It it legal to carry concealed on your property?

[unklekippy]

The courts argument is: There must be an unimpeded method of carry available. It does not necessarily need to be concealed, actually, up to now, the rulings have been, if you license concealed carry, you must allow unlicensed OC. Read: In re BRICKEY.

This particular ruling was in Idaho in 1902, Ohio ruled the same, and where the question has come up, state supreme courts normally go this route.

Understood, but I disagree. The state deciding that since they allow one "unimpeded method of carry", they are allowed to "Infringe Upon" the others? No thanks. I'll stick with "Shall Not Be Infringed". Finding what to me is a "sneaky" way of infringing is still an infringement.

 

[Steve M]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Being told what kind of arm I may keep is infringement.
Telling me where I can bear my arm is infringement.
Telling me how to bear my arm is infringement.
Making me get permission, a permit, or a license for any of the above is infringement.

The only thing that trumps one of my civil rights is if my actions would deprive another person of their civil rights. I think it is about time we start impeaching U.S. Supreme Court Justices that fail to uphold their freely given oaths: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" Actually, let's impeach every judge and elected official that is violating their oath of office.

 

[Botte Hork]

WHO SAYS a CPL is "unconstitutional?"

I've never seen a court rule that way, and certainly not SCOTUS.

People tend to throw that word around without anything to support the argument. You or I may believe something to be unconstitutional but until the Supes rule that it is unconstitutional, we're essentially just blowing hot air out of our (pick a spot)

Yeah, some people like to bubblegum and moan about it being unconstitutional, but at the moment it's your best bet to avoid silly avoidable police trouble. Perhaps I should've worded that better.

 

[Will_Power]

Whoa! Time out.

Re-read the OP..."Hypothetical story"

"Hypothetical"

 

[Dave Workman]

"Hypothetical"

So you're letting us all know you can spell, or what?

 

[MitzyG]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Being told what kind of arm I may keep is infringement.
Telling me where I can bear my arm is infringement.
Telling me how to bear my arm is infringement.
Making me get permission, a permit, or a license for any of the above is infringement.

The only thing that trumps one of my civil rights is if my actions would deprive another person of their civil rights. I think it is about time we start impeaching U.S. Supreme Court Justices that fail to uphold their freely given oaths: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" Actually, let's impeach every judge and elected official that is violating their oath of office.

I wish I could "like" this more than once!
Co-signed

 

[Stevenav]

I will state this. While I'm not inclined to agree with the overall life philosophy of some of the people in here on other things.. I DO have to agree about 2nd A points raised. The gov't has no business (except self interest) in telling us what she can and cannot carry and where.

At the time of the founding, private persons could own and operate everything from small pistols to large cannons (owners of ships for example) There were no such things as a differentiation between military and civilian weapons classes. As such, if you examine the federalist papers you very quickly see that the founders intended that no standing army should exist in the united states save it be counterbalanced by armed civilian forces equal or greater than the military. As such I personally feel we should be able to freely own, purchase and make use of ALL manner of weaponry so long as we can afford and operate it.

If you can afford to own a mig 29 of f18 then you should be able to own it. If you want FLIR radar guided air to air missiles on it, all power to you. If you want a tank buster mini gun firing depleted uranium shells... again.. I say you should be able to own it.

This nonsense about CPLs and whatnot are ridiculous.

In all honesty I think that if you're going to have a state wherein liberty is the goal, then you have to stop trying to be a nanny to people and let them experience the consequences of their actions.

I don't agree with all the prepper viewpoints and whatnot.. but I do agree that 2nd A was put in place for a reason... and that reason is to ensure that citizens have the tools needed to fight for their own freedom should the need arise.