Day444
.223 Rem
You said that open carry is possession without carrying concealed.
No sir, that statement is in quotes. I believe I was quoting Spat.
You said that open carry is possession without carrying concealed.
I'd love to hear the explanation of that one, is it because "keep" was listed before "bear" ? Would the whole meaning have changed if it said "bear and keep" ?No they aren't.
Actually it specifies that they are the same and neither shall be infringed, lest someone try to play games and claim they aren't.
They only become different when some law specifically says otherwise. Just like it's illegal for someone to drive around with a handgun in the trunk unless they have a permit, but if they have a permit holder in the passenger seat, then it is legal again.
In the real world it is kind of an academic discussion though, there are other legal reasons it's not a good idea to OC in NY.
Heller was written by clowns in robes that skewed the 2A to say what they wanted it to say for political reasons.Heller v DC clearly states in paragraph 2 that * For example concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues* So if you look at that the State is violating the Second Amendment by not allowing Open Carry ! Why they just pull your License at the Judges decision and not at the choice of a plea deal!
This is also why challenges to restricted license have failed!
The explanation is that they are separate words.I'd love to hear the explanation of that one, is it because "keep" was listed before "bear" ? Would the whole meaning have changed if it said "bear and keep" ?
..... I don't see OC vs. CC as a profitable debate, rather I'm of the opinion that it's a "both and" rather than "either or" type situation. Tactical concerns and cultural climate color this, but in my view pitting these two strategies against each other only harms our cause overall and promotes infighting among people who are otherwise %99.9 in agreement.
Fine, so show me where in NY law "bearing" is prohibited separately than "keeping".The explanation is that they are separate words.
Show me in NY law where it doesn't specifically say that gun laws are in effect on Sundays or at night.Fine, so show me where in NY law "bearing" is prohibited separately than "keeping".
If SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that a permit to "keep" is unconstitutional, what are they going to charge you with in NY ? We only have "criminal possession". Other states have laws that ban concealed carry without a permit, so they would still have a ban on CC, but in NY anyone could carry any way they want then.
You are asking me to prove a negative, its ridiculous to compare.Show me in NY law where it doesn't specifically say that gun laws are in effect on Sundays or at night.
That show me argument is ridiculous.
Those aren't examples of carrying.You are asking me to prove a negative, its ridiculous to compare.
You are claiming something is illegal, to be illegal, it must be prohibited by statute. Asking someone to cite the statute is perfectly reasonable. It is also pointless at this point in the discussion. you are hanging your entire argument on the "permit yo have and carry concealed" language in PL400. You are then claiming that anything *but* carrying concealed is prohibited by that license, despite the obvious examples I provided like a gun in range bag in the back seat, or at home, or at a range, or hunting, and the complete lack of any examples in over 100 years of the law of people being charged that way.
They are examples of not "carrying concealed".Those aren't examples of carrying.
Those are examples of "Having". To have and carry concealed.They are examples of not "carrying concealed".
So, driving around with it on the seat next to you is "having" but attaching it to your hip is not ?Those are examples of "Having". To have and carry concealed.
So, you admit that you can "have" it and be in compliance with the law without "carrying it concealed" right ?Spat. You are being ridiculous. At that point you are having it and carrying it.
Spat. This debate was fun at first. Now it's ridiculous and no longer worth carrying on about.So, you admit that you can "have" it and be in compliance with the law without "carrying it concealed" right ?
So, then what is OC ? You are not carrying it concealed, but you have it. There is no criminal charge for carrying at all, so the second part of the license is moot anyway.
Heller was written by clowns in robes that skewed the 2A to say what they wanted it to say for political reasons.
Had there had been one of two more Ginsbergs, the interpreting would have been different.
I don't think they are the same, I just don't see anywhere in NY law that carrying is prohibited. You keep insisting it is, but can't seem to find it.Spat. This debate was fun at first. Now it's ridiculous and no longer worth carrying on about.
If you think having and carrying are the same, then okay. Keep believing that.
And I don't see anywhere in NYS law that says carrying an AW isn't allowed on Sundays.I don't think they are the same, I just don't see anywhere in NY law that carrying is prohibited. You keep insisting it is, but can't seem to find it.
If you registered the AW it's not prohibited at all.And I don't see anywhere in NYS law that says carrying an AW isn't allowed on Sundays.
If you registered the AW it's not prohibited at all.
You also can't be charged for carrying an AW on Sunday. You can be charged with possessing an unregistered one though.