Skip to comments.Second Amendment Foundation, SAF, files amicus brief against the legal open carry of firearms.
Posted on 12/07/2011 3:52:56 PM PST by kwikrnu
The Second Amendment Foundation, SAF, and Alan Gura filed an amicus brief AGAINST the open carry of firearms. I believe they have been hiding their real agenda for some time now. I believe their agenda is to establish a permit or licensing scheme for the bearing of arms. If anyone has read their briefs, they do not seem to want open carry as an option.
Here is a link to the brief which was filed 12-5-2011
link doesn’t work for me
In some states, you can open carry without a permit, but need a license/permit to carry concealed. In some states, you can carry concealed with a permit but not allowed to open carry. In CA, you could open carry, but the gun couldn’t be loaded. Maybe they’re just trying to point out the inconsistencies and lack of common sense in some of our gun laws.
The Calguns Foundation filed that amicus brief along with the SAF. I wonder what they were thinking? CGF is currently litigating a case in CA where a man was arrested for possession of an “assault” firearm...lol
Here is a link to that complaint. Hypocritical lately?
They're just saying they don't believe this guys civil rights were violated. He was carrying a AK-type pistol that was painted to make it appear that it was a toy. He purposely went out of his way to get arrested.
"To clarify I am the appellant."
What is that supposed to tell us about your posting this here on FR?
And what does the fact that you were carrying one of these
openly in a park and calling it a "handgun" say about you?
Do we have a PaulBot scam/spam here?
I now see that the guy was not arrested at all. But he did try to sue the park ranger that detained him.
I did not go out of my way to be arrested. I merely walked in a state park and carried a handgun which was legal to own and carry.
It says I own an ak-47 handgun and that I open carry it.
And what was the point of trying to make the gun appear to be a toy?
>>In CA, you could open carry, but the gun couldnt be loaded.<<
You’ve got to be kidding — not even with blanks?
Really? Is that a fact? From the Brief:
Of course, even Plaintiff, who usually carries a handgun for self- defense, was not utilizing his gun for ordinary defensive purposes.
Plaintiff carried his gun for the purpose of being arrested:
"I cant wait for a cop to arrest me because I open-carried a handgunand someone called 9-1-1. It almost happened twice but no cigar yet.Maybe carrying a PLR-16 or AK pistol will change that. "
(Cited from a forum post using your "kwikernu"? 'handle'.)
There are trolls. There are TROLLS. And, then, there are TROLLS who TROLL to get arrested by creating an "unusual weapon" by disguising a legal arm as a toy -- and then TROLL about their misadventure here on FR -- without divulging their earlier, obvious TROLLING.
I am a no-holds-barred supporter of RKBA -- but I DO NOT appreciate being scammed, spammed and lied to by a PaulBot TROLL! (And, no, I have not hit "abuse"...)
Wow. Thanks for this wealth of info.
The barrel nut was painted orange. It is not illegal to paint any firearm any color. The ranger was told it was a real gun, there was no disguising the nature of the weapon.
Why was your TN license-to-carry permanently suspended?
What do you have against a Ron Paul supporter posting factual information here?
The ak-47 pistol I carried is a handgun as defined by clear Tennessee law. The state park was clearly legal to carry in. I had a valid permit to carry the handgun. open carry is lawful. The painting of any firearm is lawful.
The fact is that calguns foundation and the second amendment foundation have now come out and stated that open carry of lawful handguns is not protected under the second amendment. That premise is wrong and a Tennessee Supreme Court declared it wrong back in 1833 in simpson v state.
“But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, (p.360)or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, “that the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” Article 11, sec. 26. It is submitted, that this clause of our constitution fully meets and opposes the passage or clause in Hawkins, of “a man’s arming himself with dangerous and unusual weapons,” as being an independent ground of affray, so as of itself to constitute the offence cognizable by indictment. By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgment a constitutional privilege which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it the absence of such a view.
On the authorities, therefore, I am of opinion that this record of an indictment against the plaintiff in error does not contain the charge of an affray, or any other specific offence cognizable at common law by indictment, and that there is nothing either in our Constitution or acts of Assembly in repugnancy to this conclusion, but, on the contrary, strongly corroborative thereof.”
This is the reason it was permanently suspended.
I have since filed a lawsuit against the state of tennessee regarding the suspension.
I have since aquired silencers, 3 out of state handgun licenses, and am a federal firearms licensee.