constitution and check it out. Part of the reason I'm curious is that the SCOTUS, in part, based it's opinion in Heller on historical text regarding the 2A and keeping and bearing of arms for personal use. If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man. BUT, I don't know. This, concealed carry, will be our ultimate battleground, and it may be the toughest one legally as it applies to the 2A. I can see a good public policy argument that carry should be open and notorious, as well I can see a good argument that even though "back in the day" concealed carry was considered sinister, but that times have changed and concealed carry is the common practice of the modern law abiding man, as well as a good public policy argument that concealed carry is in the public's best interests. The "times have changed" argument is a dangerous one too...it's one of the biggies the anti's seek to use to have the 2A repealed. Anyway, just a thought. I'd like to see your thoughts here, and know if any or all of those below have been amended from original. FWIW, Alabama (and a few others like it) seems to have hit the nail on the head by including "defense of self" in their language.

Quote
The constitutions of thirty-nine (39) states guarantee a right to arms. By comparison to the second amendment of the United States Constitution the textual content of most state constitutions effects broader rights. Presently only five states track the language of the second amendment.

..................................

Thirty-nine (39) states have constitutional provisions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Alabama: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Ala. Const. art. I, � 26.

Alaska: "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." Alaska Const. art. I, � 19.

Arizona: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Ariz. Const. art. II, � 26.

Arkansas: "The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense." Ark. Const. art. II, � 5.

Colorado: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." Colo. Const. art. II, � 13.

Connecticut: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Conn. Const. art. I, � 15.

Florida: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Fla. Const. art. I, � 8.

Georgia: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne." Ga. Const. art. I, � 1, para. 5.

Hawaii: "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." Hawaii Const. art. I, � 15.

Idaho: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." Idaho Const. art. I, � 11.

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Ill. Const. art. I, � 22.

Indiana: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." Ind. Const. art. I, � 32.

Kansas: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." Kan. Const., Bill of Rights, � 4.

Kentucky: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." Ky. Const. � I, para. 7.

Louisiana: "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." La. Const. art. I, � 11.

Maine: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense; and this right shall never be questioned." Me. Const. art. I, � 16.

Massachusetts: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.

Michigan: "Every person has a right to keep or bear arms for the defense of himself and the State." Mich. Const. art. I, � 6.

Mississippi: "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power where thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons." Miss. Const. art. III, � 12.

Missouri: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." Mo. Const. art. I, � 23.

Montana: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Mont. Const. art. II, � 12.

Nevada: "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." Nev. Const. art. I, � 11(1).

New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the State." N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 2a.

New Mexico: "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." N.M. Const. art. II, � 6.

North Carolina: "A well regulated militia being necessary to be the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice." N.C. Const. art. I, � 30.

Ohio: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." Ohio Const. art. I, � 4.

Oklahoma: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons." Okla. Const. art. II, � 26.

Oregon: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." Or. Const. art. I, � 27.

Pennsylvania: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Pa. Const. art. I, � 21.

Rhode Island: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." R.I. Const. art. I, � 22.

South Carolina: "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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law." S.C. Const. art. I, � 20.

South Dakota: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied." S.D. Const. art. VI, � 24.

Tennessee: "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Tenn. Const. art. I, � 26.

Texas: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Tex. Const. art. I, � 23.

Utah: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law." Utah Const. art. I, � 6.

Utah voters in the 1984 elections will decide whether to amend Art. I � 6 to read as follows: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational use and all other lawful purposes, shall not be infringed; but this provision shall not prevent passage of laws to govern the carrying of concealed weapons; nor prevent legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by convicted felons, minors, mental incompetents or illegal aliens; nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those used in the commission of a felony.

Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in 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." Vt. Const. Ch. I, art. 16.

Virginia: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Va. Const. art. I, � 13.

Washington: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Wash. Const. art. I, � 24.

Wyoming: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied." Wyo. Const. art. I, � 24.

STATES WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

Eleven (11) states do not have a constitutional provision on arms: California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Source: STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, by Robert Dowlut and Janet A. Knoop
[Copyright � 1982 Oklahoma City University Law Review. Originally published as 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 177-241 (1982). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from www.okcu.edu/law/lrissue.htm]
Website: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html


War Damn Eagle!


