Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Fascinating History

Have you wondered why we don't see as many politicians running on a gun-control platform? Maybe the polling has revealed that there is a trend.

Animated Chart of Concealed Carry 1986-2011

If that doesn't tell you what Americans from sea to shining sea think about their Second Amendment you aren't paying attention.

6 comments:

immagikman said...

It's a bit misleading, they have maryland listed as a "May Issue" state, but they absolutely will NOT issue, unless you are law enforcement, or are a Cash or Medicinal courier

Ed Rasimus said...

That is the definition of "may" vs "shall" issue. In the former thay can issue. In the latter they must.

Anonymous said...

Under Heller you don't have a right to carry concealed or otherwise. You simply have a right to a firearm to protect your home.

Nothing wrong with each state choosing as it pleases to grant that right to it's citizens and I wouldn't have a problem if Congress created a federal concealed/carry priveledge (real headache for Arizonans on the CA border) but your second amendment right doesn't extend to carry/concealed under Heller.

Since the Constitution does grant the right to a firearm to protect your home I wonder if Congress could invalidate the laws that states have passed against concealed carry by making it a federal concern under the Tenth amendment. My heart says yes but my intellect says no.

~leadfoot

Ed Rasimus said...

Don't give up your day job to practice law, Lead.

Heller establishes that the Second Amendment is an individual rather than a collective right ("right of the people" always has meant individuals, and "well-regulated militia" doesn't mean only the government can keep/bear arms.)

It retained local right to regulate within reason and since it was brought in the District, applied to the District.

McDonald v Chicago applies the Heller principle to the states and partially incorporates the 2nd Amendment.

Neither has a thing to do with whether your carry is home or outside, concealed or open.

And the "Constitution does grant the right to a firearm to protect your home" is totally bogus.

The Second Amendment says not a word about home, hunting, self-defense, target-shooting, collecting. It is about retaining arms for the "security of a free state" which is about citizens maintaining the control over their government. Not the other way around.

For the Congress to "make it a federal concern under the Tenth Amendment" would be the ultimate in 1984 New Speak. It would be a precise reversal of what the 10th Amendment does.

FlyingBarrister said...

SCOTUS also ruled that the Second is a fundamental right, but 4 justices on Leftfoot's team have so little regard for the text and the history behind the provision that they don't think it confers an individual right at all.

The entire purpose of a constitutional provision is uniformity, not piecemeal rights. Liberals go crazy under any attempt of states to restrict abortion, require a waiting period, parental notification, or a sonogram and insist that the right cut from whole cloth must be held inviolate. They will simultaneously advocate denial and piecemeal restriction of a textual right under the Second because they don't like guns and someone might get killed. But they conveniently ignore that someone dies every time--every time--their favorite bloody sacrament (and constitutional right) of abortion is exercised.

SCOTUS has not yet ruled that carrying handguns (and concealed at that) is a part of the right. If one has an inalienable right of self preservation and defense, and the Second ensures, it then there is no sound rationale to restrict it solely to the home. One would/should have the same right on the road and away from home, his life may in fact be in greater peril then. The states might point to some history of restrictions on concealed carry in colonial times and at ratification and argue that the framers and ratifiers knew some restrictions could be applied.

The House has acted to extend the right, and Congress has authority to pass laws to ensure uniformity of constnl protection under Section 5 of the 14th Amend. The liberals have seen no reason to be reluctant to exercise such power for all their pet causes.

Anonymous said...

Ed,

As you can see below in the quoted text Justice Scalia (who I rarely agree with but in this case hit the ball out of the park) touched on conceal weapon carry here. It's pretty apparent that Scalia intended to allow the state and local authorities to determine when and if citizens can carry concealed. And in the second quote Scalia specifically mentions the the home. The Constituion gives SCOTUS the right to interpret the constition therefore when when it is interpreted it is part of the constition.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Of course if you have any Concealed weapons cases decided under Heller in your favor feel free to post them.

Don't give up your day job, Ed.

~Leadfoot