facebook

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

« Glenn Beck is going to "reclaim the civil rights movement" -- since, as he puts it, "we were the people that did it in the first place." [UPDATED] | Main | Recommended Reading »

08/27/2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dongwinn

I don't think Mike was limiting himself to open carry in his comment. I'm pretty sure he meant carrying a gun to mean carrying a gun by whatever legal means, which will sometimes be open but much, much more often be concealed.

Your comments on Scalia's pretzel logic are well taken. I see in them evidence that Scalia didn't think he could keep the majority together if he wrote a decision that embraced the obvious original public understanding of the 2nd Amendment, because that would have meant that the Amendment protected an individual right to "militia weapons." That would have struck down prohibitions on machine guns and other scary-looking military stuff that Everybody Knows no right-thinking person would want American citizens to own. The debate wouldn't have stopped at machine guns, either, because at the time the Constitution was written, it was assumed that at least a few citizens owned warships or at least well-armed merchantmen and were capable of carrying out offensive warfare against enemy shipping on behalf of the United States (else why give Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal?)

That would have been the most honest course, and I would have agreed with it. But I see the limits and compromises in this decision as the work of the minority, not Scalia.

Steve Shiffrin

Mike, thanks for the comment. I agree that open carry is currently
permitted in a large number of states (though it is already illegal in
seven states). I wonder if it remains legal because the exercise of the
right is rare. (I have never seen anyone in a grocery store carrying a
gun,). It is because it is rare that your group finds it necessary to
encourage people to wear guns in public and gets publicity by wearing
guns in demonstrations. If more people carry guns in public, other
citizens will be frightened and will pressure legislators to pass laws
for their protection. I do not think you can infer from the absence of
laws prohibiting the wearing of guns in public that the wearing of guns
in public is not controversial.Nor do I think that the laws prohibiting
the carrying of guns in public (hunting in designated areas and the
like will be exceptions) will be struck down by the Court.Well see.
Steve

Mike

Steve,

In almost every state citizens can indeed legally carry guns in "in the grocery store, the subway, [and] Park[s]."

Usually no license is required if carying openly at age 18 or above.

This Second Amendment thing is really not that controversial outside of New York City.

The comments to this entry are closed.