Why ask for CHL privileges?

[Trlsmn]

I'll be honest..... at times I get tired of people looking at me like I'm about to shoot them when I open carry. One thing I like to try is to have a CHL badge, and a holder for it that allows me to also display my CHL permit for when I open carry. I would think that if someone saw me open carry and they saw something shiny (CHL badge) around my neck with a pic ID that they would calm down a bit and assume that I'm a good guy. People already assume what they want to assume so why not try to make it kinda of a positive assumption? lol Yeah I guess I would look like a wanna be cop..... but when I wear my uniform to work I already look like one

That isn't what I would think.

 

[zeezee]

Is it just the Right that has issues with the way the NRA is doing things? I'd be willing to venture it is more like a majority of firearms owners / NRA members that have issues with the NRA.

<broken link removed>

 

[8ball]

3.Why did we let the Government tell us if we can carry a firearm under your shirt?

We shouldn't have. It is just another example of progression.

The real reason we have to deal with this stuff now is because when the politicos pushed this stuff through no one challenged it up to the Supreme court as they are now doing.

Neither of these are strictly true or relevant.

The legal basis for most concealed carry laws stems from an 1897 Supreme Court case called Robertson v Baldwin. The 1897 Supreme Court was hardly a bunch of 'progressives'. Justice Brown, who wrote that opinion, was a staunch Republican who also wrote Plessey v Ferguson which upheld racial segregation.

The Supreme Court stated very clearly in that case:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;"

ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U. S. 275 :: Volume 165 :: 1897 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[Trlsmn]

Neither of these are strictly true or relevant.

The legal basis for most concealed carry laws stems from an 1897 Supreme Court case called Robertson v Baldwin. The 1897 Supreme Court was hardly a bunch of 'progressives'. Justice Brown, who wrote that opinion, was a staunch Republican who also wrote Plessey v Ferguson which upheld racial segregation.

The Supreme Court stated very clearly in that case:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;"

ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U. S. 275 :: Volume 165 :: 1897 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Poor example, Robertson v. Baldwin is not about the 2nd at all it was about involuntary servitude not the second amendment. The one line you quoted was not part of the case and used as an example of traditional English law . If this were what the modern laws are based on then they could be overturned as that case has nothing to do with our 2nd amendment rights.

The wording mentions this as already being a settled fact so the wording in that decision can't even be relied on as a basis of the CHL constitutionality.

The wording refers to UNITED STATES V. BALL as it's reference so you should start your search there.

Read Robertson v. Baldwin for yourself:

ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U. S. 275 :: Volume 165 :: 1897 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[The B]

concealed carry permit badges are about as gay as.... how can i say this without getting banned...?

 

[8ball]

Poor example, Robertson v. Baldwin is not about the 2nd at all it was about involuntary servitude not the second amendment. The one line you quoted was not part of the case and used as an example of traditional English law . If this were what the modern laws are based on then they could be overturned as that case has nothing to do with our 2nd amendment rights.

A case doesn't have to be about the 2nd Amendment to have an impact on the interpretation of your constitutional rights.

Pretty much every reference on gun law calls out Robertson v. Baldwin as a key case on this point e.g. from Vol 1 of Guns in American Society by Carter:

"The opinion in Robertson is significant as an entry in the gun control debate because it represents an early enunciation by the U.S. Supreme Court of the principle that neither the Second nor other amendments to the Constitution are to be read as categorical and immutable declarations of particular rights."

The line I quoted is the majority opinion of the 1897 Supreme Court on the topic of the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Neither of these are strictly true or relevant.

The legal basis for most concealed carry laws stems from an 1897 Supreme Court case called Robertson v Baldwin. The 1897 Supreme Court was hardly a bunch of 'progressives'. Justice Brown, who wrote that opinion, was a staunch Republican who also wrote Plessey v Ferguson which upheld racial segregation.

The Supreme Court stated very clearly in that case:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;"

ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U. S. 275 :: Volume 165 :: 1897 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

I'm compelled to agree with Trlsmn. Baldwin has only a small margin of inferential weight to support the validity of the constitutionality of concealed carry restrictions. But it offers no value for anyone who wants to use it to make a serious case for the constitutional validity of concealed carry restrictions.

The reason for this is because the reference made by Justice Brown to the carrying of concealed weapons in the Baldwin case, is a kind of reference that goes by the name of "dictum" or "dicta" in the realm of case law.

"Dicta" is merely a glancing judicial reference to a tangential issue or point and is used for context to aid in building the reasoning for the argument of the case at hand. But dicta does not carry much value for basing a blanket claim on.

