Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris" data-source="post: 2247925" data-attributes="member: 35081">Heller did not say that weapons could be banned except in the home.&nbsp; Heller did say CCW could be restricted but historical precedence was that Open carry was allowed when concealed was restricted.&nbsp; Your very liberal 9th circuit in the Peruta En Banc opinion left open the door that open carry may be required to be available if concealed is not.From cases in the Heller Quote in your post #13035State V. Chandler -&quot;The act of the 25th of March, 1813, makes it a misdemeanor to be &quot;found with a concealed weapon, such as a dirk, dagger, knife, pistol, or any other deadly weapon concealed in his bosom, coat, or any other place about him, that does not appear in full view.&quot; This law became absolutely necessary to (p.490)counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man&#039;s right to carry arms (to use its words) &quot;in full open view,&quot; which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if neccessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.&quot;Nunn V. State -&quot;A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons ina concealed manner is valid.&nbsp; But so far as it cuts off theexercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or,under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itselfuseless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris, post: 2247925, member: 35081"] Heller did not say that weapons could be banned except in the home. Heller did say CCW could be restricted but historical precedence was that Open carry was allowed when concealed was restricted. Your very liberal 9th circuit in the Peruta En Banc opinion left open the door that open carry may be required to be available if concealed is not. From cases in the Heller Quote in your post #13035 State V. Chandler - "The act of the 25th of March, 1813, makes it a misdemeanor to be "found with a concealed weapon, such as a dirk, dagger, knife, pistol, or any other deadly weapon concealed in his bosom, coat, or any other place about him, that does not appear in full view." This law became absolutely necessary to (p.490)counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. [B]It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if neccessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations." [/B] Nunn V. State - [B]"A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void." [/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification