View Full Version : Did the 2A really mean for concealed carry?
ramairthree
06-14-16, 12:36
People like to argue the 2A was not meant for individual citizens and only for military/militia.
I like reading old state constitutions and getting the take on what was intended.
While at the federal level,
I admit the wording could have been better,
And some states just copied it verbatim,
In some other cases it is made much more clear that the whole intent was an intentionally armed populace that could never be subjugated by a governments standing army or police forces.
Period.
No two ways about.
People could own, carry, etc. firearms was fully intended.
I think even many ardent anti-gunners fully understand this but just do not want it to be so.
(On a side note, the intent of the documents to ensure people benefit from the fruits of their own labor Is in stark contrast to the amount of taxation we currently endure.)
However,
In at least one case,
Concealed carry could be prohibited.
There seems to be something nefarious associated with carrying a hidden firearm vs. open earlier in this country's history.
Do not mistake this question as me having the opinion we should not be able to concealed carry,
Or that I think it is tactically sound to open carry everywhere and want to do so.
I think from a technology standpoint concealed carry was a little harder/less effective. Meaning at the time people didn't really care about the idea of it.
But I do think it certainly meant people could carry muskets freely and openly, muskets were the military fire arms of the time.
So I do take this to mean that the 2nd amendment should protect my right to own and freely carry where I please a full auto assault rifle. Say a real M4, not a neutered AR15.
The 2nd amendment in my interpretation was meant not for hunting, not for self defense, though both of these would inevitably be covered. The second amendment is meant as a check and balance for government power. This means people needed to be allowed to own the same level of armament as our army and police forces have and use. Average citizens needed to be able to equally and fairly fight against the government. Or more importantly to provide mutually assured destruction, much like nuclear armament.
The people need to be armed so well the government fears them. The only way I see this as being possible is if citizens own the same weapons as the police and military. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
As far as the militia thing, I take that to mean me and my buddies could get together with our M4s and call our selves a militia. Stateing we owned these guns to protect against government tyranny and foreign invaders. Part of this would allow the USA to not have much of a standing army to protect our country, because much like Switzerland today, every body had a gun. F with us and we'll all come out shooting at your invading force. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"
SomeOtherGuy
06-14-16, 13:21
For context, it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10) did not and was not intended to CREATE rights, it was intended as a redundant record of the rights that already existed - inherently existed - and were not subject to question or infringement. So imperfect or incomplete wording doesn't mean something is not a right.
It's also important to remember that the "arms" referred to were not only handheld firearms, which were of less practicality at that time, but meant anything that could reasonably be used for either individual defense or military purposes. There were privately owned cannon at the time and that wasn't considered a problem. Obviously knives and swords would have been recognized as arms also.
Regarding concealed carry, while I don't think it was a primary focus of the 2nd Amendment, I have no doubt that those who drafted and voted on the amendment would have considered it to be within the right of keeping and bearing arms.
crusader377
06-14-16, 13:30
ramairtree,
Concealed carry simply wasn't that practical in the 1700s for your honest law abiding citizens. Not only the size of flintlock pistols (8-12" barrels) made it difficult for carry but the loading and more importantly unloading process made it impractical for a carry piece. A flintlock pistol would take at least 30 seconds to load and the unloading process is pretty complicated and somewhat unsafe. Also, black powder weapons of the day really were not meant to carry loaded for a long period of time due to black powder degradation due to getting wet or even high humidity exposure. With these limits of technology, weapons were loaded only right before immediate action.
Also culturally, it was common to even open carry bladed weapons during that period. Even in the largest cities of the era it was not uncommon for anyone of means to carry a small sword during their conduct of business for the day. In addition, firearms like muskets and rifles were common tools for survival and especially on the frontier, people carrying long arms was commonplace.
Understanding the technical limitations and culture of the period, you can understand why concealed carry was looked down on a even prohibited in the 1700s because it was the way of the criminal because you only loaded your firearms for short term or immediate use.
