Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > United States City Forums > Washington
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 11-23-2010, 04:34 PM  
Junior Member

Anniston, Alabama
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8 | Kudos: +10
I carry concealed, but sometimes I carry the 1911 instead of the .380, because it is much larger, and shows folks that "there's sumptin under that shirt"! If the bad guys beleive that you are carrying something that might end their criminal career, they usually go looking for an unarmed victim.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2010, 04:46 PM  
Junior Member

Seattle, WA
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6 | Kudos: +10
I see both sides. I respect those who have the desire to educate the public (including some LEs) who think open carry is illegal (it's not in WA) and I understand the principles of those who carry concealed.

I prefer to carry (G27, 135gr Triton QuickShocks) concealed because I don't want to be the first guy shot if a guy who's hellbent on criminal behavior sees me before I see him (i.e., Maurice Clemens).

I appreciate normally liberal-minded Starbucks standing up for the rights of Americans and not bending to the squeals of anti-gunners.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 01:32 PM  
Junior Member

Anniston, Alabama
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8 | Kudos: +10
One kudu for Starbucks, but I still wouldn't buy their coffee if they were the last coffee house in the U.S. In a response to a U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant in Iraq, asking if they would send over some of their coffee for the troops, they replied that they did not support the war over there, NOR THE PEOPLE SENT TO FIGHT IT! Well, Nuff said.
SSG, USA, Retired!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 09:58 PM  
Junior Member
 
PragmaticHubris's Avatar

Tacoma, WA
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 29 | Kudos: +10
Could someone show me where, specifically, in the Constitution the right to Open Carry is given?
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 10:59 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Well, the right to keep and bear arms.

And that's where the word "bear" comes in - the interpretation is where people really get into arguments.

The dictionary defines bear as "to carry", along with many other similar definitions. So technically speaking, that's where the Constitution gives us the right to carry weapons.

But, of course, many believe the interpretation of it should evolve over time - I, however am not one of those people. I believe that I should have the right to open carry, but I think it's somewhat disrespectful to people with little kids or those who are frightened by the sight of a gun, so I conceal carry only.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 08:42 AM  
Senior Member
 
neophyte's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 668 | Kudos: +12
More available

adding to 'Jake7'

NRA-ILA :: Right-to-Carry 2010

Right-to-Carry 2010

The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), ruled that the Second Amendment protects ?the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.?

Self-defense is a fundamental right. The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. RTC laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry firearms for protection.

There are 40 Right-to-Carry states: 37 have ?shall issue? laws, requiring that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Two have fairly-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. Alaska and Arizona have ?shall issue? permit systems for permit reciprocity1 with other states, and have allowed concealed carrying without a permit since 2003 and July 2010,* respectively. Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems; Illinois and Wisconsin have no permit system and prohibit carrying. Iowa became the most recent ?shall issue? state on April 29, 2010, when Governor Chet Culver (D) signed legislation adopted by votes of 81-16 in the state?s House of Representatives and 44-4 in the Senate.*
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 10:25 AM  
Junior Member

Silverdale, Washington
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wktipton View Post
One kudu for Starbucks, but I still wouldn't buy their coffee if they were the last coffee house in the U.S. In a response to a U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant in Iraq, asking if they would send over some of their coffee for the troops, they replied that they did not support the war over there, NOR THE PEOPLE SENT TO FIGHT IT! Well, Nuff said.
SSG, USA, Retired!
I'm active duty Navy and I had to coordinate getting 4-5 pallets of coffee and other goodies from Starbucks to our troops over-there.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 10:10 PM  
Junior Member
 
PragmaticHubris's Avatar

Tacoma, WA
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 29 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
And that's where the word "bear" comes in - the interpretation is where people really get into arguments.
yeah, I can see how differing interpretations of that can cause arguments. Everything seems to be an argument these days.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2010, 09:02 PM  
Junior Member
 
WSRepublic's Avatar

Seattle, Washington
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6 | Kudos: +11
Anyone who tells you the Constitution changes over time... or that it can be interpreted is either an idiot, or they hate our Republic and want to bring on tyranny (they'll tell you its a utopia).

The Constitution is a contract and contracts cannot be "interpreted"! They are strictly read. If anything is to be re-interpreted in a contract, you must have a legal amendment made to that contract.

The, Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Not a friggin chance! It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are.

If the States did not grant the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution, then what is the proper role of the federal courts in questions involving federal legislation and the Constitution? When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged as not conforming to the Constitution, the federal judiciary has only one duty?to lay the article of the Constitution that is invoked beside the statute that is challenged and decide whether the latter squares with the former. The judiciary does not have the power to interpret the Constitution―it has the power to scrutinize the statute being challenged to make sure it falls within the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by the States via the Constitution.

In any contractual agreement involving the creation of an agent, the final word on the extent of the powers granted to the agent rests with the principals not the agent. If 13 home owners got together, and by contract, created an agent and limited its duties to mowing their yards, trimming their trees, and maintaining the outside landscaping, would the agent have the power to interpret the contract to include duties not enumerated in the contract? Absolutely not. This would be an absurdity because the contract would not be worth the paper it was written on. In such a case, the principals would sit their agent down and tell it to either stay within the scope of the powers granted by the contract or we will amend or terminate the contract. The Constitution was designed to operate on this same principle. Unfortunately, the States are failing to exercise this power.

The underlying reason why the federal judiciary was not granted the authority to interpret the Constitution was stated very succinctly by John Marshall who would later become Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court―?the judicial power cannot extend to political compacts.? Since the Constitution is a political compact between the several States, and the federal government is not a party to that compact, it lacks the constitutional authority to interpret the compact, or decide, in the last resort, the extent of
the powers granted to it by the several States.

Remember, our inalienable rights are absolute. That which we are unable to do, we are unable to grant the ability to our government to do. The right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is not up for debate... its not up on the bargaining table for negotiations... those who want my weapons will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.... god willing, there will be many more of them dead than I.

Open carry is specifically to shove our rights in their face and tell them bluntly to GO TO HELL OR DIE! BUT EITHER WAY, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY LIBERTY!!!
__________________
?Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.?
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 10:35 AM  
Junior Member

Seattle, WA
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wktipton View Post
One kudu for Starbucks, but I still wouldn't buy their coffee if they were the last coffee house in the U.S. In a response to a U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant in Iraq, asking if they would send over some of their coffee for the troops, they replied that they did not support the war over there, NOR THE PEOPLE SENT TO FIGHT IT! Well, Nuff said.
SSG, USA, Retired!
Don't belive every email you get...

snopes.com: Starbucks Refuses Marines
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > United States City Forums > Washington
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.