Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcODdkNmEzZWMtYTFkYi00ZWZmLTg3ZDYtZTY4OWQ0Yzk2NzZm


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alangura; amendment; arms; banglist; bear; cgf; embody; saf; second

1 posted on 12/07/2011 3:53:05 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu

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.


2 posted on 12/07/2011 4:02:36 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; All

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcODdkNmEzZWMtYTFkYi00ZWZmLTg3ZDYtZTY4OWQ0Yzk2NzZm


3 posted on 12/07/2011 4:05:35 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

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?

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcYzIzMDBiODEtYzcwNy00ZjMzLThjYzUtMjdlMzhiNjRiNGMz


4 posted on 12/07/2011 4:27:12 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu
This one is easier to read.

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/Embody-SAF-CGF-Amicus-2011-12-05.pdf

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.

5 posted on 12/07/2011 4:33:36 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu
On the PaulBot Forum, we find:

kwikrnu
Member

Join Date
Oct 2010
Posts
36

"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?

6 posted on 12/07/2011 4:36:24 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

I now see that the guy was not arrested at all. But he did try to sue the park ranger that detained him.


7 posted on 12/07/2011 4:38:59 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/feb/10/tennessee-man-ak-47-style-pistol-park-sues-ranger/


8 posted on 12/07/2011 4:40:01 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; RedMDer
For a little relevant second-party disclosure on this issue see my #6, above...
9 posted on 12/07/2011 4:42:27 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

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.


10 posted on 12/07/2011 4:42:55 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

It says I own an ak-47 handgun and that I open carry it.


11 posted on 12/07/2011 4:45:55 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu

And what was the point of trying to make the gun appear to be a toy?


12 posted on 12/07/2011 4:49:01 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

>>In CA, you could open carry, but the gun couldn’t be loaded.<<

.
You’ve got to be kidding — not even with blanks?


13 posted on 12/07/2011 4:49:38 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
With the passage and signing of AB 144 by Govenor Brown, Open Carry of handguns will no longer be legal in most of California effective Jan 1, 2012.
14 posted on 12/07/2011 4:55:58 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu
"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."

~~~~~~~~~~

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 can’t 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"...)

15 posted on 12/07/2011 5:10:40 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Wow. Thanks for this wealth of info.


16 posted on 12/07/2011 5:11:33 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyR-cxfFAcs


17 posted on 12/07/2011 5:12:59 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu

Why was your TN license-to-carry permanently suspended?


18 posted on 12/07/2011 5:18:42 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

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.”


19 posted on 12/07/2011 5:19:12 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

This is the reason it was permanently suspended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43rbjjZ0nUw

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.


20 posted on 12/07/2011 5:22:15 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu
LOL. I'd say Belle Meade has some fairly nice cops.

The law that allows the open carry in the hand of a Navy or Army pistol is certainly an odd one. Cops are often willfully ignorant of the law, but I'm not sure I can fault them too much for not knowing about that particular one.


Moreover, four States largely banned the possession of all nonmilitary handguns during this period. See 1879 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 186, §1 (prohibiting citizens from carrying “publicly or privately, any … belt or pocket pistol, revolver, or any kind of pistol, except the army or navy pistol, usually used in warfare, which shall be carried openly in the hand”); 1876 Wyo. Comp. Laws ch. 52, §1 (forbidding “concealed or ope[n]” bearing of “any fire arm or other deadly weapon, within the limits of any city, town or village”); Ark. Act of Apr. 1, 1881, ch. 96, §1 (prohibiting the “wear[ing] or carry[ng]” of “any pistol … except such pistols as are used in the army or navy,” except while traveling or at home); Tex. Act of Apr. 12, 1871, ch. 34 (prohibiting the carrying of pistols unless there are “immediate and pressing” reasonable grounds to fear “immediate and pressing” attack or for militia service). Fifteen States banned the concealed carry of pistols and other deadly weapons. See Legal Historians’ Brief 16, n. 14. And individual municipalities enacted stringent gun controls, often in response to local conditions—Dodge City, Kansas, for example, joined many western cattle towns in banning the carrying of pistols and other dangerous weapons in response to violence accompanying western cattle drives. See Brief for Municipal Respondents 30 (citing Dodge City, Kan., Ordinance No. 16, §XI (Sept. 22, 1876)); D. Courtwright, The Cowboy Subculture, in Guns in America: A Reader 96 (J. Dizard et al. eds. 1999) (discussing how Western cattle towns required cowboys to “check” their guns upon entering town).

M c DONALD et al. v . CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

21 posted on 12/07/2011 6:57:26 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu; smokingfrog
"What do you have against a Ron Paul supporter posting factual information here?"

"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." Good practice -- and not just as a required oath before testimony.

kwikrnu: Massive fail!

I wouldn't trust you to hand me an ice cream cone.

Besides,

...genuine FReepers really despise trolls...

22 posted on 12/07/2011 7:25:16 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

The law was not odd. It existed from 1871 to 1989 and was ruled constitutional by the state supreme court numerous times. In fact, the ordinances of the city of belle meade were and are clearly found on the city’s internet web page. The local open carry in the hand laws are specifically preempted by state law. Many localities have open carry in the hand laws on the books today.

Here is a reply to a recent criminal appeal from a federal prosecutor regarding the applicability of old or obscure laws,

“Lastly, one other aspect of the Defendant’s argument that Section 231(a)(2) is “obscure” appears to be based in part on his assertion that he was convicted of violating “an obscure statute which has been used only a handful of times in the forty plus years it has existed.” Defendant’s Motion, p.7. The Defendant’s challenge to conviction for
violating Section 231(a)(2) appears to rest upon his argument that validity of this provision should be measured in direct correlation to the frequency of prosecution; this
argument is simply without merit. Using the same logic (or illogic), there would be similar challenges based upon the “infrequency” of any prosecutions for treason or
seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §§ 2381 and 2384) or the knowing use the of “Woodsy Owl” character for profit without authorization (18 U.S.C. § 711a). Simply put, this
“obscurity” argument has no bearing whatsoever on whether statutes are to be considered constitutionally valid and any convictions for violations thereof in keeping with due process principles.”


23 posted on 12/07/2011 7:33:22 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu

As long as it is not carried in an unsafe manner I have no problem whatsoever with anyone carrying whatever they please.


24 posted on 12/07/2011 8:51:43 PM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kwikrnu
The law was not odd. It existed from 1871 to 1989 and was ruled constitutional by the state supreme court numerous times.

What happened in 1989?

25 posted on 12/07/2011 9:23:41 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

State law changed from open carry in the hand to no carry except to hunt and a few other exceptions. It wasn’t until a few years later that permits became an option and then a sort of shall issue put into place. However, as I stated, there is no state preemption of local laws in place before 1986. That means there are many communities with the open carry in the hand of the army or navy pistol.

Here is a link to a portion of a debate in 1989 regarding open carry in the hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD7S4tX4GPo

Andrews v state was the tennessee case that said some type of carry must be allowed. Open carry in the hand is what the tennessee legislature came up with. The TN supreme court found the law to be constitutional several times.


26 posted on 12/07/2011 10:15:29 PM PST by kwikrnu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

They could just hire a copyeditor or a script girl if all they wanted was consistency.


27 posted on 12/08/2011 12:18:03 AM PST by firebrand (It's almost too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
In CA, you could open carry, but the gun couldn’t be loaded.

There are exceptions to this rule. You can open carry loaded handguns in rural, inincorporated areas, and on public lands where shooting is NOT prohibited (such as National Forests and BLM areas).

Anywhere else, not so much.

28 posted on 12/08/2011 12:59:27 PM PST by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson