Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. Open Carry is perfectly legal already, and any attempt to attach a permit to that would be unconstitutional in my opinion. Some places have been having issues with cops harassing people who open carry, and that's not only wrong but also gives the radical right wing fringe a lot of ammo.

Sent from my SCH-R530C using Tapatalk


Your Constitution provides for a "well regulated" militia - QED the State should regulate the ownership and carriage of weapons so that seditious groups and enemy aliens, along with the criminal and insane, are prevented from carrying weapons.

IN FACT it would seem that REFUSING to regulate the citizen militia at all is as unconstitutional as a blanket ban.

"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."

The first clause clearly establishes the purpose of the amendment to be the provision of a regulated militia, not provision for personal security.

The second clause lacks specify in both the definition of "the people" and of the definition of "keep and bear".

It is possible to define "The People" as the populace, distinct from the Federal Government - which would make the right to "keep and bear" collective, not individual.

I.E. The correct application of the amendment requires each Town or Civil Parish to maintain a collective armoury where the "People" keep their arms, so that they may be quickly taken up and borne. Such an armoury would, of course, be outside the direct control of the Federal Government - although the government could enact a *minimum* standard.

This was, of course, the reason the National Guard was created.

There's nothing in your Constitution that provides for the open carriage of personal weapons unless you choose to interpret it that way.

Actually, between this and the sloppy text of your marriage Laws I'm not sure I rate your early Jurists very highly.