GB1

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
V
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
V
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Exactly.

Well stated. Concealed carry, is but a method you may use "to keep and bear arms", but methods of expressing a right may be regulated (as may methods of self-expression under the 1st Amendment). That historically regulation of that method has existed, and continues to exist, should surprise no one, nor should the simple position that regulation of that method WILL continue, though it will likely become recognized as possible and permitted nation-wide, TO THOSE WHO QUALIFY for a permit to do so.

However, a national reciprocity for concealed carry PERMITS is something that is very winnable, and will likely be the coup de grace on these cases.

Once the inalienable individual right has been established, or rather affirmed, as it was in Heller, the next logical steps are incorporation of the 2nd into the 14th and thus application to the states, and application of strict scrutiny.

From there, the only two major battles left to be fought are national reciprocity for CCW permits (as has been clearly established via reciprocity for driving permits as an extension of the right to travel; not everyone has one, or can get one, and they can be revoked, but for those that have and retain them, they are good nation-wide), and prohibitions on bans of ammunition or the draconian taxation of ammunition as it is a necessary component within the RTKBA.

We've won the first, and the most important, battle of the 5 battles to be joined. There are 4 to go; 2 have already been joined and are marching toward their logical end at the SCOTUS. 2 remain yet unjoined, and likely shall until the resolution of the incorporation and scrutiny issues.




Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
.280Rem Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Well, with some quick and easy Googling, I found the answer here: State by state breakdown of RTKBA provisions, and dates of amendments.

As you can see, many, though some by amendment, added the "concealed carry" language early on. Kentucky for example in 1850, MS 1890, MO 1875, LA 1879.

IMO, this "concealed carry" issue will be the biggest hurdle. This could be an issue left to state or local discretion for regulation in the end, and if we get strict scrutiny, I'm not sure how that will effect it, if at all.


War Damn Eagle!


Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
I believe I've read that from several sources, i.e., that back in the day folks considered open carry honorable, but concealed carry was considered sinister, like what an assassin would do.

I don't think there is an actual risk of repealing the Second Amendment, though. Too many folks that do not suffer from the full blown form of the mental disease of extreme leftism for that to happen. Some people might be "philosophically opposed" to allowing "the other guy" to keep and bear arms, but even most of them would secretly like to preserve the liberty to do so for themselves, should they perceive at any point in the future that it has become necessary for them to do so.

Just like if you actually put to a referendum whether the government should prohibit anyone to have a net worth above ten million dollars. Most people hope one day to "strike it rich" somehow, and while they would be happy to prevent "the other guy" from amassing a net worth like that, they'd secretly like to leave the door open for themselves, just in case.

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
.280Rem Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
I believe I've read that from several sources, i.e., that back in the day folks considered open carry honorable, but concealed carry was considered sinister, like what an assassin would do.

I don't think there is an actual risk of repealing the Second Amendment, though. Too many folks that do not suffer from the full blown form of the mental disease of extreme leftism for that to happen. Some people might be "philosophically opposed" to allowing "the other guy" to keep and bear arms, but even most of them would secretly like to preserve the liberty to do so for themselves, should they perceive at any point in the future that it has become necessary for them to do so.

Just like if you actually put to a referendum whether the government should prohibit anyone to have a net worth above ten million dollars. Most people hope one day to "strike it rich" somehow, and while they would be happy to prevent "the other guy" from amassing a net worth like that, they'd secretly like to leave the door open for themselves, just in case.


This "I should be allowed to own/carry a firearm, but the great unwashed masses are not competent to do so, and therefor should be denied that right" is a classic example of rank and file liberal ideology.


War Damn Eagle!


IC B2

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
.280Rem Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
I believe I've read that from several sources, i.e., that back in the day folks considered open carry honorable, but concealed carry was considered sinister, like what an assassin would do.



It would appear that from the dates of the writing of some of those provisions, that was exactly the line of thinking.


War Damn Eagle!


Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Well, with some quick and easy Googling, I found the answer here: State by state breakdown of RTKBA provisions, and dates of amendments.

As you can see, many, though some by amendment, added the "concealed carry" language early on. Kentucky for example in 1850, MS 1890, MO 1875, LA 1879.

