• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is open carry a FIRST Amendment Right?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,398
Location
White Oak Plantation

D1KarVer

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Alachua County Area
No.

The Founders were quite clear in this. Research the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

http://thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers

Remember, official suppression of our right to speak freely (government tyranny) is blunted by our natural right to defend ourselves from government tyranny.
& the constitution and bill of Rights dont ask for or demand separation of the church and state.
But I will add its almost a moot point, the criminals act regardless of laws. Laws may hinder the law abiding citizens and those willing to act in there legal limits. Criminals are like alcoholism, they will drink again they will get the drink, find a way and not see lifes answers at the bottom of the drink. And they will show restraint to a point
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Amendment 9

Constrution of the Constitution



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This Amendment protects all rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.. The basic natural rights that the founders did not feel necessary to mention... Right to think, right to travel, right to be left alone, etc...

See Griswold v Connecticut.. and try thinking on your own!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Synopsis of Griswold v Connecticut:
A Fourteenth Amendment case brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Connecticut making contraceptive products illegal.

Holding:
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and ruled it unconstitutional, enabling all people 'getting bizzzay!' to purchase marital aids (in this case contraceptives) and have 'marital privacy'.

Legacy:
Although the decision in Griswold v Connecticut only addressed the privacy of married couples, it was later used to expand the principles beyond that particular decision.
Eisenstadt v. Baird extended its holding to unmarried couples, Roe v Wade decriminalized abortion and Lawrence v Texas made it legal for two people of the same sex to make whoopee with each other.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Synopsis of Griswold v Connecticut:
A Fourteenth Amendment case brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Connecticut making contraceptive products illegal.

Holding:
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and ruled it unconstitutional, enabling all people 'getting bizzzay!' to purchase marital aids (in this case contraceptives) and have 'marital privacy'.

Legacy:
Although the decision in Griswold v Connecticut only addressed the privacy of married couples, it was later used to expand the principles beyond that particular decision.
Eisenstadt v. Baird extended its holding to unmarried couples, Roe v Wade decriminalized abortion and Lawrence v Texas made it legal for two people of the same sex to make whoopee with each other.
I would assume that you read all the justices opinions both concurring and dissenting,, therefore you will observe that the ninth amendment was mentioned and relied upon for this case..

In my humble opinion the 9th A protects all "individual liberty's.. For example, in Griswold the justices referenced the right to marry, the right of parents to educate their children, the natural right of privacy and the right to be left alone.. Keep in mind that the aforementioned rights were long established before the "bill of rights" ever existed... Hence the 9th amendment in my humble opinion " Trumps the "Bill of Rights"..

My .02
 
Last edited:

D1KarVer

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Alachua County Area
Synopsis of Griswold v Connecticut:
A Fourteenth Amendment case brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Connecticut making contraceptive products illegal.

Holding:
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and ruled it unconstitutional, enabling all people 'getting bizzzay!' to purchase marital aids (in this case contraceptives) and have 'marital privacy'.

Legacy:
Although the decision in Griswold v Connecticut only addressed the privacy of married couples, it was later used to expand the principles beyond that particular decision.
Eisenstadt v. Baird extended its holding to unmarried couples, Roe v Wade decriminalized abortion and Lawrence v Texas made it legal for two people of the same sex to make whoopee with each other.
Thank You for what you wrote...
Seeing the words
construed: which means; explained, made clearer

disparage: means; bo belittle or put down something or someone

enumeration: means; noting of items one by one

retained: means; kept, owned
In #9 my opinion is along the lines of what you think. And I dont view #9 as The Amendment protecting all rights not encased in the Bill of Rights.. like basic natural rights the writers did not feel necessary to mention... they imo did a great Job. I dont know about about you Fall or CountryJoe but I dont see a important reason on a argument on this as I dont see imo it pertaining to a argument on the op topic. The 9th isnt the 1st or 2nd and imo I humbly disagree the first would win a argument of open carry as a right of free speech, I see open carry as a right to Bear Arms, its my belief to carry out of a Right of the 2nd for the protection of self, family, and as a deterrence. The State can be Trumped by Federal law and I see states enactment of gun control and restrictions as a violation of personal Rights, and federal law. If a law isnt clear and a state clarifies I think its wrong imo the fed should clarify gun rights and allow the Citizen flexibility. IMO if a military could have full Auto weapons we citizens should as well.

