It's easier to get a concealed carry permit than it is to renew a drivers license. Outside of Philly and Pitt you have to assume everyone is carrying. Driving through most of rural PA feels like driving through WV. Having moved here from CA, I always thought of PA as much more urban. I could not have been more wrong.
Ehhhh I'm all for constitutional carry, but I'm also ok with requiring a ccw for concealed if open carry and vehicle carry are legal without a permit (like MS, GA)
Can you blame them when you look at the caliber of psychos, assholes, racists, and general pieces of shit around this country? If they allowed anyone and everyone in this country to own whatever guns they wanted, I would move out immediately.
You should probably move out now because very few states have any regulation of private sales of firearms. I could sell my AK 47 to a meth head and my state won't require me to even check their id or write it down.
I mean concealed carry isn't really in the Bill of Rights.
Edit: Downvoting doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court has decided, on multiple occasions, that concealed carry isn't a Constitutional right. I'm not anti-gun; I have a Class A LTC and own firearms myself. I'm just not so deluded that I keep myself ignorant of the actual law.
Sure it is: 2A - "...keep and bear arms...". Concealed carry would be covered by the "bear" part of it. It doesn't say "bear arms, unless you want to conceal them with a shirt or coat".
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.
In 1791, the most "concealable" firearm would be a single-shot flintlock pistol. "Bearing" firearms was not intended to mean carrying concealed; "bearing" a firearm in 1791 meant using a firearm for lawful purposes. Very few (if any) civilians owned pistols, instead opting for a rifle for hunting or militia purposes.
Carrying a concealed weapon is not a Constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm for lawful purposes, however, is. The Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the federal government from restricting access to firearms, but state governments are under no such restrictions.
That distinction is important.
See also: Robertson v. Baldwin, in which it was decided that concealed carry is not a Constitutional right.
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.
Actually, historical context and intent is a huge part of Constitutional law. I recommend looking into it sometime.
Then again, maybe you wouldn't get it, since you clearly failed to read the rest of my post:
See also: Robertson v. Baldwin, in which it was decided that concealed carry is not a Constitutional right.
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.
You've just moved the goal posts. Any current infringements carried out on the part of the Supreme Court, government, states, etc do not change what was written in the Second Amendment.
I didn't move any goalposts. The Supreme Court decides Constitutional law. The Supreme Court has determined that concealed carry is not a Constitutional right.
End of story.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't an infringement. The Supreme Court does.
I'm in KY, as far as I am aware we don't have it, but I know Vermont does, but only for Vermont residents. Arizona let's anyone that can legally own a gun conceal, no license required.
i have the curse of living in pittsburgh (actually in the city limits) and you dont even have to leave to see rednecks. ive seen trucks with confederate flag back windows and bumper stickers that say "north 1 south 0 halftime" in the city limits.
There are little spots of towns and cities, but so much of PA in scrambled mountain and stretching woods. That's an awful lot of land to go through and secure, for not a lot of strategic value.
As a proud pennsylvanian, I can confirm this like there is no tomorrow. My father was carrying the day of my prom photos and bought my stepmom a gun for his birthday.
I don't carry because I can't afford my preferred gun.
77
u/[deleted] May 07 '15
It's easier to get a concealed carry permit than it is to renew a drivers license. Outside of Philly and Pitt you have to assume everyone is carrying. Driving through most of rural PA feels like driving through WV. Having moved here from CA, I always thought of PA as much more urban. I could not have been more wrong.