Florida Open Carriers to March Through Venice, Then Fish

“They’re more interested in the open-carry part of the deal than the fishing part.”

You’re correct, and it fires me up.

Mike,

Legally all they have to do is drop their line in the water. Honesty is flat out stating their purpose, which they have done. Dishonesty involves giving everyone a different answer about the same issue (and their endgame) like some bloggers and trolls tend to do.

You may not like the open carry march, but it’s legal, honest, and excuse the pun…open.

Mi case es su casa.

Awe shit. More non-paying work for me. Ok, fair enough. Lets do it. I can’t guarentee speedy product delivery – that it entirely dependant on my “paying” work load.

Just so you understand my argument – I am not necessarily taking the position that your right to self-defense ends at your residence / place of abode. I simply disagree that you have a “right” to open carry, particularly in urbanized area. Also, just so that I can be clear on the parameters of the discussion, are you advocating an unlimited right to open carry, or do you beleive that there reasonable “time place manner” restrictions that can be placed on that right? If so, what are they? For example, does you right to open carry include all sort of weapons (AR-15s, AK 47s, etc) or is it limited to a handgun tacked away (but still visiable) in a holster? If your answer is “both,” then are you restricted in manner in which you hold the rifle as you go about your business? In other words, can you walk around the mall with a loaded AR-15 held “at the ready” (military term), or must it be slung over you shoulder (sling arms) or held in some other manner that indicates that you are no immidiate threat to others?

For round one, let’s stick to handguns.

Ok, handguns it is.. Loaded or unloaded (but readily accessible)? Also, just so I am sure I understand the topic: You are arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees a “right” to open carry a handgun in public (presumably excluding “sensitive sites” as discussed in Heller, correct? To further narrow the topic, are you accepting of a government permit system for open carry as being within the acceptable scope of the 2AD?

This section:

“Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment . Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state … .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.

“North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .” Declaration of Rights §XVII, in id., at 2787, 2788. This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly. See §§14, 18, 35, in 5 id., 2789, 2791, 2793. Many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons—such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of public worship.” 19 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia 137–139 (A. Candler ed. 1911 (pt. 2)) (emphasis added). That broad public-safety understanding was the connotation given to the North Carolina right by that State’s Supreme Court in 1843. See State v. Huntly, 3 Ired. 418, 422–423.

“The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution presented another variation on the theme: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence… .” Pt. First, Art. XVII, in 3 Thorpe 1888, 1892. Once again, if one gives narrow meaning to the phrase “common defence” this can be thought to limit the right to the bearing of arms in a state-organized military force. But once again the State’s highest court thought otherwise. Writing for the court in an 1825 libel case, Chief Justice Parker wrote: “The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” Commonwealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313–314. The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any individual purpose at all. See also Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment , 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 244 (1983) (19th-century courts never read “common defence” to limit the use of weapons to militia service).

“We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre- Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes. Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions—although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson. (It read: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”18 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).”

That provision does not get you to a “right” to open carry. In that section of the opinion, the Court is looking to various state constitutional provisions to bolster the argument that the Second Amendment is an individual liberty to “bear arms” for purposes of self defense, as opposed to a mere “collective” (State) right to arm a militia. The Court is not giving any indication in this passage regarding the scope of the right to use firearms for self-defense. I realize it’s tempting to read more into the Court’s opinion, particularly since it makes practical sense that you should be able to “defend” yourself wherever and whenever the need arises. Unfortunately, the Court never really says that. I think the strongest language of Heller concerning open carry actually comes from its discussion of the Louisiana case State v. Chandler (1850). The Heller court quotes – without any apparent disapproval – to Chandler, as follows: “Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “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 [sic] of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”