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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

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