# Right to Open carry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535 "2018-07-25T02:17:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/241 "2018-08-01T01:59:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Lewis and Clark were equipped with a few [blunderbusses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunderbuss). Basically short barreled shotguns. > > Of course this has nothing at all to do with open carry, though it does reinforce the point that the Miller court wasn’t well briefed on the matter before them. No one defended Miller, as he was dead. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/242 "2018-08-01T02:02:20Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > - > > When discussing the subject of gun rights under the US Constitution there probably isn’t any argument less compelling than how other nations treat gun ownership or what their subject’s opinion of the US is. > . Very true, or pretty much anything. “Hey, some Euronations, on the edge of bankruptcy and with a terrible immigrant and terrorist problem, does things differently that the USA, so the USA must be wrong!”:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/243 "2018-08-01T02:12:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Wait, what? You’re quoting this to prove that even though a majority of the people want stronger gun control, they can’t have it? > > It’s perfectly obvious what I mean if you look at the cited poll. The actual substantive matter being discussed is that more than half of Americans (52% according to the cited poll, and other polls are similar) are in favor of stronger gun control, which includes barring guns from the mentally ill and felons. It also includes stronger background checks for all gun sales, and bans on certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines. … > > These are all things that would be considered no-brainers anywhere else in the world, which has long since moved on. That’s true. A \*very tiny majority \*want _some sort_ of Gun control. So do I. barring guns from the mentally ill = **already law.** and felons= **already law.** So, yeah, someone reading the poll, who knew very little about gun laws, would OF COURSE say we need more gun control if felons and the mentally ill can buy & own them! But since that has been law for decades now, we don’t need more gun laws to do those. Already that 52% is likely down to less than half… It also includes stronger background checks for all gun sales= can be done within the 2nd Ad, easily. Why isnt it? Because the gun grabbers want to insist that only gun dealers be allowed to do so, not individuals, so thus all gun transfers, even a husbands guns to his widow, must go thru a gun dealer who will chare large sums for doing so. Certain assault weapons are already banned in some states, like CA, along with magazines. But such a ban will _not in any way significantly reduce violent crime,_ as such weapons are used in only 2% or so of crimes. In other words, it’s a law which only makes otherwise law abiding gun owners into criminals. “These are all things that would be considered no-brainers anywhere else in the world, which has long since moved on.” and as I, \*\* Abatis\*\* & **Bone** pointed out, what the rest of the world does doesnt matter. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/244 "2018-08-01T02:15:12Z")
> [@JB99](#): > > Anyone who says Europeans (and other countries with low violence and high standard of living) use solutions that don’t apply or wouldn’t work in America is admitting that Americans are just too fucking stupid to understand the answers that other countries have already demonstrated to WORK. > > So which is it? Is America really so radically different that known solutions are inapplicable? Or are other countries just that much smarter than us? > > Because looking at America’s recent history, I’m inclined to think most Americans are just abject dumbfucks who would let their children die rather than implement a solution that has bee PROVEN to work. Neither, They are the rest of the world, the world without a Bill of Rights. The world with less personal freedom, the world where you _can_ go to jail for expressing your freedom of expression. \*They \*are the dumbfucks who gladly trade a tiny bit of imagined security in exchange for personal freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/245 "2018-08-01T02:31:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Maybe you can help me, and I’m not being snarky and mean this in all seriousness. How can someone look at the Constitution and find a right to abortion or same sex marriage, yet see a clause which clearly, right in the words of it, declare a right to keep and bear arms, but hand waive it away? This question really becomes pointed when one understands the legal theory by which the right to abortion has been recognized and secured. You need to understand that the right to abortion was conjured into being by looking to the Bill of Rights and seeing privacy rights in the spaces between the enumerated rights. Because of the nature of those inviolate individual rights – a “rational continuum” of Liberty – the right to privacy is said to exist in the “_penumbras and emanations_” of those enumerated rights. Of course the derivative rights to abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights have been built upon this theory. This leads to a question similar to yours, that I often ask: How can a right like privacy and the derivative rights to abortion, contraception, LGBTQ rights etc., that are recognized to exist in the “penumbras and emanations” of the rights secured in the Bill of Rights, be _ **more** _ vital and _ **more** _ secure than a right that is _ **expressly** _ enumerated in the Bill of Rights? I never get an answer . . . ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/246 "2018-08-01T02:55:16Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > How can a right like privacy and the derivative rights to abortion, contraception, LGBTQ rights etc., that are recognized to exist in the “penumbras and emanations” of the rights secured in the Bill of Rights, be _ **more** _ vital and _ **more** _ secure than a right that is _ **expressly** _ enumerated in the Bill of Rights? > > I never get an answer . . . The answer is the right is _ **expressly** _ given restrictions that you choose to ignore. Roe found a right to privacy. Heller found a right to self defense. Neither are to be found in the constitution directly. What can be found directly in the constitution is a well regulated militia as a reason for bearing arms. Words which Scalia magicked away. That right there is the most scary thing. He not only found a new right buried in the words (something Scalia spent a lot of time complaining about when it came to privacy) but effectively deleted a part of the constitution he did not like. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/247 "2018-08-01T02:57:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > - From Justice Stevens’ dissent: The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia … Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution. Stevens position here is in opposition to SCOTUS precedent on multiple planes. There is no right of the people to form militias. See Presser: [INDENT]“The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.”[/INDENT] Militias can only be formed in accordance to Art I, § 8, cl’s 15 & 16 and laws and regulations enacted under the authority of those clauses. SCOTUS has been quite clear that since the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. This means that the words of the 2nd can not be ‘interpreted’ to impart conditions or qualifications on the right _ **and** _ the right can not be deemed dependent upon any structure that is itself ENTIRELY dependent upon the Constitution for its existence – such as any militia formed under the authority of Art I, § 8, cl’s 15 & 16. Stevens is a taffy-pulling idiot and commits the worst kind of misconstruction by holding the 2nd Amendment up as a permission slip for the citizen. The right to arms doesn’t exist because the 2nd Amendment is there; it exists because no power was ever granted to the federal government thru the Constitution to allow it to conjure a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW, the right isn’t what the 2nd Amendment says, it is what the body of the Constitution doesn’t say. . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/248 "2018-08-01T02:58:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The answer is the right is _ **expressly** _ given restrictions that everyone here chooses to ignore. > > Roe found a right to privacy. Heller found a right to self defense. Neither are to be found in the constitution directly. > > What can be found directly in the constitution is a well regulated militia as a reason for bearing arms. Words which Scalia magicked away. That right there is the most scary thing. He not only found a new right buried in the words but effectively deleted a part of the constitution he did not like. For the nth time, he did not. I am the militia. You are the militia. _We_ are the militia. We are all part of the militia. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/249 "2018-08-01T03:05:44Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > This question really becomes pointed when one understands the legal theory by which the right to abortion has been recognized and secured. > > You need to understand that the right to abortion was conjured into being by looking to the Bill of Rights and seeing privacy rights in the spaces between the enumerated rights. Because of the nature of those inviolate individual rights – a “rational continuum” of Liberty – the right to privacy is said to exist in the “_penumbras and emanations_” of those enumerated rights. Of course the derivative rights to abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights have been built upon this theory. > > This leads to a question similar to yours, that I often ask: > > How can a right like privacy and the derivative rights to abortion, contraception, LGBTQ rights etc., that are recognized to exist in the “penumbras and emanations” of the rights secured in the Bill of Rights, be _ **more** _ vital and _ **more** _ secure than a right that is _ **expressly** _ enumerated in the Bill of Rights? > > I never get an answer . . . I think, and I would love to be shown wrong, that Justices Stevens and/or Breyer simply believe that abortion, homosexual sodomy, or SSM are subjectively better than citizens carrying handguns. That’s not a way to handle the judiciary of the country. It’s why every seat on the Supreme Court has become a war: who will vote for this side or that side. There shouldn’t be sides, just look at the history and traditions and decide things based upon what the people long ago voted for, not what unelected judges want now. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/250 "2018-08-01T03:23:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Roe found a right to privacy. Heller found a right to self defense. Neither are to be found in the constitution directly. The right to privacy depends upon the inviolate, individual right nature of the rights enumerated in the first 8 Amendments. This includes the right to arms. As Justice O’Connor said in _Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey_, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), elevating Harlan’s famous dissent in _Poe v Ullman_ (the foundational theory in _Griswold_) to the opinion of the Court (emphasis added): [INDENT]"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S.Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized: ``` [INDENT][T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; **the right to keep and bear arms** ; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. [p849] Ullman, supra, at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds). Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. . . . "[/INDENT][/INDENT] ``` Your hostility for the individual right to arms is an argument that the penumbral rights theory is not viable. If the individual right to arms can be cut out of the Bill of Rights, then the “rational continuum” can not be said to exist and the legal theory upon which abortion, contraceptive and LGBTQ rights is grounded, can be dismissed as utter BS. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What can be found directly in the constitution is a well regulated militia as a reason for bearing arms. Words which Scalia magicked away. That right there is the most scary thing. He not only found a new right buried in the words (something Scalia spent a lot of time complaining about when it came to privacy) but effectively deleted a part of the constitution he did not like. I truly feel sorry for you. . ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/251 "2018-08-01T03:24:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > For the nth time, he did not. I am the militia. You are the militia. _We_ are the militia. > > We are all part of the militia. For the nth time “well regulated”. As in the government is explicitly given a grant to regulate rather than the current individual right crap (a militia is a collective) that requires a high bar of scrutiny when the government tries to pass a gun regulation. Look, the FFs were very succinct when writing the constitution. They were not given to rhetorical flourishes and extraneous verbiage. The WHOLE thing is like that but you want us to believe that one time, in this one place, when the FFs really meant that everyone should be allowed to have a gun with no restriction, that this is the one place where they mucked it all up. They could have said, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and been done with it. Clear, succinct, unambiguous. So do you think they added the rest to muddy things up or because they meant something more rather than a throwaway few words? Or were they just too dumb to write what they meant? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/252 "2018-08-01T03:33:58Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Your hostility for the individual right to arms is an argument that the penumbral rights theory is not viable. If the individual right to arms can be cut out of the Bill of Rights, then the “rational continuum” can not be said to exist and the legal theory upon which abortion, contraceptive and LGBTQ rights is grounded, can be dismissed as utter BS. This just does not follow at all. It seems to assume that a right to a gun is an actual fundamental right. Something you hear many gun advocates say and is flatly absurd. > [@](#): > > I truly feel sorry for you. . Why? 1. Well regulated militia words are in the constitution. 2. Scalia neutered that part in #1 so it has no effect. Same as if he took a pen and scratched out that part. 3. Scalia did spend a lot of time arguing Roe was wrong because it found a right not listed in the constitution. 4. Scalia added a right to self defense in Heller. A right also not listed in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/253 "2018-08-01T03:44:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think, and I would love to be shown wrong, that Justices Stevens and/or Breyer simply believe that abortion, homosexual sodomy, or SSM are subjectively better than citizens carrying handguns. On the 2nd Amendment at least Breyer stuck to standard of scrutiny argument. That argument at least can be justified within one’s interpretive doctrine although he wanted to apply a rational basis test that is not appropriate for any enumerated right. Stevens as I said is a taffy-pulling idiot. A partisan of the worst kind, willing to abandon all constitutional principle to advance the leftist / statist agenda. Post retirement, his call to first reword the 2nd was bad enough, his later call to rescind it entirely so we can really write some laws, demonstrates his divergence from foundational principles and his willingness to ignore long standing precedent. > [@UltraVires](#): > > That’s not a way to handle the judiciary of the country. It’s why every seat on the Supreme Court has become a war: who will vote for this side or that side. There shouldn’t be sides, just look at the history and traditions and decide things based upon what the people long ago voted for, not what unelected judges want now. Well, thankfully it is Trump’s nominees filling the federal judiciary and not Clinton’s. The Constitution has received a stay of execution. . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/254 "2018-08-01T04:16:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Look, the FFs were very succinct when writing the constitution. They were not given to rhetorical flourishes and extraneous verbiage. The WHOLE thing is like that but you want us to believe that one time, in this one place, when the FFs really meant that everyone should be allowed to have a gun with no restriction, that this is the one place where they mucked it all up. > > They could have said, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and been done with it. Clear, succinct, unambiguous. So do you think they added the rest to muddy things up or because they meant something more rather than a throwaway few words? Or were they just too dumb to write what they meant? As we have said and posted before, those were actually the original words. However, the Anti-federalists wanted to make sure that the Militia was also guaranteed. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/255 "2018-08-01T04:16:58Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > The Constitution has received a stay of execution. > > . Unfortunately the rest of us have not. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/256 "2018-08-01T04:52:31Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > You are heralding the value of second generation rights while denigrating first generation rights as “the guaranteed right to get shot”. I understand you need to dismiss the foundational rights theory that recognizes and secures pre-existing rights so you can demand the granting of “rights” that have no constitutional foundation, but if you don’t want to be responded to with raillery, try not to be so ‘funny’. . . It’s easy to dismiss you as a joke when it is so obvious you don’t care to be serious. Really, you think that’s funny or non-serious? Here’s something you’ve obviously never thought of: your right to armaments is also that crazy guy across town’s right to armaments. Does that lend some perspective? No? How about the fact that maybe said crazy guy across town – nominally awesomely law-abiding – just got fired and is about to crack and do something really stupid? But unlike crazies in all civilized countries in the world, this particular crazy has a basement full of military armaments. Does that help you understand where the problem lies? See, where I live, neither I nor my neighbor have any “right” to a personal arsenal, though with sufficient trouble and paperwork and screening certain kinds of guns may be acquired, but the vast, vast majority of us never bother or even think about it, because we don’t fucking need them. We consequently don’t have – as you do – 10 times the likelihood of being killed by guns as people in other developed countries, nor 25 times the gun-related murder rate, as you do. In fact, besides all of that, among the combined total populations of 23 major developed nations, the US alone accounts for the gun-related deaths of 91% of children under 14 and 92% of young people between ages 15 and 24. That’s not hyperbole, and it’s no joke. It’s a national tragedy. > [@Abatis](#): > > … This leads to a question similar to yours, that I often ask: > > How can a right like privacy and the derivative rights to abortion, contraception, LGBTQ rights etc., that are recognized to exist in the “penumbras and emanations” of the rights secured in the Bill of Rights, be _ **more** _ vital and _ **more** _ secure than a right that is _ **expressly** _ enumerated in the Bill of Rights? > > I never get an answer . . . It was answered in #239. Of course, if you don’t _ **like** _ the answer, the appropriate course of action is to pretend the answer doesn’t exist. > [@Abatis](#): > > Stevens is a taffy-pulling idiot and commits the worst kind of misconstruction by holding the 2nd Amendment up as a permission slip for the citizen. Oh. OK, never mind then. I didn’t initially realize you were one of those – one of those ideological black holes where ideology overpowers everything, and logic and reason hold no sway. My bad. I should have picked up on the early hints. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/257 "2018-08-01T05:07:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This just does not follow at all. > > It seems to assume that a right to a gun is an actual fundamental right. Something you hear many gun advocates say and is flatly absurd. The status of the right to arms being a fundamental right is the law of the land (_McDonald v Chicago_). > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why? Because the statist / absolutist model you espouse is just so depressing. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 1. Well regulated militia words are in the constitution. Which SCOTUS has said for over 140 years that the individual right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon. In actual operation, the declaratory clause is legally inert. It has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control. In the cases that decided militia conflict, the 2nd is ignored. It offers no guidance or direction. Your position is a 20th Century fabrication in the federal courts. It had no presence federally before 1942. