aikidoka

I’ve had my carry permit for Indiana for 12 years now and I have to say I always assumed it was for concealed carry. After reading your comment I pulled the card and read it again. It reads, in part “…is hereby licensed by the Indiana State Police to carry on their person or in a vehicle any handgun lawfully possessed by Licensee.”
It does not specify concealed. Is my face red!
I will still prefer to carry concealed because I don’t want people to stare at me, but it’s good to know I can carry open if I so choose. Thanks.

I wear a sidearm openly nearly every day. I go to my bank, grocery stores, retailers, and restaraunts. I sorta open carried at the Tea Party (was raining so mostly under coat>).

“A citizen should be armed equally to that of a common infantryman, for what good does sticks and stones do against the weapons of tyranny?” George Mason

Nelson, you stole my quote.

Another VA quote, our state motto on the state seal:Sic Semper Tyrannus Thus Always to Tyrants, with the goddess virtue standing over a slain despot.

As they say at OpenCarry.org, “A right unexercised is a right lost.”

“The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. Alexander Hamilton

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
(Note, this is the ORIGINAL wording of the 2nd Amendment)

“to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights” Alexander Hamilton

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” George Mason

“A government that fears its’ citizens to be armed is in itself to be feared.” James Madison

“A citizen should be armed equally to that of a common infantryman, for what good does sticks and stones do against the weapons of tyranny?” George Mason

These are but a few of the quotes from the men who actually WROTE the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; Madison, Hamilton and Mason. NO ONE in this government not in any court could hold a candle tho these men’s intelligence and foresight and none should ever try least they make a fool of themselves.

Even Scalia didn’t imagine a Second Amendment right to bear machine guns.

Why not? They are legitimate arms to be used against a tyrant.

Right now, the prices of machine guns are outrageous. The only other option is to purchase them illegally. A $200 tax stamp and a background check should be all that limits me from a machinegun. Good Lord knows I’d love to have a full auto RPK or PPK.

Lately I have been adopting the Miami Vice look, Jacket with buttoned shirt beneath with a Ted Blocker “Life Line” Rig.

10mm, oh yes.

Also, I don’t see how one can conceal a (legal) large caliber pistol without looking suspicious—like wearing a jacket in July.

Now, out in the sticks, that’s a different matter.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 20, 2009 at 10:46 PM

A S&W snubby .38Sp conceals pretty well under summer wear, if you keep the butt just behind the hipbone and wear a roomy shirt. 5 rounds, but an extra speedloader in a pocket is probably more than one should reasonably expect to be needed. Only problem is I hate to wear my shirts untucked.

But if one assumes the county/state can restrict carry at these places, I think one could sue the county/state that since they restrict firearms at these areas from law abiding citizens to defend themselves, then they most provide enough security to immediately render aid to any potential victim.

One other thought since the county/state could never afford the amount of police security that would entail would be to have citizen deputies. As in the old west when a posse was formed, the sheriff deputized the posse. Why not deputized individuals that would like to be able to carry.

Maybe a six week night school course to familiarize and train these individuals in marksmanship, situations in which deadly force would be necessary, and maybe to carry a emergency beacon type cell phone to call in police before said situation gets to the deadly stage. In additions, background checks,psychological profile, and maybe recommendations.

BTW, I would trust any returning Iraq or Afghanistan veteran to be a citizen deputy. Most of them already have experience dealing with volatile situations.

The only problem I see with this is it reminds me of Obama homeland security force that he wants to form.

My understanding of the matter (as someone unburdened with a legal education) is that Congress did in fact intend to do that with the Privileges and Immunities clause of the XIVth, but that SCOTUS essentially read that clause out of the Constitution with The Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court’s logic in those cases was essentially “You have to be kidding us Congress!!! That is WAY too revolutionary.”

Any ConLaw scholars know anything of this?

JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM

I’d have to review the historical background of the case a bit more, but for the most part, yes, this was how things shook out. I’m not sure if it was Congress or a few of the more tyrannical elitist types who urged such a reading of P&I. Certainly, it is notable that the secessionist States were coerced into agreeing with the Fourteenth (and Thirteenth) Amendments. Anyone foisting an expansive reading of the Fourteenth upon us must at least acknowledge that it represents a far more significant shift in power than the Thirteenth, which resolved merely a single issue.

Another historical note, perhaps: I’m fairly certain that no constitutional amendment (and only few, carefully worded provisions of the original text) represented any surrender of State sovereignty until the Thirteenth. The Eleventh, for instance, assured the States that they had retained Sovereign Immunity. And we’re all familiar with the Bill of Rights, even if some of us don’t understand them fully.

