# Right to bear firearms only?



## geezer (Aug 12, 2012)

Hey all you Second Amendment/"right to bear arms" fanatics. What is the current state of the right to bear arms _other than firearms_ for self-defense? In my state, any legal resident (except convicted felons without their rights restored) can carry firearms, openly or concealed, without a permit, in most places _without any permit required_. 

I recently returned from a martial arts seminar in Texas, and discovered that they have fairly unrestrictive gun laws as well. But in there, as in my state, weapons other thatn firearms are often illegal to carry ...depending on a variety of differing state, county and local regulations. In fact the host instructor at the Texas seminar told me of an acquaintance who was taken into custody for having an "ASP" collapsable baton visible on the back seat of his car, apparently in violation of a local county ordinance. On the other hand if it had been a gun, he would have been OK since he had the necessary concealed carry permit.  

Curious. So batons, knives and martial arts weapons carried for self defense may be restricted without controversy or court challenge, while semi-automatic firearms are totally protected? How does that jibe with the Constitution? I'm sure that at the time of the Revolutionaty war, clubs and bladed weapons were an important back-up to a musket that was slow to re-load. _But today such weapons are are not legit for defense?_ What gives ...where's the logic there? And if there's isn't a constitutional right to carry a club or Ka-Bar, is there really a right to bear arms at all? Just wondering.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2012)

geezer said:


> Hey all you Second Amendment/"right to bear arms" fanatics. What is the current state of the right to bear arms _other than firearms_ for self-defense? In my state, any legal resident (except convicted felons without their rights restored) can carry firearms, openly or concealed, without a permit, in most places _without any permit required_.
> 
> I recently returned from a martial arts seminar in Texas, and discovered that they have fairly unrestrictive gun laws as well. But in there, as in my state, weapons other thatn firearms are often illegal to carry ...depending on a variety of differing state, county and local regulations. In fact the host instructor at the Texas seminar told me of an acquaintance who was taken into custody for having an "ASP" collapsable baton visible on the back seat of his car, apparently in violation of a local county ordinance. On the other hand if it had been a gun, he would have been OK since he had the necessary concealed carry permit.
> 
> Curious. So batons, knives and martial arts weapons carried for self defense may be restricted without controversy or court challenge, while semi-automatic firearms are totally protected? How does that jibe with the Constitution? I'm sure that at the time of the Revolutionaty war, clubs and bladed weapons were an important back-up to a musket that was slow to re-load. _But today such weapons are are not legit for defense?_ What gives ...where's the logic there? And if there's isn't a constitutional right to carry a club or Ka-Bar, is there really a right to bear arms at all? Just wondering.



I actually alluded to this in my pen thread, and was going to post further about it. Here in New Mexico, I can openly carry a 3' sword, a pistol, a machete, a baton,or a shotgun with two bandeliers of shells-though any of those just might get me some law enforcement attnetion, except maybe the pistol. I also have a concealed carry permit, but it _doesn't_ allow me to carry a knife or anything besides pistols of specific calibers concealed.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 12, 2012)

There are actually no provisions in Virginia law to provide a permit for carrying any concealed weapon from the list on 18.2-308 or related code sections other than a gun.  (I looked into it once, years ago.  Still would kind of like to see someone push the idea of a CCW for a knife...)

One comment: possession of lots of those items, with a few exceptions like martial arts training, is illegal in and of itself... so you probably won't convince a judge to give you permit for a switchblade or brass knuckles, for example.

By the way -- I'll rep the first person to post and tell me a particular glaringly not covered item from that code section...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 12, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> By the way -- I'll rep the first person to post and tell me a particular glaringly not covered item from that code section...



Taser/stun-gun. 

Crossbow pistol ( :lol: )

Blowgun ( :lfao: )

_Just plain darts.


