Carry at the mall.

[jgalt]

2nd Amendment =/ right to carry. No one in the founding generation (the writers & ratifiers of the 2A...) thought it did, and there is no legal precedent anywhere that says it is now.

I wouldn't go that far: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30250&p=344215#p344215

There is in fact plenty of evidence that the right to carry a firearm outside ones home for protection/hunting/defense was the the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. There are always reasonable restrictions that can be applied to rights, but an outright prohibition was never the intent. Given the recent successes of Heller and McDonald, it's reasonable to believe that the court may eventually correctly find that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That would be a very good day

Re: your linked list of quotes - they don't mean what you think they do... The only one that matters is the last one, the one that was actually presented to & ratified by the people.

There are plenty of other written, historical sources that conflict with those you presented. There were a lot of restrictions on who could or could not carry firearms outside their home in the late 18th century (leaving out any discussion of blacks - slave or free...). One of the most common were restrictions on carrying concealed weapons of any type, especially in the larger cities.

Even if the SCOTUS does find a "right to carry" (as currently defined / understood), there are enough founding-era sources to allow for a whole lot more restrictions than we have here in MN. Hence my statement that the 2A =/ right to carry. I could have added "right to carry, as you and I think about it" for some more clarity, but the statement stands regardless.

Again, I'm in favor of removing nearly all "gun control" regulations. The point is that the 2A - even when interpreted by an "Originalist" - won't get you what you're looking for...

[texasprowler]

Why would police even bother to check for a permit? Have they ever found an open carry that turned out to be a criminal? I have a sneaky feeling that some LEO's don't think citizens should be armed.
How many unlicensed citizens carried a gun in the mideast wars, but can't carry in MN?

[Roon]

There is not a general prohibition against driving a car in MN. There is a general prohibition against carrying a firearm in MN.

There is a general prohibition on driving a car if you are not licensed, or under a certain age is there not?

[Roon]

It's not a presumption of guilt, its a suspicion of a crime. There is a big difference, and yes it has and does stand up in court, as recently as June of this year.

Seems to me someone that can afford a lot of justice could very easily win a case where the 2nd ammendment is suspicion of a crime. Seems to me the MN Supreme Court would get its hand slapped by big poppa SCOTUS.

2nd Amendment =/ right to carry. No one in the founding generation (the writers & ratifiers of the 2A...) thought it did, and there is no legal precedent anywhere that says it is now. There have always been what are called "time and manner" restrictions on who may carry deadly weapons, when they may be carried and where...

That does not mean that most / any of those restrictions make any sense, or that we should be content with their existence. It does however mean that the 2nd Amendment is not the solution you think it is...

No one in the founding generation? What do you think that little bit about BEARING arms means? The founding generation most certainly wanted people to be able to carry weapons, otherwise...what is the point of owning them? So they can be a nice decoration on your mantle? The 2nd amendment is the solution I think it is, courts seem to feel otherwise it would seem, but that doesn't make them correct. There is a way to amend the constitution if they don't like what it says...but interpreting the plain english "the right of the people to keep and bear arm's shall not be infringed" to mean that people don't have a right to carry weapons makes me question the intelligence of those who are supposed to be smart and know the law.

[jshuberg]

The only one that matters is the last one, the one that was actually presented to & ratified by the people.

That's not actually true. The earlier versions provide the necessary context. Lawyers of the 18th century prided themselves on the ability to distill language down to its simplest form. You can see this in the wording that was used becoming simpler as the debates progressed forward. The final version of the 2nd Amendment was only associated with service in a militia, but this was not because it was the only reason that they recognized.

Rather than enumerating all of the possible reasons that the right to bear arms might apply, the founders zeroed in on one reason - the most important reason - and used that to describe the right. This description was not meant to limit the right, but merely to describe it. Lawyers today want every single detail separately enumerated, so there is a disconnect in the language used at the time and it's interpretation now. Reading Madison's notes of the debates, looking at the various versions, the wording and intent as the debate progressed gives us the context necessary to understand what the original wording means in a modern context.

It is very common for the US Supreme Court to refer to the debate process, other writings of the authors, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, Madison's notes etc. to give the correct context to the highly simplified language used in the founding documents. When looking at the debates involving the 2nd Amendment, there are actually 4 reasons that were discussed, although service in the militia was the one chosen to describe the right.

There are many constitutional scholars that believe that the 2nd Amendment does in fact guarantee the right to carry a firearm outside the home. To your point though, it is true that no right is absolute and that there can be and are instances where the right to bear arms can be restricted.

[jshuberg]

There is a general prohibition on driving a car if you are not licensed, or under a certain age is there not?

No, there is not.

Driving a car is a legal activity unless...
Carrying a firearm in public is an illegal activity unless...

Not having a drivers license and driving is a crime.
Having a carry permit and carrying in public is an exception to committing the crime.

Do you not see the difference?

[Roon]

There is a general prohibition on driving a car if you are not licensed, or under a certain age is there not?

No, there is not.

Driving a car is a legal activity unless...
Carrying a firearm in public is an illegal activity unless...