IMO, this "concealed carry" issue will be the biggest hurdle. This could be an issue left to state or local discretion for regulation in the end, and if we get strict scrutiny, I'm not sure how that will effect it, if at all.
I think that as much as leftists hate the idea of regular folks having the right to carry firearms on their daily routine (they have no problem with allowing Madonna or George Cluny do it, though), if given a forced choice between allowing unrestricted open carry or unrestricted concealed carry, they'd prefer that everyone be required to conceal when they carry. They just hate that "wild west" look of open carry.

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
.280Rem Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Well, with some quick and easy Googling, I found the answer here: State by state breakdown of RTKBA provisions, and dates of amendments.

As you can see, many, though some by amendment, added the "concealed carry" language early on. Kentucky for example in 1850, MS 1890, MO 1875, LA 1879.

IMO, this "concealed carry" issue will be the biggest hurdle. This could be an issue left to state or local discretion for regulation in the end, and if we get strict scrutiny, I'm not sure how that will effect it, if at all.
I think that as much as leftists hate the idea of regular folks having the right to carry firearms on their daily routine (they have no problem with allowing Madonna or George Cluny do it, though), if given a forced choice between allowing unrestricted open carry or unrestricted concealed carry, they'd prefer that everyone be required to conceal when they carry. They just hate that "wild west" look of open carry.


Sure, anybody in their "elite ruling class" should be allowed. They, afterall, are hear to protect us from all things evil as well as from ourselves.


War Damn Eagle!


Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Originally Posted by .280Rem
This "I should be allowed to own/carry a firearm, but the great unwashed masses are not competent to do so, and therefor should be denied that right" is a classic example of rank and file liberal ideology.
Exactly.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,662
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,662
The concealed carry provisions of the Florida Constitution are very restrictive.
For example, last year, Florida 'granted' the right to Citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in State Parks, and National Forests.
HOWEVER>................

This 'right' is restricted to only those with a valid CCW license.

Consider that about 400K licenses have been issued, and that there are some 16 million Floridians. That means that 97.5% of all Floridians are PREVENTED from being able to protect themselves. 97.5%!!!

That is an unreasonable restriction.


Sam......

IC B3

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
.280Rem Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
The concealed carry provisions of the Florida Constitution are very restrictive.
For example, last year, Florida 'granted' the right to Citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in State Parks, and National Forests.
HOWEVER>................

This 'right' is restricted to only those with a valid CCW license.

Consider that about 400K licenses have been issued, and that there are some 16 million Floridians. That means that 97.5% of all Floridians are PREVENTED from being able to protect themselves. 97.5%!!!

That is an unreasonable restriction.


Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


War Damn Eagle!


Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
South Dakota: No amendments.
Quote
� 24. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

Concealed carry is "shall issue" by statute. Only a small minority of South Dakotans have a problem with this.

I'm not convinced concealed carry was considered sinister when the state constitution was adopted in 1889. The earliest reference to state regulation of concealed carry I can find with limited resources at hand is SDC 1939, �� 21.0105 through 21.0107.


The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Which explains a lot.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
The concealed carry provisions of the Florida Constitution are very restrictive.
For example, last year, Florida 'granted' the right to Citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection in State Parks, and National Forests.
HOWEVER>................

This 'right' is restricted to only those with a valid CCW license.

Consider that about 400K licenses have been issued, and that there are some 16 million Floridians. That means that 97.5% of all Floridians are PREVENTED from being able to protect themselves. 97.5%!!!

That is an unreasonable restriction.


Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?
They charge a fee for a license. I don't think it's unreasonable, but some folks might find it hard to afford. Over all cost is about $150.00, when you add in the cost of fingerprinting and background checking.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,201
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,201
Originally Posted by .280Rem
VA, posted this list earlier of States that have some part of their constitution dealing with the RTKBA. I've bold-ed the states that mention specifically regulation of carry or concealed carry.