_


----------



## Takai (Aug 12, 2012)

While this comes from the perspective of "assault weapons" (I hate using that PC phrase!) I think that it gives a really nice view on the 2nd Amendment. 

http://communities.washingtontimes....ism-institute/2012/jul/28/ban-assault-rifles/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 13, 2012)

geezer said:


> Curious. So batons, knives and martial arts weapons carried for self defense may be restricted without controversy or court challenge, while semi-automatic firearms are totally protected? How does that jibe with the Constitution? I'm sure that at the time of the Revolutionaty war, clubs and bladed weapons were an important back-up to a musket that was slow to re-load. _But today such weapons are are not legit for defense?_ What gives ...where's the logic there? And if there's isn't a constitutional right to carry a club or Ka-Bar, is there really a right to bear arms at all? Just wondering.



I would not automatically presume that there is not a Constitutional right to bear 'arms' of all sorts, not just firearms.

However, there are several issues here that may influence this.

In no particular order:

* People and groups challenge laws for constitutionality.  The NRA is one such group, and it has consistently championed the right to bear *fire*arms, not swords or clubs or other self-defense weapons.  Why?  I dunno, but I'd guess that it's because they do not care.  What group has challenged state or local nunchacku laws up to the Supreme Court?  No challenge, no finding.

* The SCOTUS considers many things when they examine laws for constitutionality.  One of those things is the original meaning of the law or amendment when it was passed by Congress.  We have the Federalist papers and various other means of determining that when the Framers of the Bill of Rights said 'arms', they meant firearms specifically.  It would appear that at the time of the 2nd Amendment, historically 'arms' mean guns and not swords.  So there's that.

So I would not necessarily say that there isn't a constitutional right to carry a Ka-Bar.  There may be such a right.  But no Ka-Bar Lover Association has arisen to challenge laws against carrying such things.  You could always start one if it is something you feel strongly about.


----------



## geezer (Aug 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would not automatically presume that there is not a Constitutional right to bear 'arms' of all sorts, not just firearms...
> 
> ...There may be such a right. But no Ka-Bar Lover Association has arisen to challenge laws against carrying such things. You could always start one if it is something you feel strongly about.




That pretty well sums it up from my perspective as well. And no, I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to make it into a personal crusade. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of protecting semi-automatic rifles for defense while outlawing (in certain jurisdictions) simple clubs and knives. 

There are plenty of other glaring inconsistencies in the law. Just the way it is. Back in my younger days, I used to get annoyed, feeling that inconsistent and illogical application of the law just breeds contempt for the law. Nowadays, I just shrug and get on with my life.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 13, 2012)

geezer said:


> That pretty well sums it up from my perspective as well. And no, I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to make it into a personal crusade. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of protecting semi-automatic rifles for defense while outlawing (in certain jurisdictions) simple clubs and knives.
> 
> There are plenty of other glaring inconsistencies in the law. Just the way it is. Back in my younger days, I used to get annoyed, feeling that inconsistent and illogical application of the law just breeds contempt for the law. Nowadays, I just shrug and get on with my life.



It is not the job of the government to ensure that it observes all our rights.  It is the job of the citizens to ensure that the government does not encroach illegally on those rights.  We, not them.  Waiting for things to become fair is probably not going to work out very well, I'd opine.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 13, 2012)

Good points Bill.

In Illinois we currently do not have a concealed carry law. I do believe we are the only state in the Union that doesn't allow this now (though please correct me if I am wrong). Also Shuriken are illegal for some reason, though I've never hear of anyone enforcing that law as I do believe no one actually cares about them. State Law here also allows an individual to carry a knife that has a blade of less than 4 inches and may be spring assited but not spring loaded.


----------



## blindsage (Aug 14, 2012)

I've been saying this for years.  I understand what Bill is saying, but I still find it extremely hypocritical that gun rights folks have such a hard on for protecting those rights, but not for any other type of weapon, and I especially find it strange on a martial arts website that uber gun rights folks leave it at that.  It leads me to believe even more that most gun rights activist aren't that way because of any philosophical bent, but more because they just like their guns, and all the 2nd amendment argument stuff is mostly a convenient intellectual argument rather than any really deeply held belief.


----------



## rickster (Aug 14, 2012)

US citizens have the "right" for "free speech", however, just like arms, this right, or freedom, is confined within responsibility and the laws enforcing that responsibility.

Using "free speech", we have the right to speak out, but we are confined to the responsibility and law. For example we cannot yell "fire", in a public domain if there isn't one.

Firearm owners do not like government to instill more restrictions, as each restriction is passed, leaves pre-empt for yet another restriction

Other weapons cannot be included with firearm laws because such weapons are more readily available than firearms. (I know, firearms can be obtained easy illegally, but there is certain restrictions-laws, that most abide by)

Lawmakers tend to believe that there are more restrictions in obtaining a firearm than that of other weapons- that of which are more commonly found

CCP courses and such are on the up-rise as this allows private citizens to have their gun while under responsible guidelines

The "right" to bear arms, is not merely a right, but more of a responsibility and a freedom. More likely, a "responsible freedom"


----------



## blindsage (Aug 14, 2012)

rickster said:


> Other weapons cannot be included with firearm laws because such weapons are more readily available than firearms. (I know, firearms can be obtained easy illegally, but there is certain restrictions-laws, that most abide by)
> 
> Lawmakers tend to believe that there are more restrictions in obtaining a firearm than that of other weapons- that of which are more commonly found


You mean like nunchuks and swords.  Yup, I find them laying around all over the place.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 14, 2012)

blindsage said:


> I've been saying this for years. I understand what Bill is saying, but I still find it extremely hypocritical that gun rights folks have such a hard on for protecting those rights, but not for any other type of weapon, and I especially find it strange on a martial arts website that uber gun rights folks leave it at that. It leads me to believe even more that most gun rights activist aren't that way because of any philosophical bent, but more because they just like their guns, and all the 2nd amendment argument stuff is mostly a convenient intellectual argument rather than any really deeply held belief.



I suspect it has to do with how much infringement on the subject there is, firearms have historically had quite a bit of control on what is possible to own/carry etc, hence the advocacy of an organization.  I can open carry a sword here in Washington, heck you can do it in Seattle which is more restrictive than the state on many carry issues.  There are organizations that do argue for the right to have knives and other bladed items, like the AKTI (American Knife and Tool Institute) and Knife Rights.  I haven't heard of a "sword rights" organization, probably because there is little perceived need.  

I think you are correct when you say that many 2nd amendment advocates are more about guns than other weapons, but the NRA has certainly shown support for protection of other weapons as well, particularly knives.


----------



## rickster (Aug 14, 2012)

blindsage said:


> You mean like nunchuks and swords.  Yup, I find them laying around all over the place.



No silly...although nunchakus and swords can be obtained easier than firearms


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 14, 2012)

So, if I'm following this right, some of you live in States or other areas where you can walk around with swords and other weapons and not be arrested for it? I live in the wrong State.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 14, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> So, if I'm following this right, some of you live in States or other areas where you can walk around with swords and other weapons and not be arrested for it? I live in the wrong State.



Just like we can open carry a firearm, but you can expect to have a nice conversation with an officer.

And yes, you do.


----------



## rickster (Aug 15, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> So, if I'm following this right, some of you live in States or other areas where you can walk around with swords and other weapons and not be arrested for it? I live in the wrong State.



Clarify what you mean by "walk around"


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 16, 2012)

> I live in the wrong State.


  No, you're fine where you are. There's too many people coming down to Texas as it is! 
  I walk around with a sword on a lot. Sometimes I walk around with a shotgun. Of course, I live in an unincorporated area, and my nearest neighbor is about a quarter mile away across the creek.


----------



## Carol (Aug 16, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> So, if I'm following this right, some of you live in States or other areas where you can walk around with swords and other weapons and not be arrested for it? I live in the wrong State.


