Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Gun rights vs. gun control. Second Amendment.
Post Reply
Darryl E Berry Jr
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:36 pm

Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by Darryl E Berry Jr » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:51 pm

The US Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Then isn't kidnapping someone and stealing their gun (arresting them and claiming their weapon) if they have it concealed when they don't have a concealed weapon permit infringing those rights?

I'm looking for anyone who has challenged this. It seems very clear to me that this is meant to protect my right to keep whatever weapon I want, however I want to keep it - at home, in car, in my pocket, single shot, automatic, etc. Thoughts please.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by editor » Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:45 am

I'm in complete agreement with you Darryl.

We've allowed our most basic rights to be infringed, and it's long past time to reverse the trend. Rights not exercised are deemed abandoned. This is the thinking behind the many groups around the country who are currently participating in open carry marches. It exercises those rights, and makes the public aware of the law.

Of course the laws the groups are following are already watered-down versions of the Second Amendment, but hopefully these actions can help preserve rights that are still recognized, and even reclaim those which have fallen into disuse.

It is important to tread carefully with this issue. By this I do not mean anyone should lay down and let his rights be infringed. But what we do not need is someone going into court unprepared, who loses a case which the progressives can use to claim a precedent.

Do any readers know of cases which might help Darryl?
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by notmartha » Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:07 pm

"People" have rights while "persons" have revokable privileges. Codes and statutes are written for persons. Which are you? Your standing is important.

There have been many arguments made, most being in regard to persons trying to change the codes that apply to them.

The general consensus seems to be the same, as stated in THIS case:
With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the
carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the
Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the
Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not
infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Id. at 281-82. More
recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “the
majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on
carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. In light of our nation’s extensive practice of
restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this
activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.
Note that this case was in respect to Peterson, a person by virtue of residency and his request for a license.

Here are some more cases:

http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/sixth- ... -1733.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app ... 12-11.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/su ... sc344.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/ ... /91f0.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/ ... 82-11.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app ... 07-08.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... /1236.html

Are you sure you "conceal" carry?
To conceal. A withholding of something which one knows and which one, in duty, is bound to reveal.
Last edited by notmartha on Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
saulvation
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:02 pm

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by saulvation » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:54 pm

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been settled by the Supreme Court some time ago. I'll let you search the cases. It has been settled that the 2nd Amendment has to do with Militia, only. For private and individual use of firearms you would go to the 9th Amendment and simply exercise a right you already have and supported by the Constitution. Saul
saulvation
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:02 pm

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by saulvation » Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:50 pm

It it also important to regard "contracts" when dealing with the U.S. Government. Adhesion contracts are in effect when a "person" purchases a gun or some other firearm from a U.S.manufacturer or other international manufacturer of firearms. The contract between the manufacturer and the U.S. states that information and requirements be followed by third party clients, U.S. Citizens for example when purchasing a firearm. In essence when a "person" purchases a firearm from a manufacturer that has contracted with the U.S. Government, the policies and rules apply by "adhesion" to the third party (purchaser) without direct application by the third party. Saul
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by editor » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:12 am

I try not to hang around with "persons." They are generally subject to far too many contracts.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
saulvation
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:02 pm

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by saulvation » Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:48 am

Yes, and that is exactly why people are in trouble. The SSA of 1935. The application that was filled out. In law it created a specific entity. The entanglement ensued especially in contracts, because people do not know who they are, and so general partnerships are created. Nor do they know the party(s) in which they make agreements with. Saul
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:38 pm

There are 4 organic laws; The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4, A.D. 1776; Articles of Confederation of November 15, A.D. 1777; Northwest Ordinance of July 13, A.D. 1787; Constitution of the United States of September 17, A.D. 1787.

The only organic laws to be embraced by the people are the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America and Articles of Confederation, the other two should be rejected. The Constitution of 1787 has never been adopted as a Constitution of the United States. The United States Constitution is territorial under Art 4.3.2 and has nothing to do with the people of the perpetual Union. Neither the 2nd Amendment nor any of the Bill of Rights guarantee anything to the people of the perpetual Union. Once you really study the organic laws and what has taken place you will realize this. Of course you can just poo poo this or do what is necessary to uncover the truth.

I put up a video http://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1398#p1398 that you should watch. and also go to the following link to learn more: http://organiclaws.org/
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
ITSa341
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:27 am

Re: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Includes "Concealed Carry"

Post by ITSa341 » Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 am

saulvation

DC vs Heller directly recognizes the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is NOT limited to militia activties or membership in any way.
Post Reply