I agree with you for almost all of the amendments, but definitely not for the Second. When you read the other amendments, almost all of them have some wording limiting the right. Note that int he first, the amendment does not state that the rights are unlimited, and solely mentions Congress making no law. Int he Fourth, the right is against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches.djjoshuad wrote:I know that a lot of people believe that the word "unconditionally" is implied with each of the bill of rights. I don't know where that comes from.
But the Second states that the right shall not be infringed. This is the strictest language used in the Constitution to restrict the government. I contend that this amendment, from its very language shows that it was intended to apply to all branches and all levels of the government, not just the federal level and not just the laws. No rules, regulations, court decisions, etc. were allowed. Thus, this does not allow us to restrict the carrying to just concealed. Also, I would point out that the idea of concealed carry was cowardly and foreign to the founders. They were used to men carrying firearms and swords openly visible, so I cannot believe they intended to only allow concealed or just around your own property. As late as the reconstruction period, men who carried concealed weapons were generally looked down upon, while carrying openly was accepted as normal. That was also the period when men in the large cities started going unarmed and relying on police forces, so there might be some tie in to that point. Before then, there were no police forces and everyone carried when they felt it was needed.
This is why I believe open carry can be called constitutional carry. But to be fair, we use the term constitutional carry to mean more than just OC, but the removal of the laws on requiring permits or any restrictions. Well, that is how I understand the term.
Also, the constitution of the united states is not about enumerating rights granted by any particular god (the word "god" is not written once in the constitution). It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens.
This is really a philosophy of law question, and you are welcome to believe it. But if you hold that position, I would ask how you justify the 9th Amendment's protection of other rights not listed but retained by the people. To me, that implies that the list given is a guarantee of certain rights being respected, and not a granting of rights at all.
In addition to my above answer on OC, I would point out that the well-regulated referred to the militia and not the carrying of firearms. A militia, or any military, must be well regulated in order to work. The Roman Legion proved this - a small disciplined (or well regulated) military group can defeat a much larger undisciplined mob.The 2A even uses the term "well regulated"... unregulated open carry seems to go against the 2nd amendment, not with it. Calling unregulated carry "constitutional" is not only incorrect, I believe it is irresponsible.
One of the things I have always loved about our Constitution, and admired in it, is the very vagueness which makes it so frustrating to apply sometimes. As you say, our world has changed tremendously since the Constitution was written, and we have really needed very few changes in it. Some were necessary to correct flaws (like allowing women to vote and counting all people equally) but most of the changes were not really necessary and could be seen as minor improvements (like the way we elect senators). There were a couple that were wrong to make (and one - prohibition - was later repealed as wrong).I also believe that the very extreme changes in American life over the past 235 years warrant qualifications to the original text. The founding fathers did start this ship down the right path, and obviously did a very good job of assessing what was necessary to form a new union in 1776. Today, we need different things... we are a technologically advanced society wherein your average citizen does not need to hunt to live, nor does he need to protect his homestead against roving bands of raiders. He does, however, need to be able to protect his family from smaller groups and individuals. We now have local law enforcement in nearly every corner of the country, and the nation's military is at most hours away, not weeks or months. Instead of needing multiple militias all over the nation to secure it, the defense needs of the individual citizen are basically limited to his home, his person, and his loved ones. The founding fathers never could have imagined today's America, and therefore could not have written amendments to properly govern it.
So, I think the current Constitution needs very little changes to keep it working. The beauty of it is that we can apply the general concepts written into it for the new technology and situations and it will continue to work. For example, we applied the term "press" very liberally when radio and TV were invented and the protection guaranteeing freedom of the press apply to these unforeseen technologies also. As general attitudes change, we change the definitions of some of the other terms to keep the intent going, such as not executing minors because it might be cruel and unusual punishment.
But the one point where I strongly disagree with you is on what the Second was intended to protect. It was not intended to grant protection from raiders, or even local criminals. To me, those are side benefits of it. It was intended to protect the people's right to restructure the government when it became necessary. I see the primary purpose of the Second as being to allow every person the means to defend himself against a tyrannical government. And the mention of militias in the amendment is because we keep hoping that neighbors will protect each other. And yes, to me that certainly means that the worst infringements of our rights are assault weapons bans and the ban on any non-governmental militia that we currently have in Texas.