Knowing what we know about the Founding Fathers, I do believe they would have no problem with modern conceal carry because all of the evidence indicate that they thought law abiding people should have the right to defend themselves.
No. I take it to mean I have the absolute right to bear whatever arms I see fit in whichever manner I see fit. However the federal government and some state governments do not see it that way.
Our "Rights" have become mere permissions to be allowed or disallowed at the whim of petty tyrants.
Digital_Damage
06-14-16, 13:40
da faq? What they hell would you be able to conceal carry in the 1700?
I was looking at this earlier in the week, and found the word Bear in Right to Bear Arms and what it would mean in a time of Old English. and amongst the words that are seen more often are to carry but in this definition to Wear is also seen. So in that sense, the Right to wear arms, at least that is how I see it.
bear (v.) Look up bear at Dictionary.com
Old English beran "to bear, bring; bring forth, produce; to endure, sustain; to wear" (class IV strong verb; past tense bær, past participle boren), from Proto-Germanic *beran (source also of Old Saxon beran, Old Frisian bera, Old High German beran, German gebären, Old Norse bera, Gothic bairan "to carry, bear, give birth to"), from PIE root *bher- (1) meaning both "give birth" (though only English and German strongly retain this sense, and Russian has beremennaya "pregnant") and "carry a burden, bring" (see infer)
CCW in the 1770's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Anne_pistol
http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/f7.html
http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/f825.html
http://weaponscollector.com/i_williams_c1695.php
I, too, am curious of what could've been CCWable back then. Even flintlocks were rather bulky and involved.
I don't think people cared about "concealed" back then. Having a firearm handy was just part of life. No different than having a knife handy
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
wildcard600
06-14-16, 15:56
I, too, am curious of what could've been CCWable back then. Even flintlocks were rather bulky and involved.
Myself as well. From my limited knowledge of the arms available at the time CCW in the late 1700's would be like trying to conceal a Mark 23. With supressor.
The above being besides the point though, I think it's pretty obvious how strongly the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be armed, and that concealed carry would have been seen as "bearing arms" in the same sense as mentioned in the bill of rights had CCW been viable at the time.
Flankenstein
06-14-16, 16:00
Are you serious, OP? You guys know that rights don't come from the government... Right?
titsonritz
06-14-16, 16:23
It really means "un-infringed", period.
Arms. What is an arm? Only firearm? What about knives? Swords? Clubs? Cannon? I am pretty certain that there were plenty of daggers that could be considered arms that were concealable. I would also say that there were likely firearms small enough to conceal back then, and considering the type of dress back then...
wilson1911
06-14-16, 17:02
Simply put, the 2A means that we as citizens of the usa have a right to bear arms, not firearms. This means if you can fit it on your body, and carry it around, its GTG. knives, nun-chucks, swords, handguns, rifles, etc.. The founders wanted us citizens well armed to protect states rights, as well as individual rights. You cannot do this with arming yourself with a red ryder bb gun and a butter knife.
Uninfringed means to not cancel or abolish. So it should actually read..... a well trained population of the people, necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall absolutely not be cancelled or abolished. If you work for the govt, and have the most lawyers, this is where the regulating comes from. If you lean towards the individual or a founder of this country, then it means nothing shall be placed in front of ( to cancel or abolish) this god given right. The lawyers, then argue that they are not doing either, when in fact these regulations do cancel your right to bear arms.
If the founders of this country wanted gov regulation of arms, then why have it at all ? Since any politician can remove these rights from you. So if you view the constitution as a rule of absolutes, you get a govt that will be confined/ limited in power, leaving the rest to the states. The very basis of the revolution was revolting against a govt that had total control and power, which is what we have today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofrhqP7JWaA
Yes, the 2A protects concealed carry. Beyond that, the constitution is just old ass hemp paper. It is the inherent freedom and liberty of man that is codified and represented in the constitution that is the important part.
