It specifies the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. Nothing is said about concealed carry.
John J. Miller
A.K.A. "Chance McAllister"
Good article. I agree with you whole-heartedly that we (the mass public) have conceded our right to bear arms by viewing it more as a privilege. However, I might differ with you on a couple of points.
First, the Second Amendment was written to establish a barrier from the federal government encroaching on my right to bear arms. To my knowlege, however, it does not force the same upon the States. I would dare say that under the original Constitution, the founders from Virginia would not have protested if Maryland had been so stupid as to make a law taking away its own citizens' arms.
Secondly, as a practical matter I would accept this [allowing concealed weapons to be carried via new laws] as a victory (even if a very modest one).
As Libertarians I believe we tend to say it is all or nothing. I agree with this as our main goal and that we shouldn't rest until the "all" is attained. Unfortunately, we need to change the hearts of the masses in order to return this land to the environment that was created in its foundational Constitutional bounds. I see this step in Missouri as at least turning back the tide in a very small way. Granted that we shouldn't rest until the full right to bear arms is restored and has come to be accepted as a right and not simply as a privilege. However, if the masses see this work okay maybe next year we can get the thumbprint requirement and so forth.
I would have also to admit that I like my privacy too much to ever agree to Missouri's requirements for a permit, but many unfortunately don't have me personal conviction (or the law wouldn't be there in the first place). If they get the permits and act responsibly, then I believe the masses won't protest too much when additional requirements are dropped. Hopefully, one day the "privilege" will be restored as a right.
Just my thoughts. I appreciate yours.
Todd Metzgar
I enjoyed your article on Missouri's new [conceal and carry gun] law. My home state of Minnesota recently enacted C & C legislation and, of course, the Democrats are up in arms.
It's been enjoyable talking with liberal friends about the new law as I readily agree with them that it's a terrible law. I always tell them, "Yes, it's a terrible law, as a matter of fact, it's unconstitutional. All laws regulating personal possession of firearms are unconstitutional."
It's not what they wish to hear.
Keep up the good work.
Sean O'Toole
However, I have a similar point [on gun laws] as I do about drug control.It should never have happened in the first place. But it has and we are now paying the price for it.
As with drugs, Rome wasn't built in a day. And as much as we'd like to play Nero and burn it down in an afternoon, I don't think it's nearly that easy. I believe it will, sadly, take not compromises per se, but small steps toward that goal. I hate the idea of registry as much as any civiized person, but this small step would not have been accomplished otherwise. The opposition is much too strong.
I believe that this is a necessary step, and we must keep vigilant, stay resilient, and be active until the day when we no longer have that @&#$ registry!
Dan Handley
Christians need to understand that they "adopted" the Old Testament as a means of history and guidance. Jesus did say, of himself, that he had come to fulfill the law...and thus he did. Now the law is written on our hearts and it would then be logical to say that "stone tablets" (no matter [what] their composition) are null and void.
It is also interesting to note that, of all peoples, there seemed to be no Jewish representation rallying around the monument. I think the J.D.L understands the issue also.
Marty Pesonk, M.Div.
A Jewish Believer
SECTION 3: Religious Freedom
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship, nor to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
Even if Judge Moore paid for the monument himself, it appears that the code to house and maintain it would violate "no one shall be compelled by law...to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate...for maintaining any...or ministry..." Judge Moore's assertion that he is required by the Alabama Constitution to act as he has seems particularly weak in view of this section of that very document.
David Yett
It is the federal law imposing on the right of the people of Alabama to govern themselves. If the Alabama Constitution means absolutely nothing, then why have one? Why have individual states, for that matter?
The reason the Attorney General of Alabama and the eight associate judges turned against Moore is because the states are bought and paid for. Attorney General Prior is up for a federal judgeship, so it's a no-brainer figuring out why he sold out Moore.
Moore is the only one in the right on this one. He has upheld his duty to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
Clint Lacy