 
Yup.  New Hampshire recently reacted all of their knife carry laws.  Doesn't matter what you carry, how long the blade is, double edged, single edged, switchblade, sword cane, all legal.  Open carry of firearms is legal too, in fact one fellow (William Kostric) near me has earned his 15 minutes of fame by open carrying in a VERY noticeable thigh holster when the President was in town, carrying a sign about watering the tree of liberty.  He was watched closely by the local constqbulry...and even talked to on more than one occason, but never arrested.  On another occasion, he open carried a sidearm in a more discreet holster (without the signage) during another presidential visit and stood 20 or 30 feet from the motorcade...and no one cared.


----------



## geezer (Aug 16, 2012)

Carol said:


> Yup.  New Hampshire recently reacted all of their knife carry laws.  Doesn't matter what you carry, how long the blade is, double edged, single edged, switchblade, sword cane, all legal.  Open carry of firearms is legal too, in fact one fellow (William Kostric) near me has earned his 15 minutes of fame by open carrying in a VERY noticeable thigh holster when the President was in town, carrying a sign about watering the tree of liberty.  He was watched closely by the local constqbulry...and even talked to on more than one occason, but never arrested.  On another occasion, he open carried a sidearm in a more discreet holster (without the signage) during another presidential visit and stood 20 or 30 feet from the motorcade...and no one cared.



Carrying a gun near the presidential motorcade? I'm sure _the people who matter_ cared plenty. Back in 2009 a man with a military style semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder showed up to protest outside the venue where the President was speaking here in Phoenix. He refused to leave and was allowed to stay since he was apparently correct in he assertion that he was violating no law. Being the first guy to pull a stunt like that he garnered a lot of media attention. Nowadays, sure he'd get less public attention, but I'm equally sure that in all such cases involving high profile political figures these guys are being watched like a hawk by the LEOs charged with security, especially after the Gabby Giffords shooting. And that's as it should be.

Now that bit about NH retracting restrictive laws against knives and swords is very interesting. Always did like NH. Not the cold winters or the blackflies that nearly ate me alive one June on Cannon mountain about 40 years ago, but in general it's a very cool place.


----------



## Carol (Aug 16, 2012)

geezer said:


> Carrying a gun near the presidential motorcade? I'm sure _the people who matter_ cared plenty. Back in 2009 a man with a military style semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder showed up to protest outside the venue where the President was speaking here in Phoenix. He refused to leave and was allowed to stay since he was apparently correct in he assertion that he was violating no law. Being the first guy to pull a stunt like that he garnered a lot of media attention. Nowadays, sure he'd get less public attention, but I'm equally sure that in all such cases involving high profile political figures these guys are being watched like a hawk by the LEOs charged with security, especially after the Gabby Giffords shooting. And that's as it should be.



Good point and poor choice of words on my part.  :Asian:



> Now that bit about NH retracting restrictive laws against knives and swords is very interesting. Always did like NH. Not the cold winters or the blackflies that nearly ate me alive one June on Cannon mountain about 40 years ago, but in general it's a very cool place.



I think the state did the right thing.  They kept the laws about not sticking the pointy ends where they don't belong...which is OK by me. 

I like it here.  The black flies aren't anywhere near as bad as they used to be...I don't miss them!  I suspect your opinion of our winter is right up there with my opinion of a Phoenix summer...that being said, I hope to visit this year and see a Coyotes game...maybe when it gets below 90


----------



## David43515 (Aug 17, 2012)

A lot of the laws against carrying a blade or club came about because of the image of them versus the image of a firearm back when the laws were written at the the turn of the century. Our ancestors grew up with firearms around them, seen as tools and protectors of hearth and home. They were surrounded with advertizing about how "God made all men, Colenel Colt made them equal".  Right or wrong a firearm was seen as a tool that honest men (and women) could use to level the odds against a larger, or more numerous foe. Knives and clubs (shilleighlies, sandbags, slung shot, etc) were seen as the preffered weapons of undesirable (at the time) minorities. Period propaganda from the late 1800's early 1900's always pictured european anarchists with a bomb in one hand and a stilleto in the other. Where people were against european immagrints they outlawed stilletoes. Where they were against mexicans or ex-confedrates they outlawed bowies. 