Simply put, I don't need a reason to bear arms (Any I see fit or like to), I am free to do so and thus I will, permission or allowance from the state be damned. Words on paper be damned. Laws be damned. Other peoples opinions be damned.
Free men do not require constitutions or people to allow them to be free, they simply act and through their actions are free. That is the essence of liberty the founding fathers understood, died for and codified into the constitution.
Now, some will get all wise guy and say "Oh, so you can just do what ever you want to whomever you want and that's freedom?" HELL NO, I do as I please without subjugating others freedom, that is true liberty.
I am free to carry whatever firearm or weapon I please and to use them in a virtuous manner-This can get complicated however as everything is relative and some peoples moral compass is F'd in the A and thus we have disagreements and debates about what freedom is, how it should or should not be "limited" and what is just and moral. But forget all that jazz- just error on the side of freedom every time and you're good to go, it is quite simple and relativity can be squashed from the argument with careful consideration and forethought.
But still, people are truly afraid of any brand of freedom that isn't to their own respective liking, comfort or understanding. I see it all the time, the lawyer who wants weed legalized, but thinks AR-15's (Assault weapons is usually the specific word chosen, but they mean semi-auto rifles) and high-cap mags should be banned outright; the Gun enthusiast who wants all guns legal, but can''t wrap their head around gutting the drug war and allowing folks to imbibe the compound of their choice without fear of their life being ruined and going to jail or paying hefty fines; the gay man who wants to be free to express his sexuality but denies individuals their expression of religion or choice to do or not do as they wish (Cake anyone?)... and so on... and so on...
Freedom only exists in our thoughts and actions. It is not granted at the behest of the state or by other men or paper documents. Once people start arguing this point instead of falling back on what some pretty profound and intelligent dudes put on paper when this country came to be- we will be better off.
The 2A was absolutely written into the BOR to keep tyranny at bay and allow the citizenry to fight a tyrannical govt. But really, the intent was that we are free to do as we wish and please as long as we are not infringing on others freedom to do the same. Slavery was the only real error, and we've paid for that mistake and will continue to pay for it for the entirety of our nations existence.
So many people argue that since slavery was wrong, and was changed, that other parts of the constitution are wrong and must be changed. I always have to point out that, yes slavery was a big F-up, but that should not damage the intent of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution itself actually runs quite counter to all that slavery is, can't change the past and it's obvious that was a flaw of the time and of the founder themselves. Nothing and no one is perfect simply put. We shouldn't abandon the greatness due to the one illogical aspect of the Constitution.
Long winded, yes. I've been debating all of this with an attorney friend often recently.
Flankenstein
06-14-16, 17:57
Yes, the 2A protects concealed carry. Beyond that, the constitution is just old ass hemp paper. It is the inherent freedom and liberty of man that is codified and represented in the constitution that is the important part.
Simply put, I don't need a reason to bear arms (Any I see fit or like to), I am free to do so and thus I will, permission or allowance from the state be damned. Words on paper be damned. Laws be damned. Other peoples opinions be damned.
Free men do not require constitutions or people to allow them to be free, they simply act and through their actions are free. That is the essence of liberty the founding fathers understood, died for and codified into the constitution.
Now, some will get all wise guy and say "Oh, so you can just do what ever you want to whomever you want and that's freedom?" HELL NO, I do as I please without subjugating others freedom, that is true liberty.
I am free to carry whatever firearm or weapon I please and to use them in a virtuous manner-This can get complicated however as everything is relative and some peoples moral compass is F'd in the A and thus we have disagreements and debates about what freedom is, how it should or should not be "limited" and what is just and moral. But forget all that jazz- just error on the side of freedom every time and you're good to go, it is quite simple and relativity can be squashed from the argument with careful consideration and forethought.
But still, people are truly afraid of any brand of freedom that isn't to their own respective liking, comfort or understanding. I see it all the time, the lawyer who wants weed legalized, but thinks AR-15's (Assault weapons is usually the specific word chosen, but they mean semi-auto rifles) and high-cap mags should be banned outright; the Gun enthusiast who wants all guns legal, but can''t wrap their head around gutting the drug war and allowing folks to imbibe the compound of their choice without fear of their life being ruined and going to jail or paying hefty fines; the gay man who wants to be free to express his sexuality but denies individuals their expression of religion or choice to do or not do as they wish (Cake anyone?)... and so on... and so on...
Freedom only exists in our thoughts and actions. It is not granted at the behest of the state or by other men or paper documents. Once people start arguing this point instead of falling back on what some pretty profound and intelligent dudes put on paper when this country came to be- we will be better off.
The 2A was absolutely written into the BOR to keep tyranny at bay and allow the citizenry to fight a tyrannical govt. But really, the intent was that we are free to do as we wish and please as long as we are not infringing on others freedom to do the same. Slavery was the only real error, and we've paid for that mistake and will continue to pay for it for the entirety of our nations existence.
So many people argue that since slavery was wrong, and was changed, that other parts of the constitution are wrong and must be changed. I always have to point out that, yes slavery was a big F-up, but that should not damage the intent of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution itself actually runs quite counter to all that slavery is, can't change the past and it's obvious that was a flaw of the time and of the founder themselves. Nothing and no one is perfect simply put. We shouldn't abandon the greatness due to the one illogical aspect of the Constitution.
Long winded, yes. I've been debating all of this with an attorney friend often recently.
Solid post. I don't find many posts here worthy of anything more than a glance or a skim. This one was on point though.
ForTehNguyen
06-14-16, 18:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrNj3t6Vxo
You guys do know that smaller concealable arms did exist during that time frame? The intent was there as well. In the last few hundred years better guns have been made, but that does not diminish the original intent.
Look them up, many aren't practical for today, but that's what they had available at the time.
Bear = carry. Done. That includes concealed and open.
The Constitution does not grant rights to people, it outlines the powers of the government. t no point in the Constitution does it say the gov can disarm the people, and explicitly forbids it from doing so.
http://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/pistolcartnationalderringerno2poor.jpg
http://www.yourgunman.com/file/pic/marketplace/2013/03/c28fec257fde2a73f1d7f4365b4832fb_400.jpg
ramairthree
06-14-16, 18:53
As I said in the OP,
Do not confuse my question for me being against it.
My personal thoughts are that at the time you could stroll around with sword and blade sinister while carrying PIB. (Pirate in belt)
But these was something unseemly considered about hiding weapons in sleeves and under cloaks.
If you had the coin, you were free to bank roll as many canon laden sloops of war, corvettes, and frigates as you wanted to protect your tobacco shipments back to Europe and outfit and pay your own militias.
As I said in the OP,
Do not confuse my question for me being against it.
My personal thoughts are that at the time you could stroll around with sword and blade sinister while carrying PIB. (Pirate in belt)
But these was something unseemly considered about hiding weapons in sleeves and under cloaks.
If you had the coin, you were free to bank roll as many canon laden sloops of war, corvettes, and frigates as you wanted to protect your tobacco shipments back to Europe and outfit and pay your own militias.
I care not what is "unseemly" to anyone. Screw'em.
To get to the blunt point of the matter, you either have the right to bear arms or you do not, their is no stretching or changing this, not magical way to "bear" arms that is "better" or more "noble" or more "acceptable". Pretty simple. Bearing arms is just that, carrying them. Concealing them or open carrying them- either way you're literally bearing them.
Doesn't matter how people felt or feel about the way in which arms are to be bear'd, it's a right no man should allow to be subverted, turned into a permission or given up in any way shape or form.
.46caliber
06-14-16, 19:07
I think even many ardent anti-gunners fully understand this but just do not want it to be so.
This. "Keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" clauses are as clear verbiage as possible. They know full well what it means but are committed to denying it. The generic term "arms" must have been chosen to cover everything. "shall not be infringed" clearly indicates that it is to be left alone.
The part that disturbs me most among the antis is the shortsightedness. The 2A is the insurance policy for the entirety of the Bill of Rights. It's the source of recourse on behalf of the people. They enjoy and exercise their 1A rights, but because they do not for the 2A they are willing to dispose of it without recognizing that doing so jeopardizes the 1A.
Are you kidding me? Many of these had the intent of concealment as the intention. Go to a museum with your wife every once in a while, you may learn some stuff.
Are concealed guns popular? Define popular? There are almost 10 million of another type now. Not different as it is now, as they where then.
The crossroads between the long gun and the concealed one closely mimics more now than some would prefer.
To say that they did not exist is absurd.
Bear = carry. Done. That includes concealed and open.
The Constitution does not grant rights to people, it outlines the powers of the government. t no point in the Constitution does it say the gov can disarm the people, and explicitly forbids it from doing so.
+1, Lucky enough to have a high school teacher, teach exactly this.😎
wildcard600
06-14-16, 23:52
http://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/pistolcartnationalderringerno2poor.jpg
http://www.yourgunman.com/file/pic/marketplace/2013/03/c28fec257fde2a73f1d7f4365b4832fb_400.jpg
Correct me if I am wrong, but these arms appear to post date the bill of rights by at least a good 40 years. Are there examples of small flintlock arms ?
*edit* I found some dating from 1820's onward but looking for something circa 1770-80. just curious.
MountainRaven
06-15-16, 00:26
At the time, swords were part of court dress - meaning it was fashionable, permitted, and effectively required that you wear a sword, even as a civilian, in the presence of a king.
Carrying arms openly was perfectly natural. Carrying arms concealed was a mark of a coward and assassin. And this was the case right up to at least the 1930s.
This is why we have concealed handgun or weapons permits, but generally no similar permit was required to carry arms openly. It has only been recently that this has flip-flopped.
As for the arms that one might have carried concealed at the time - well, every gentleman had a cane. There were also knives and clubs and saps. The general limitations of black powder firearms and flintlock ignition meant that there would have been few firearms worth carrying concealed, particularly given their (for defensive purposes) slowness to bring into action and one-and-done nature.
I suspect that the Founding Fathers would have had few compunctions about civilian possession and carrying of "military-style assault weapons" but would have been divided on the matter of concealed weapons.
Having said that, I believe that if the right of a man to marry another man is Constitutionally protected, that the right to carry concealed weapons is also Constitutionally protected.
Moose-Knuckle
06-15-16, 03:45
I take it to mean I have the absolute right to bear whatever arms I see fit in whichever manner I see fit.
This and this.
The right of the PEOPLE…
to keep and BEAR arms…
shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Really, I don't know what there is to debate here. The losing side of this of this argument about our enumerated, clearly defined, protected birthright, has been grasping at straws and trying to come up with a way to disarm the good guys for decades, if not longer. There is nothing written about whether your musket or flintlock must be visible to LE at all times, or not, because that has nothing to do with anything. Whether our "arms" were hidden inside our horse drawn cart or carried on our backs, or in our hands, was, and is, irrelevant. The framers of our Constitution did not specifically mention this because specifically how the people chose to "bear" their arms was not a concern of theirs. Their concern was that the people could bear their arms any way they saw fit and the government should have NO say so in the matter.
As far as I am concerned all 20,000+ gun laws that are on the books right now are all in violation of the 2A. How are these laws not infringing upon my rights? The framers did not say we have the uninfringable right to keep and bear arms, unless the barrel on our musket is less than 16", or unless the overall length of our firearm is less than 36", or unless we try to hide the musket under our cloak. Our RTKABA is more infringed now than when King George was still our dictator. Far more.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.