I feel sure that some, or maybe even all of these have been amended at some time since their original writing, to include the language regarding "concealed carry" or that relating to the method of carry. I'd be curious to know if any of these is in it's original form if any of y'all care to look at your state's Constitution and check it out. Part of the reason I'm curious is that the SCOTUS, in part, based it's opinion in Heller on historical text regarding the 2A and keeping and bearing of arms for personal use. If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man. BUT, I don't know. This, concealed carry, will be our ultimate battleground, and it may be the toughest one legally as it applies to the 2A. I can see a good public policy argument that carry should be open and notorious, as well I can see a good argument that even though "back in the day" concealed carry was considered sinister, but that times have changed and concealed carry is the common practice of the modern law abiding man, as well as a good public policy argument that concealed carry is in the public's best interests. The "times have changed" argument is a dangerous one too...it's one of the biggies the anti's seek to use to have the 2A repealed. Anyway, just a thought. I'd like to see your thoughts here, and know if any or all of those below have been amended from original. FWIW, Alabama (and a few others like it) seems to have hit the nail on the head by including "defense of self" in their language.



I agree with you.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a culture where carrying concealed was considered nefarious.........


Casey


Casey

Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively...
Having said that, MAGA.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,662
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,662
Quote
Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


I don't know, nor do I know how to find out. I do know that many of the existing licenses were grated to non residents.

This has always been about making money, nothing more. When they got this through the legislature, it was presented, in part, as a way to generate revenue and provide jobs.


Sam......

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
Quote
Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


I don't know, nor do I know how to find out. I do know that many of the existing licenses were grated to non residents.

This has always been about making money, nothing more. When they got this through the legislature, it was presented, in part, as a way to generate revenue and provide jobs.
One problem I had with the Florida-wide CCW law was that it simultaneously nullified the right of Floridians to carry a firearm openly. Prior to this law, you didn't need a license to carry one openly, and that should never have been messed with, since our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to carry for lawful self defense. Only the method of carry is subject to regulation, according to the Florida Constitution. This gives them the authority to require a license for concealed carry, but not for both concealed carry and open carry, and they are not allowed to make the only avenue of carry one which requires a license. Government cannot legitimately require a licence for someone to exercise a right, especially when that right is explicitly guaranteed in the State Constitution.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,863
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
Quote
Sam,

How many people have applied for and been denied a permit to carry?


I don't know, nor do I know how to find out. I do know that many of the existing licenses were grated to non residents.

This has always been about making money, nothing more. When they got this through the legislature, it was presented, in part, as a way to generate revenue and provide jobs.
One problem I had with the Florida-wide CCW law was that it simultaneously nullified the right of Floridians to carry a firearm openly. Prior to this law, you didn't need a license to carry one openly, and that should never have been messed with, since our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to carry for lawful self defense. Only the method of carry is subject to regulation, according to the Florida Constitution. This gives them the authority to require a license for concealed carry, but not for both concealed carry and open carry, and they are not allowed to make the only avenue of carry one which requires a license. Government cannot legitimately require a licence for someone to exercise a right, especially when that right is explicitly guaranteed in the State Constitution.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TN. did the same thing, when the concealed permits came in, the open carry went out. With some exceptions, hunting, open carry on your own property, open carry in your own business and a few others. crazy

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11,282
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11,282
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.


"You set your own goals for success, and when you succeed it don't necessarily mean that you're going to be a big star or make a lot of money or anything. You'll feel it in your heart whether you've succeeded or not." - Roy Buchanan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
The British Bulldog was very popular in the late 1800's.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
T
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
T
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,449
Originally Posted by WheelchairBandit
Originally Posted by .280Rem
If any of these are in their original form from say back in the 1800s, then it would appear to me that "back in the day" concealed carry was a practice that was considered sinister or that method of carry of those bent on misdeed. Open carry was the mode of carry for the upstanding man.


Not exactly.

From what I've read,our perception of the "Old West" is drasticaly different than what it was actualy like.The only people who toted handguns in plain view were cowboys (while out on the range),and peace officers.Folks didn't go around town toting a Colt SAA on their hip.

Most of the handguns carried back then were small and usually concealed.Remember,more small handguns-such as derringers and the small top break revolvers from S&W and others-were sold than just about any other handgun.

FWIW.

WB.
That's a good point.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

77 members (10gaugemag, 35, 10Glocks, 14idaho, 6mmbrfan, 280shooter, 7 invisible), 1,602 guests, and 739 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,190,599
Posts18,454,557
Members73,908
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.083s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9247 MB (Peak: 1.1347 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-04-19 08:57:16 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS