2nd Amendment Question

[militaryman05]

Was wondering if you guys could settle a argument between my son(who is 16 and in highschool and thinks he knows everything) and me. He seems to think that because he has studied the civil rights and that one of the rights is to bear arms that he could walk down the street with a uncased and unloaded weapon and not get arrested. So if someone can verifying that it is illegal in the state of Iowa to do so it would be helpful.

[matti422]

Just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you are free of any regulation of them. Congress still has the right to set rules thanks to the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Suggest your son continue to read the rest of the Constitution. Continue on to a law school and pick up a case book on Constitutional Law. If that doesn't confuse the hell out of him, he may be compelled to go to law school and support you well into retirement.

[EvilWizard]

Read Iowa Code Chapter 724. You can find it here [url]http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/asd/724.htm[/url]

Here is some snippets:

Types of Permits Available

Annual Permit to Acquire Pistols or Revolvers - A permit to acquire authorizes the holder to acquire pistols and revolvers and long guns; however, this does not authorize the holder to carry a weapon. An Iowa permit to acquire pistols and revolvers shall be valid three days after the date of application and is valid for one year after the date of application (Code of Iowa, section 724.20). It is valid throughout the state.

Nonprofessional Permit to Carry Weapons - A nonprofessional permit to carry authorizes the permit holder to carry weapons within the restrictions of the issuing officer.

Professional Permit to Carry Weapons - A professional permit to carry authorizes the permit holder to carry weapons in connection with their employment. A professional permit is only valid while going to and from work and while actually engaged in the employment for which it was issued.

A valid professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons authorizes an Iowa resident to acquire firearms in the same manner as a permit to acquire.

INDEX



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carrying Weapons

Offensive weapons are illegal in Iowa and cannot be owned or carried by the general population. To carry a dangerous weapon concealed on or about your person, a valid permit to carry weapons is required.

Offensive weapons - machine guns, short barreled rifles (less than 16" in length) and shotguns (barrels less than 18" in length or overall length less than 26"), other weapons which fire a projectile and have a barrel 6/10th of an inch or greater in diameter, bombs, grenades, mines, poison gas, rockets with more than four ounces of propellant, ballistic knives, exploding shells and similar items.
Dangerous weapons - devices designed primarily for use in inflicting death or injury including, but not limited to, offensive weapons, pistols, revolvers, other firearms, daggers, razors, stilettos, switchblade knives, or any knife with a blade exceeding five inches.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legally Transporting Handguns, Rifles and Shotguns in Motor Vehicles Without a Permit to Carry

An unloaded handgun may be transported in a closed and fastened container or securely wrapped package which is too large to be concealed on a person, or inside a cargo or luggage compartment where the handgun is not readily accessible to any person in the vehicle.

An unloaded rifle or shotgun may be transported if it is taken down or totally contained in a securely fastened case.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by militaryman05

Was wondering if you guys could settle a argument between my son(who is 16 and in highschool and thinks he knows everything) and me. He seems to think that because he has studied the civil rights and that one of the rights is to bear arms that he could walk down the street with a uncased and unloaded weapon and not get arrested. So if someone can verifying that it is illegal in the state of Iowa to do so it would be helpful.

**A: hahaha, there is one good way to find out. Have him do that and call the cops.

[Jack_David]

Originally Posted by militaryman05

Was wondering if you guys could settle a argument between my son(who is 16 and in highschool and thinks he knows everything) and me. He seems to think that because he has studied the civil rights and that one of the rights is to bear arms that he could walk down the street with a uncased and unloaded weapon and not get arrested. So if someone can verifying that it is illegal in the state of Iowa to do so it would be helpful.

Depends on the State.

Some states allow for the open carry of firearms, loaded or otherwise.

Some states make a distinction for unloaded firearms, so you could carry an unloaded gun and not commit a crime, but if it was loaded you would.

In Texas you cant openly carry a handguns, you can concealed carry with a liscense, however there are no laws against openly carrying loaded shotguns or rifles.

That being said regardless of legality, if you are carrying a firearm and someone can see it its almost a sure thing that someone will not know the law and will call the police and complain and they will investigate and harass you for it. Maybe even try to write you up for disturbing the peace or some other contived law.

[Jack_David]

Originally Posted by matti422

Just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you are free of any regulation of them. Congress still has the right to set rules thanks to the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Aww the wonderful interstate commerce clause.

If the government can regulate marijuana grown and consumed wholely in one state as interstate commerce then it can regulate everything.

I forgot which supreme court justice said that as the dissenting opinion in the recent marijuana case, but I wholely agree that the interstate commerce clause is totally being abused these days.

[Shay-Pari'e]

Originally Posted by Jack_David

Aww the wonderful interstate commerce clause.

If the government can regulate marijuana grown and consumed wholely in one state as interstate commerce then it can regulate everything.

I forgot which supreme court justice said that as the dissenting opinion in the recent marijuana case, but I wholely agree that the interstate commerce clause is totally being abused these days.

You agree with? I did not see an opinion stated on behalf of the poster you are quoting.

And what the hell does pot have to do with this post?