Not having a drivers license and driving is a crime.
Having a carry permit and carrying in public is an exception to committing the crime.

Do you not see the difference?

I see the difference as far as MN is concerned.

I have a hard time believing that MN's standard would hold up in court on a federal level though. I guess maybe that is my issue.

[tman]

There is a general prohibition on driving a car if you are not licensed, or under a certain age is there not?

If I had reasonable, articulable suspicion that a driver was unlicensed based on appearance of age, I could make the stop and ask for a drivers license. If they wanted to fight it in court that would be up to them.

Bstrawse asked about my private property summation -

I know, I couldn't get the connection either why the word trespass had anything to do with the police requiring me to conceal.

And to limit my right to carry to conceal only? What else can they limit, number of bullets, leather holsters, or trigger locks?

Perhaps they were acting on the suggestion of the original complainant. It's possible that the complainant said to the cops, "If he covers it up, we don't have a problem with him carrying."

The owner of the establishment, or its agent, can make the rules for you to stay. The cops AREN'T the agent for the mall or store, but can pass the rules on to you...

Refusing to leave, after being asked to leave, is Trespass in MN. It's THE secondary crime covered in 624.714.

Subd. 17.Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision is not subject to forfeiture.

[texasprowler]

Seismic Sam wrote: "Stop being a crybaby", or something like that.......

You should write a book about "The history of how Minnesota transformed and joined the free states". No, seriously. Meanwhile, could you direct me to some consolidated discussion on attitudes, past and present, regarding gun prohibition in this state? Pro-gun, anti-gun, police, and regular folks.

[bstrawse]

It would be more like this

Judge: "Why did you stop this gentleman?"
Officer - "When responding to a man with a gun call at the XXXXXX mall, I observed an individual open carrying a firearm. I then approached him and asked for him to give me his permit to carry and government ID as authorized under MN 624.714 so that I could verify he was lawfully carrying the firearm in Minnesota. "

That discussion would stop there - it's not going to end the way you think it is.
b

You suggesting that State statute is > Supreme Court decisions?

Try telling that to the pot growers in California that got raided.

No. But you are comparing apples to orange.
b

[bstrawse]

I would accept that, save for the fact that you can refuse to give ID to an officer if no crime has been committed. You are not required to provide anything to them unless there is a reason for them to ID you (you are suspected of a crime). If the reason for the stop is invalid (carrying a gun in public) then so is the demand for ID.

I am no lawyer, but federal rulings and law have always trumped State statutes have they not? You could perhaps argue that given the MN Supreme Court ruling he was indeed violating the law and thus justified the encounter, but you then run into the issue of a lawful activity being classified as "suspicion of a crime" and the SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions (mostly pertaining to traffic stops) that this is not the case.

Yes, you are correct, if you're in the circumstance that Terry v. Ohio was intended to address. Again, you're taking a case meant for something and trying to apply to a specific state statute that authorizes law enforcement to ask for ID and a Permit in a very specifically defined set of circumstances. Again, not the same.

[bstrawse]

I guess once they define "reasonable restrictions" to mean "carrying a gun is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed" then you would be correct. I have a feeling it will be a cold day in hell before that happens due to the implications such a ruling would have throughout the realm of lawful activities.

My main point being, if you do not have STRICT controls on what officers can and can not do(No gut feeling nonsense), you end up with the TSA and fusion centers and all sorts of nonsense. Being a cop is a tough job and I have nothing but respect for them, but the cold hard truth of the matter is that it is not a citizens job to make an officers life easier. The Constitution is in place for a reason and that is to control the power of government and its agents (Cops.).

What's the issue with Fusion Centers?
b

[bstrawse]

Why would police even bother to check for a permit? Have they ever found an open carry that turned out to be a criminal? I have a sneaky feeling that some LEO's don't think citizens should be armed.
How many unlicensed citizens carried a gun in the mideast wars, but can't carry in MN?

When working in law enforcement in Indiana in the mid 1990s, I can point to several examples of open carrying individuals who turned out to either a) not have a permit or b) ineligible to possess a firearm under state and/or federal law.

So yes, I have found several individuals open carrying that turned out to be criminals.

That said, I think the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens - and most individuals open carrying are law abiding citizens, just like me.
B

[bstrawse]

Seismic Sam wrote: "Stop being a crybaby", or something like that.......

You should write a book about "The history of how Minnesota transformed and joined the free states". No, seriously. Meanwhile, could you direct me to some consolidated discussion on attitudes, past and present, regarding gun prohibition in this state? Pro-gun, anti-gun, police, and regular folks.

David Gross and Joe Olson would be the right two gentlemen to write said book - along with a few others...
b

[tman]

Meanwhile, could you direct me to some consolidated discussion on attitudes, past and present, regarding gun prohibition in this state? Pro-gun, anti-gun, police, and regular folks.

Actually, http://www.twincitiescarry.com is the oldest forum and still exists in archive form. Pay attention to posts by "Kimberman", "David Gross", and some others.

BKrafft is also known for his "open carry education" - he has open carried at the Mall of America, among other places...


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.