Before the Civil War, firearms were unreliable and no sane man who wore a pistol went without a knife as back up. And the law gerally allowed open carry. Every man's right to be armed was unquestioned. However they generally looked down on concealled carry because it was thought that it showed some sinister motive. (The laws generally made allowances for people travelling far from home however. Such people usually had large amounts of cash (therefor were more likely to be attacked) and were seen as needing the added advantage of suprise. But as firearms became more reliable, it was generally thought that a man who carried a knife (when he could have carried a gun) showed more agression. A knife is a close-up weapon, and carrying one shows you aren't afraid to get into a fight at bad breath distance. A gun on the other hand was seen as the way a weaker person could defend against one or more larger agressors.

I don't know if I buy into that, but as far as I've read history that was the thinking behind many of the countries early knife laws. There's a good series of articles about the early history of the Bowie and how knives were seen by early Americans at the Alliance Martial arts website.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 18, 2012)

rickster said:


> Clarify what you mean by "walk around"



I suppose I mean could you just walk down the street, into a store or restaurant, or other public area and not be fined or arrested. Thank you to everyone's replies.


----------



## rickster (Aug 20, 2012)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I suppose I mean could you just walk down the street, into a store or restaurant, or other public area and not be fined or arrested.


In certain states/areas, one can "walk around" with a knife of a certain size"

It could be considered too menacing if someone walks around with a knife like "Crocodile Dundee" or a sword.

This would be in comparison of a firearm owner walking around with a rifle or shotgun.

Besides, if I were to see someone carrying a large knife or sword in any manner for weapon carry, this would alert me to have my gun ready


----------



## chinto (Aug 21, 2012)

in my state you may NOT carry any weapon concealed except a pistol... the license is a "concealed hand gun license.."   carry a non pocket knife concealed and you go to jail..   I have been told it is because in the past, especially after 1870 most uses of bladed or blunt weapons was considered to have been criminal, and so they decided that only a criminal would carry one..... ( the stupidity ) and then the hype on "martial arts killer ninja weapons" in the 1970's led to most 'martial arts weapons ' being outlawed as some kind of "thugs weapons"!  If I had the money I might sue to challenge the law... but I do NOT have that kind of money.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 22, 2012)

Carol said:


> Good point and poor choice of words on my part.  :Asian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Carol I thought the same way until I moved to Vegas.  Now I absolutley love 100 degree plus weather.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 22, 2012)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Carol I thought the same way until I moved to Vegas.  Now I absolutley love 100 degree plus weather.



In other words -- your brain's done been baked!


----------



## chinto (Aug 23, 2012)

chinto said:


> in my state you may NOT carry any weapon concealed except a pistol... the license is a "concealed hand gun license.."   carry a non pocket knife concealed and you go to jail..   I have been told it is because in the past, especially after 1870 most uses of bladed or blunt weapons was considered to have been criminal, and so they decided that only a criminal would carry one..... ( the stupidity ) and then the hype on "martial arts killer ninja weapons" in the 1970's led to most 'martial arts weapons ' being outlawed as some kind of "thugs weapons"!  If I had the money I might sue to challenge the law... but I do NOT have that kind of money.



I should note that the carry any knife but a pocket knife concealed and you go to jail. wear a knife openly is legal... but a lot of cops may hassle you.


----------



## rickster (Aug 24, 2012)

chinto said:


> I should note that the carry any knife but a pocket knife concealed and you go to jail. wear a knife openly is legal... but a lot of cops may hassle you.



Yes.

Some areas people wear it visibl on a belt/hoster/sheath


----------