Try giving legal advice., or perhaps find a Gun Happy site you can join.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by Jack_David

Depends on the State.

Some states allow for the open carry of firearms, loaded or otherwise.
.

And that was NOT the question. So take your 2nd amendment crap and learn something.

IOWA is where this poster and his MINOR child lives.

And in IOWA A person must be at least 18 years old to apply for a permit to carry. However, a permit to carry that is valid for handguns cannot be issued to a person who is 18, 19 or 20 years old unless that person will be performing the duties of a peace officer, security guard or correctional officer, or while on military duty, or while under the direct supervision of a parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 years old or older, or while receiving instruction from an instructor who is at least 21 years old with the consent of such parent, guardian or spouse.

As to the original poster, take HG's advice. A life lesson actually experienced is better than all the preaching and/or book learning available. That is, IF your son is not shot for being stupid.

[BSharp]

Yes do not carry a gun around without your permit per the law.

But it is wise to hide away a handgun, silencer, few boxes of ammo. When that first terrorist nuke explodes you will grateful amongst the chaos. That will be your most valuable possesion. There have been 128,000 nuke weapons built. Defend yourself ahead of crisis.

[Burt Gummer]

[url]WWW.PACKING.ORG[/url]

[url]WWW.CONCEALEDCARRY.COM[/url]

[Burt Gummer]

Originally Posted by BSharp

Yes do not carry a gun around without your permit per the law.

But it is wise to hide away a handgun, silencer, few boxes of ammo. When that first terrorist nuke explodes you will grateful amongst the chaos. That will be your most valuable possesion. There have been 128,000 nuke weapons built. Defend yourself ahead of crisis.

Zombies are more of a threat than nukes.

[url]WWW.ZOMBIEHUNTERS.ORG[/url]

[badapple40]

The Second Amendment has been traditionally interpreted to allow state militia's (e.g. the national guard) and only militia's the right to bear arms, irrespective of federal legislation/law.

And that is the extent of it... so far.

That said, some supreme court justices have suggested that it has a broader meaning -- Justice Thomas is one that comes to mind.

In any event, states do legislate firearms, e.g. prohibiting felons to use/carry, etc., as does the federal government (e.g. Brady bill). There, at present, appears to be no second amendment problems with that, but, with the ever-changing makeup of the court, you never know, SCOTUS might make a ruling that would strike down such state laws.

[BSharp]

Originally Posted by badapple40

The Second Amendment has been traditionally interpreted to allow state militia's (e.g. the national guard) and only militia's the right to bear arms, irrespective of federal legislation/law.

False.

"the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Plain language. Right of 'people' not dogs, cats, militia, not bears.

There is only one other place in the Bill of Rights that mentions the word "people", and there "people" is interpreted as individual person.

Like 1st Amendment, 2nd is not absolute, no rights are.

PROBLEM for SUPREMES

The Supreme Court can NEVER rule against an individual's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The reason is clear.

Amend 2: the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Amend 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

The Supreme Court must invalidate both rights at the same time if a screwball court ruled against one. The law of precedence assure this. Give up your gun you must also allow unfettered random entry into your home. The Supreme Court understands this hence they never will nor never have in past ruled against people as individual.

[badapple40]

You are a moron.

Did you read the entire text of the Second Amendment:

That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Thanks for playing. Now, since you apparently know more about the second amendment than I do, because you must have been a licensed attorney longer than I have (22 years), or maybe because you've actually argued more cases than I have in the U.S. Supreme Court (2 cases), or maybe because you've done more research on this issue than I have (extensive research in conjunction with preparing to testify in front of our state legislature on concealed handgun regulation), I will not presume to provide you any additional information.

Now, that said, for the rest of those out there that are not as smart or educated as BSharp, lets look at the U.S. Supreme Court's second amendment jurisprudence.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (O'Connor and Scalia, concurring):

The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. n1 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections.

n1: most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (douglas and Marshall, dissenting):

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment.

And what about U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which addressed the Second Amendment? That case states the following (in affirming a federal firearms conviction):

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [*179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

with the court concluding that the right to bear arms only applied to state militias.

Also notable is the case of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), where the Supreme Court stated:

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States." See also Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. The State of Ohio, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jakson v. Wood, 2 Cowen, 819; Commonwealth v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Iredell, 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heiskell, 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

In any event, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller interpreted the constitution to only include the militia. As such, it follows that there is no personal right to bear arms, although, as I've said, Justice Scalia takes a different view of the world.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by BSharp

False.

"the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Plain language. Right of 'people' not dogs, cats, militia, not bears.

There is only one other place in the Bill of Rights that mentions the word "people", and there "people" is interpreted as individual person.

Like 1st Amendment, 2nd is not absolute, no rights are.

PROBLEM for SUPREMES

The Supreme Court can NEVER rule against an individual's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The reason is clear.

Amend 2: the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Amend 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

The Supreme Court must invalidate both rights at the same time if a screwball court ruled against one. The law of precedence assure this. Give up your gun you must also allow unfettered random entry into your home. The Supreme Court understands this hence they never will nor never have in past ruled against people as individual.

**A: oh brother, more BS from BS harp.