While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary.[citation needed] The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.[citation needed Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
I would assume that you read all the justices opinions both concurring and dissenting,, therefore you will observe that the ninth amendment was mentioned and relied upon for this case..

In my humble opinion the 9th A protects all "individual liberty's.. For example, in Griswold the justices referenced the right to marry, the right of parents to educate their children, the natural right of privacy and the right to be left alone.. Keep in mind that the aforementioned rights were long established before the "bill of rights" ever existed... Hence the 9th amendment in my humble opinion " Trumps the "Bill of Rights"..

My .02
We can still think what we want, right?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
This Amendment protects all rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.. The basic natural rights that the founders did not feel necessary to mention... Right to think, right to travel, right to be left alone, etc...

See Griswold v Connecticut.. and try thinking on your own!
clark w. griswold?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Agreed, while some articles on Wikipedia are subject to much editing back and forth it shouldn't be assumed prima facie to not be suitable for use as a source (so long as there are footnotes to reputable sources). I'll happily use Wikipedia's entry on Terry v Ohio for a concise summation of the case rather than forcing someone to read pages and pages of USSC records.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
Really? Says who, particularly when The Wikipedia is indeed the source for his quoted material?

The Wikipedia is a fine first reference, particularly for a topic with which YOU are not familiar. The references and external citations are a fine study guide.
Agreed, while some articles on Wikipedia are subject to much editing back and forth it shouldn't be assumed prima facie to not be suitable for use as a source (so long as there are footnotes to reputable sources). I'll happily use Wikipedia's entry on Terry v Ohio for a concise summation of the case rather than forcing someone to read pages and pages of USSC records.
says me.

the fact that joe shmo can edit it makes it unreliable.

you don't know "who" the author is. and unless you cross check all of the footnotes, you're setting yourself up.

it's basically like saying, "i heard it on facebook".
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
wow, you went down that garden path...whew!

ipse
Agreed, while some articles on Wikipedia are subject to much editing back and forth it shouldn't be assumed prima facie to not be suitable for use as a source (so long as there are footnotes to reputable sources). I'll happily use Wikipedia's entry on Terry v Ohio for a concise summation of the case rather than forcing someone to read pages and pages of USSC records.
Really? Says who, particularly when The Wikipedia is indeed the source for his quoted material?

The Wikipedia is a fine first reference, particularly for a topic with which YOU are not familiar. The references and external citations are a fine study guide.
Better to say, "I heard it through the Grapevine." --snicker--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hajBdDM2qdg


lol


all in all- if i am making an argument, i'm not going to use a site that could be edited at any moment by any person. usually when i'm trying to back up my opinion with a source, i want it to be something that i've researched and can trust as verifiable and reputable. i'd much rather have someone read through a cornell law page, than by chance have some faulty information i missed or a reputation for being untrustworthy.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
says me.

the fact that joe shmo can edit it makes it unreliable.

you don't know "who" the author is. and unless you cross check all of the footnotes, you're setting yourself up.

it's basically like saying, "i heard it on facebook".
So when I ask wikipedia what the chemical composition of salt it, and it says "Common salt is a mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride (NaCl)" I'm supposed to roll my eyes and say, "As IF!"?

Or, when I research how many states compose the United States, I'm supposed to doubt it when it says there are 50 and not 57 as Mr Obama did with his faux pas?

Yea, I don't know you and you can say whatever you want so doesn't that make your word somewhat... unreliable?
 
Top