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 1. Scalia neutered that part in #1 so it has no effect. Same as if he took a pen and scratched out that part. “_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_,” is an absolute, dependent clause, it has no effect, it demands no action or condition. It is an unremarkable construction that shows its origin; the states proposed the amendments and most combined citizen defense and military-binding clauses in one provision. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 1. Scalia did spend a lot of time arguing Roe was wrong because it found a right not listed in the constitution. Which is an opinion I find reprehensible. on this point I have come to harbor deep contempt for social/cultural conservatives that allow religious dogma to mold their thoughts on the extent of government powers. They envision and expect government to regulate, prohibit and punish their fellow citizens for what they perceive to be their fellow citizen’s immoral behavior. So, I consider them as dangerous to liberty as “living constitution” or _“the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore”_ leftists – both groups see a vital role for government to step-in and modify the actions of others. I detest being lumped in with them and honestly feel a strong distinction needs to be drawn between political conservatives (Constitution focused) and social/cultural conservatives because on many political issues, especially the role of government in the lives of citizens, the two are at polar opposites of political philosophy. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 1. Scalia added a right to self defense in Heller. A right also not listed in the constitution. But one previously recognized by SCOTUS as a component of the right protected by the 2nd Amendment. The right of armed self-defense in public by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state with no militia, it having been disbanded by Congress, was _the_ right under consideration in _US v Cruikshank_ – stated as “bearing arms for lawful purpose”. The Court in _Presser_ then quoted Cruikshank but substituted the case specific “bearing arms for lawful purpose” with the 2nd Amendment’s text. [_ **Cruikshank** _](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542#writing-type-1-WAITE): [INDENT]“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”[/INDENT] [_ **Presser:** _](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252) [INDENT]" . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms “is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress.”[/INDENT] And just for fun, [_ **Heller:** _](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=DISTRICT%20OF%20COLUMBIA%20v.%20HELLER&url=/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) [INDENT]". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”[/INDENT] The 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms are two separate, distinct things . . . The right to arms is the “it” that isn’t dependent on the Constitution for “its” existence and the “it” that the 2nd says, shall not be infringed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/258 "2018-08-01T05:24:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > See, where I live, neither I nor my neighbor have any “right” to a personal arsenal, though with sufficient trouble and paperwork and screening certain kinds of guns may be acquired, but the vast, vast majority of us never bother or even think about it, because we don’t fucking need them. We consequently don’t have – as you do – 10 times the likelihood of being killed by guns as people in other developed countries, nor 25 times the gun-related murder rate, as you do. . Where do you live? Aha, again “No true Scotsman”. “other \*developed \*countries”, where you cherry pick and define what is “developed”, to prove your point. That dog won’t hunt. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/259 "2018-08-01T05:26:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It seems to assume that a right to a gun is an actual fundamental right. Something you hear many gun advocates say and is flatly absurd. > > Why? > > 1. Well regulated militia words are in the constitution. > 2. Scalia neutered that part in #1 so it has no effect. Same as if he took a pen and scratched out that part. As fundamental as a Right to free speech and a free press. So are the words “the people”. Again, we are _all_ the militia. ---
**Author:** ![burrunderthe\_saddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@burrunderthe\_saddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burrunderthe_saddle)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2018, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/260 "2018-08-01T12:15:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Armed citizenry pretty much get massacred when trying to face a professional army. Wrong Your attention is directed to: French and Indian War Bacon’s Rebellion the Revolutionary war the war of 1812 The US civil war (the confederate army was essentially Armed citizenry) Irish War of Independence The Mujahedin/afgan war with Russia Wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan and Nigeria anti-crime uprisings in parts of rural Mexico Arab Spring Tunisian Revolution The Mujahedin/Afgan war with US Gross generalizations contribute nothing to the conversation! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=14)