“[Kentucky’s Constitutional Carry bill] recognizes a law-abiding adult’s unconditional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the manner he or she chooses. Self-defense situations are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate. Accordingly, a law-abiding adult’s right to defend himself or herself in such situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.” – NRA statement in Future of bill to allow concealed guns without permits in doubt [via kentucky.com]
True dat.
Emphasis on right to “bear”, no distinction need be made on whether concealed or openly. Sadly, many politicians and fellow citizens will never be enlightened.
I can prove I support state’s rights.
The individual states should be allowed to specify the *mode* of carry as concealed or openly, as long as they cannot forbid the right to carry outside the home.
Consider this entertaining scenario – Californians going to the polls to select open or concealed carry.
Pop the popcorn and watch *millions* of Leftist heads heads exploding as they debate *that* choice.
Just imagine the competing political ads…
*snicker*
Why does any discussion on any non-California state firearms laws quickly lead to a discussion of California firearms laws? Just curious.
10. It’s fun to point and laugh.
9. There are a lot of firearm owners and small businesses there.
8. Large parts of the state are beautiful, and a number of us would like to live there again if Cali society can extract its collective head…
7. California exports a lot of social policy to the rest of the nation, either by example or by transplant.
6. Some of my best friends are Californians…
…Anyone else…?
5. Tha last of the “Jim Crow” laws were repealed not in the “old South”, but in California. Stands to reason they would still have a problem with civil rights today.
Because by virtue of being hunted, having our culture targeted, and constant assault by the government, Californian gun rights supporters are among the most rabid, well-informed, motivated, and connected people out there.
Much like partisans or even Jews trapped in Nazi occupied territory, we know the face of tyranny, face it daily, and are marked by it.
I hear constant reports of Californians who move out of state to gun friendly lands and they report gun culture is nothing compared to California because everyone takes it for granted.
Essentially, we’re all Ayn Rand, except we haven’t gotten out of Russia yet.
“Why does any discussion on any non-California state firearms laws quickly lead to a discussion of California firearms laws?”
Because historically, California laws get adopted by other states.
Never heard the expression: “As California goes, so goes the nation”?
There’s a lot more truth in that expression then most people realize…
Why should a State have any choice whatsoever in how you exercise a god-given right? The right exists outside of government, therefore government has absolutely no say in how the individual carries out that right.
Which is precisely why the clause ‘shall not be infringed’ was added and was mostly adhered to for the first century of this great experiment. Things kinda got murky during reconstruction and it’s all been downhill from there. Washington would have messed his knickers had he read the NFA of 1932 and then gone to kick the ever living dog piss out of its author.
Unless we get a SCOTUS ruling that guts gun control completely (you know, adhering to the intent of the founding fathers and all) while we may win battles, ultimately we will lose in every state as the population centers turn the red states blue. Going through it now, just a few years back Oregon and Washington would never have seen gun control pass, and now the anti’s are on a roll, and there is no way to stop it…we don’t have the numbers.
We should note that the 2A doesn’t start with, “Congress shall pass no law…”.
Instead, it says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
No other right protected by the constitution has such strong language, and for a very good reason.
The 2A protects a right well known before the constitution or BoR was passed.
” The concept of such a right existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights. First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (but there only applying to Protestants), this right was enshrined in fundamental laws of several American states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776.” (https://en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Application_and_text)
It is one of the most feared rights by those who believe in a strong government. The RTKABA means the government must fear those it wants to control, pure and simple.
Must admit, that would be quite amusing, lol. Oh and the psychoanalytics involving phallusses, even Freud would be ashamed.
Not to mention, California HAD a choice between open and concealed carry. First they eliminated concealed carry, which was found “reasonable” by the courts because open carry was still allowed (mind you, it was unloaded open carry IIRC). Then, once it was established the only reason they could eliminate concealed carry was because open carry was available, thus the right intact, they banned open carry.
It’s not an either/or with liberals/fascists, ever. It’s neither.
At least we have permit less open carry. And outside of the major cities, nobody much bats an eye to see a gun on the hip
Yup, and the bill as written was quite bad. As in written without even internal logic, contradictions, bad grammar, and I’m not even sure that it was legal as written.
Nice pistol. Have to open carry that. With a sword or bowie knife. Maybe both.
A single shot, seriously?
Better make that a brace of a dozen pistols in a bandolier…
Some are dead serious every time.
Not everyone is dead serious every time.
I dunno … Carrying 24 of the things would get cumbersome.
It builds body strength and that ephemeral quality known as ‘character’… 😉
Add a blunderbus to the outfit and it’s complete.
Simple concept of lawful self defense…so hard for elected representatives to accept.
mk10108,
Lawful self-defense is very hard for politicians to accept because:
(1) They do not profit from self-defense.
(2) It undermines their “universal government solution for everything” platform when you can defend yourself.
Let’s not forget that above a certain level (varies by state) they qualify for personal security; and at all levels they expect a fast effective response from law enforcement because of their position.
Easy to start taking that for granted and forgetting that not everyone can carry a cop.
As much as i would like to see this pass, ending the gun free school zones is a higher priority this year. Constitutional carry is a matter of when, not if in KY.
Restoring our FULL rights is never a secondary consideration.
When it comes to political tactics, we can shove a bunch of shit down the liberals throats, or we can appeal to the masses and work to restore our rights the way they were taken. One slice at a time. We need to keep the politicians on our side in office otherwise you end up with a strong push back and lose the overall war. Since you’re so determined to get everything restored all at once, i suggest you stand in the front when the first shots are fire due to poor tactics.
Nope…no means no. My rights are not up for bargaining, my rights are not negotiable, my rights are not for someone else to dole out piece by piece whenever they feel a little generous. My rights are not subject to the political mood of the month. No.
You aren’t pray tell, suggesting “compromise” are you? Compromise with the anti’s has not worked since at least the 30’s. There is no compromising with the irrational, which is the leftists. They do not enjoy firearms, they do not see the point, they do not see the need, therefore they have ZERO to lose in the battle over that right. Compromise and common sense mean the same thing to them: complete elimination of firearms from a free society.
We cannot oppose some special firearms and ammunition taxes, while supporting others that benefit the shooting sports community!
The federal Pittman-Robertson Act imposes an 11 percent federal excise tax on firearm and ammunition sales. Proceeds from the tax are shared with state wildlife agencies across the nation.
Only general taxes, that apply to all goods, are acceptable when a civil right is involved.
No taxes of any kind are acceptable when it comes to exercising one’s civil rights.
But but the NRA has NEVER supported Constitutional carry or open carry! /Sarc