In the single paragraph in Baldwin where concealed carry is mentioned, Justice Brown mentions it as one amongst several Bill of Rights exceptions. He goes on to cite case law support for two of his dicta exception references (United States v. Ball, Brown v. Walker), but those two cases pertain to 5th Amendment provisions.

He cites no case at all that directly supports his dicta claim about concealed carry. Therefore, no case law homework can be done on Brown's concealed carry claim, as cited, and is of little value as a foundation to make the blanket claim that this case provides the legal basis for the constitutional validity of the encroachment of concealed carry laws on our 2nd Amendment right to carry.

But, as far as dicta goes in lending support for arguments that try to encroach on rights and liberties (like those protected by the 2nd Amendment), Walker itself can be used in a dicta vs. dicta sense to offer a very convincing counter-argument against the temptation of trading rights for convenience or "common good":

"The abuses and perversions of sound principles which would creep into the law by yielding to arguments like these -- to what is supposed to be necessary for the public good -- cannot be better stated than it was by the late Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 635. Said the learned justice:

"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be 'obsta principiis.'" "

 

[CounterOfBeans]

A case doesn't have to be about the 2nd Amendment to have an impact on the interpretation of your constitutional rights.

Pretty much every reference on gun law calls out Robertson v. Baldwin as a key case on this point e.g. from Vol 1 of Guns in American Society by Carter:

"The opinion in Robertson is significant as an entry in the gun control debate because it represents an early enunciation by the U.S. Supreme Court of the principle that neither the Second nor other amendments to the Constitution are to be read as categorical and immutable declarations of particular rights."

The line I quoted is the majority opinion of the 1897 Supreme Court on the topic of the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry, nothing more, nothing less.

Great quote. Sooo what was the name of that "1897 Supreme Court on the topic of the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry, nothing more, nothing less" again?

 

[Father of four]

"The abuses and perversions of sound principles which would creep into the law by yielding to arguments like these -- to what is supposed to be necessary for the public good -- cannot be better stated than it was by the late Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 635. Said the learned justice:

"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be 'obsta principiis.'" "

Nice! And the Peoples duty to be watchful of the courts!

 

[Father of four]

Any one that carries a concealed carry permit badge should automatically have their CCW permit revoked and be sterilized immediately.

You dont like the "BLING!" ?

 

[Trlsmn]

I'm compelled to agree with Trlsmn. Baldwin has only a small margin of inferential weight to support the validity of the constitutionality of concealed carry restrictions. But it offers no value for anyone who wants to use it to make a serious case for the constitutional validity of concealed carry restrictions.

The reason for this is because the reference made by Justice Brown to the carrying of concealed weapons in the Baldwin case, is a kind of reference that goes by the name of "dictum" or "dicta" in the realm of case law.

"Dicta" is merely a glancing judicial reference to a tangential issue or point and is used for context to aid in building the reasoning for the argument of the case at hand. But dicta does not carry much value for basing a blanket claim on.

In the single paragraph in Baldwin where concealed carry is mentioned, Justice Brown mentions it as one amongst several Bill of Rights exceptions. He goes on to cite case law support for two of his dicta exception references (United States v. Ball, Brown v. Walker), but those two cases pertain to 5th Amendment provisions.

He cites no case at all that directly supports his dicta claim about concealed carry. Therefore, no case law homework can be done on Brown's concealed carry claim, as cited, and is of little value as a foundation to make the blanket claim that this case provides the legal basis for the constitutional validity of the encroachment of concealed carry laws on our 2nd Amendment right to carry.

But, as far as dicta goes in lending support for arguments that try to encroach on rights and liberties (like those protected by the 2nd Amendment), Walker itself can be used in a dicta vs. dicta sense to offer a very convincing counter-argument against the temptation of trading rights for convenience or "common good":

"The abuses and perversions of sound principles which would creep into the law by yielding to arguments like these -- to what is supposed to be necessary for the public good -- cannot be better stated than it was by the late Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 635. Said the learned justice:

"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be 'obsta principiis.'" "

Thank you, you explained it much better than my feeble attempt!

Oh and 8Ball...

YouTube - WinnerAce

 

[deen_ad]

It's a rule of life that you have to deal with BS to get what you want. If you want to be able to defend yourself, then you have to get your BS permission slip, otherwise you have to deal with BS charges if you get caught.

Regarding #4, once I got my badge, I felt I deserved special treatment.

to flash that as it can get you arrested for impersonation a LEO.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member

 

[deen_ad]

<broken link removed>

I needed a good laugh tonight!!

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member