seamusTX wrote:longtooth wrote:..."the states w/ open carry don't have all the problems we were putting forth." (Forgot now who but GOOD JOB.)
Thanks.
These two statements will rock a lot of boats:
Rights are inherent and inalienable. They are endowed by God, or nature if you prefer. No legitimate government can violate them.
Governments derive their power from the consent of the people.
Both are right there in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but most people don't seem to understand them.
- Jim
Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independance (DoI) doesn't hold water in a court. You have to use the Constitution of These United States for your citations. The DoI can be used to help clarify the Constitution, but be careful.
The DoI was written by "radicals" that wanted to overthrow government, whereas the Constitution was written by an almost completely different group of men who were trying to establish a government (mostly because the Articles of Confederation failed, but also because the anarchy they experienced with the severely limited governing bodies & their capabilities under those articles).
It's far simpler to work with the Constitution as meaning what it says, but by not allowing it to be a living document at the same time (by allowing amendments to it, when properly passed & ratified) we limit our ability to modify based on changes in reality.
Interpreting the Constitution is a tricky thing. This is where many of the disputes come from. For example, the 2nd amendment has two clauses but most folks only remember the second. The first clause is the one that gets you in trouble, though, because the question becomes what did the founders mean by 'a well regulated militia' in that clause? Furthermore, I believe we have to look at the
intent of the Founders, not solely at what the document itself says. The problem is that English is a living language, not a static language, so we have to try and determine what the words meant in the usage of the age in which they were written, not by what they mean now or what we want them to mean.
I happen to agree that the 2A means exactly what it says, and that the founders intent was that the government not be able to regulate or ban weapons of any sort. At the same time, I can see where some folks feel a need to have some limitations on the use & carry of them.
For example, I'd like to see a proficiency test before you can open carry, just like we have before you can concealed carry. My kids don't touch any firearms until they can recite & explain the 4 rules. I don't know that that is a good idea to enshrine them in the law, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to include it as a measure of negligence (e.g. - did the shooter violate one or more of the 4 rules while attempting to pop the BG).
But back to the topic on this thread, it's really very simple:
Legally binding documents aren't changeable depending on the political climate.
The problem is that the language and usage of the language in which the document was written has changed from when the document was written, so we have to look outside that document to clarify what is meant by some of the words and phrases.
