Constitutional Right To Carry?

[newtothis]

Ive noticed a bunch of people state that the right to carry is "In The Constitution". Ive taken a few constitutional law courses as an ever-progressing student, and cant say that the issue has been touched on.

I dont know if its something people say because they believe it to be true and by saying its true enough that they can trick themselves into actually believing it, or if has been something that has been amended to the Constitution via the USSC.

Note: No Purple = Serious question.

 

[Bunnykid68]

2nd Amendment, it was added at the very beginning. We do not truly have a 2nd Amendment right any longer, only the privilege to think we do. Most of use realize we do have that right(2nd Amendment) and capitulate to the States demands out of fear of having more freedoms taken away, such as the freedom to be free. We strive to make it like it should be.

 

[A_Tomic]

The Second Amendment

I believe this is what you are looking for.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.


Bear arms..... to carry.

 

[turn4chatter]

as an ever-progressing student, and cant say that the issue has been touched on.

Note: No Purple = Serious question.

As a good progressive student you wouldn't .

 

[the1kidd03]

I've not heard anyone say it's their Constitutional right to carry...but it is to bear arms in order to protect themselves

 

[Hoosierdood]

Ive noticed a bunch of people state that the right to carry is "In The Constitution". Ive taken a few constitutional law courses as an ever-progressing student, and cant say that the issue has been touched on.

I dont know if its something people say because they believe it to be true and by saying its true enough that they can trick themselves into actually believing it, or if has been something that has been amended to the Constitution via the USSC.

Note: No Purple = Serious question.

Without writing a 15 page dissertation on the subject, lets just say that many colleges/universities are very anti-gun. If you are studying constitutional law, there is absolutely NO WAY that the 2nd amendment can be discussed without coming to the conclusion that CARRYING a firearm (not just owning one or hunting) is a right expressly stated in the Constitution. If that were to happen, then the college would have to admit that they are violating students' rights. No college wants to do that.

In short, they would rather not discuss the subject at all, than to discuss it and be proven wrong.

 

[newtothis]

As a good progressive student you wouldn't .

Lol, thanks for the humor. I blame the education system, mwhahahaha.

 

[newtothis]

Yeah, Its been a lovely experience with Continuing education.

 

[ATM]

The right to keep and bear arms obviously predates it's mention in the 2A, since it is not a right granted by law.
It is a right protected by law. The 2A was written simply to protect these rights of the people from infringement.

The right to keep (own) arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms (have them with you) shall not be infringed.

 

[Effingham]

I've often wondered why people had so much trouble with that word. "BEAR arms." It's pretty plain. You can have 'em ("keep") and CARRY 'em ("bear").

Tony

 

[beararms1776]

The term right to carry doesn't exist. It's a granted privilege.

 

[Stschil]

The term right to carry doesn't exist. It's a granted privilege.

Presently it is treated as such, however I think that "right to carry" is plainly explained. Albeit in verbiage that was in use at the time of it's inclusion, the definition is still the same.

Websters sez:

Main Entry: 2bear
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bore \ˈbȯr\; borne also born \ˈbȯrn\; bear·ing
Etymology: Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a : to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c : behave, conduct <bearing himself well> d : to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother> e : to give as testimony <bear false witness> f : to have as an identification <bore the name of John> g : to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> h : disseminate i : lead, escort j : render, give

4 a : to exert influence or force b : apply, pertain —often used with on or upon <facts bearing on the question>
— bear a hand : to join in and help out
— bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms

The 2nd Amendment sez:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Concerned Citizen]

Ive noticed a bunch of people state that the right to carry is "In The Constitution". Ive taken a few constitutional law courses as an ever-progressing student, and cant say that the issue has been touched on.

Note: No Purple = Serious question.

You better bring your "A-Game" with an argument to back it up if you're going to make that statement here.

 

[Doty]

The term right to carry doesn't exist. It's a granted privilege.

Agreed. In the event our country was invaded then our Constitutional right would be to bear arms. At least that's what they are teaching kids. I wasn't around when they came up with the Bill of Rights so I can't say to what the founders meant by it but then again no one can. I only know what is being taught now.

 

[jbombelli]

When they say "...keep and bear arms..." that means to keep and to carry.

 

[GBuck]

It does say a "well regulated militia"...

 

[Stschil]

It does say a "well regulated militia"...

Now don't come here and start something!

The term "Well Regulated" has been misconstrued repeatedly to suit the end goal of the gun grabbers. Using the meaning of the time, Well Regulated refered to being properly equipped and trained. Uniforms, powder, ball, muskets, etc ready to mount a defense to ANY attack on Liberty.

The Militia was to be comprised of Citizen Soldiers. We the People, were intended to guard jealously to Liberties and Freedoms that they had fought for and won from England. For this to be accomplished, the Means of Defense, RTKBA, was specifically set down within the BoR. This is fact.

We were always supposed to be equipped with a way to defend ourselves from ANY entity that sought to take away those freedoms, including our own elected officials. For this reason, I see as unconstitutional all firearms regulation, including NFA. The only way they could be valid would be a Consitutional Repeal of the 2A, ratified by the States, as set forth in the Constitution itself.
The last portion is my opinion.

 

[Hoosierdood]

It does say a "well regulated militia"...

Well regulated does not mean that the government should regulate the militia. In the late 1700's, "regulate" meant "organized". There was no federal or state oversight of the militia. The militia included average citizens - farmers, business owners, etc. who organized together.

One must understand the terms as they were used at the time to comprehend the true intent of the 2A. The founders understood well (as they had personally experienced it) that each individual needed to not only own firearms, but they needed to be proficient with them. They did not have NRA classes or other training to take at the time. The way people became proficient with firearms was to practice, and be able to practice when they wished.

The framers understood that a well regulated (i.e.- well trained, well organized, well equipped) militia (average citizens) was NECESSARY in order to keep us free. That is why they wrote that the right to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms shall not be infringed (prohibited, violated, breached - coming from the Latin "to weaken")

Keeping arms would do nothing to advance the free State if the militia did not know how to properly use them. Knowing how to use a firearm would do nothing for the advancement of the free State if the militia could not own them, but had to ask the government to "borrow" them any time there was a conflict.

 

[GBuck]

But isn't the National Guard the Militia around here? Wouldn't "organized" mean that we have a set plan and a rank structure? Or is this only pertinent when the SactuallyHTF?

 

[Hoosierdood]

But isn't the National Guard the Militia around here? Wouldn't "organized" mean that we have a set plan and a rank structure? Or is this only pertinent when the SactuallyHTF?

You have been given very clear explanations of the 2A, and definitions of "militia" and "regulated". Now you're just stirring the pot.