Post-Civil War, though, you begin to see the federal constitution not only as a weapon against State sovereignty but, in the case of prohibition, as a weapon against the liberties of the people.

Fascinating, no?

Once again, basic reading… not tortured Court interpretations.

1st amendment is specific that “Congress shall make no law” about certain things… its specific to the Congress of the US, thus not applicable to the State Level…

2nd however is written much broader… “shall not be infringed”… meaning by anyone… Federal or State… it does not say Congress shall not infringe…

I’m one of those people who believe the Law says what it SAYS, not what you interpret it to mean… if you don’t like the law, then CHANGE it… don’t ignore what it says because you disagree with it (like the Bambi admin and the Illegal Alien laws…. which they refuse to enforce..).

Romeo13 on April 20, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Romeo, the Bill of Rights was universally interpreted not to apply against the States until the late Ninteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. This was not some arbitrary decision by a few robed clowns, but common wisdom. The only question that remains is whether the Fourteenth Amendment changed anything in this regard, and to what extent.

The difference in language which you cite as some sort of “smoking gun” for gun rights is attributable to the imprecise and flowery legalese of the day.

In fact, the only way you can arrive at your conclusion that the Second Amendment, by its very language, applies against the States is from the contemporary perspective that the federal constitution is some sort of “rights tree” from which we all can pluck the fruit of our choice. “We the People” were not concerned with State sovereignty when we entered into this union, but rather our collective fear was that too much additional power would be conferred upon the federal leviathan–even if we had found the original Articles of Confederation wanting.

Unfortunately, “We the People” are now mindless children of the Leftist American Revolution, having forsaken the structures which guarantee freedom in exchange for the illusory promise of unlimited prosperity and freedom at no cost. One day we shall realize that our prosperity has been wasted away and that our liberty died with it.

Go ahead. You’re still going to have to deal with the vast majority of cops who think you’re committing a crime, and compensate by charging you with disorderly conduct, mayhem, disturbing the peace, or some other BS misdemeanor.

MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 6:05 PM

True. That’s the main reason I’m not armed in public…I’m concerned about being hassled by the police…hate to say it, but true. I’ve never been arrested in my life, but in my few encounters with them (unarmed) they’ve been pretty dick-ish, so I can’t imagine how they’d be if I was ‘packing’.

Of course, in a suburban environment it’s not a good idea. I’d feel pretty stupid walking into a grocery store or a mall with a pistol on my hip. Also, I believe that businesses do have the right not to allow firearms to be brought in, especially holstered/visible. So, what’s the point? Also, I don’t see how one can conceal a (legal) large caliber pistol without looking suspicious—like wearing a jacket in July.

Now, out in the sticks, that’s a different matter.

The problem is that those on the left don’t know what words mean.

This makes it difficult to converse with them, and quite impossible to debate them – they just make each word “mean” whatever benefits them at any given moment.

How else can the Second be claimed to mean anything what it obviously means, what the founders said it means, and what every SERIOUS reviewer of the text knows it means. The words simply are what they are, and you HAVE to make yourself a liar to claim that they don’t recognize and demand protection for the rights of individuals.

It’s time again to call liars what they are, and to prove it to their faces, again and again and again. I’m just sick to death of liars.

yes , no ???

It’s worse in Wisconsin, where CC is illegal.

MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 6:25 PM

That’s why I’ll never go to Wisconsin. Or Illinois. Or Ohio for that matter – they don’t recognize Indiana’s license.

I don’t go anywhere they won’t allow me to protect myself.

Okay, yea, so you can’t own your own tank or howitzer.

PersonalLiberty on April 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM

It is legal to own tanks and howitzers in the USA. There are a numbers of them that is in private hands.

Why not just say that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated instead of picking and choosing from it?

My understanding of the matter (as someone unburdened with a legal education) is that Congress did in fact intend to do that with the Privileges and Immunities clause of the XIVth, but that SCOTUS essentially read that clause out of the Constitution with The Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court’s logic in those cases was essentially “You have to be kidding us Congress!!! That is WAY too revolutionary.”

Any ConLaw scholars know anything of this?

Troll free thread. This feels like the HA I used to enjoy so much.

TexasDan on April 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Gunphobia.

I have a reasonable shooting acumen, is there another one along this line I should consider?

OkieDoc on April 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Look at the HK45C or the USP 45 Compact, both by Heckler & Koch. Great for carry, and drop dead reliable!