Arkansas Constitutional Carry?

[Ouachita]

I hear Democrat AG Dustin McDaniel has a different opinion, likely because he didn't read the bill. That's to bad the legislature had to pass it so he could find out what was in it. Of course this will be challenged in court

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/35 ... -c-w-cooke

Good news from Arkansascarry.com:

In July, 2013, Arkansas will become the fifth state in the United States to enact "Constitutional Carry" into law. Act 746 of the 2013 General Assembly was signed into law by Governor Mike Beebe on April 4th, 2013, after receiving only one "nay" vote from the legislature.

Constitutional Carry occurs in a state when no laws exist that generally restrict the carry of handguns (open or concealed) for self-defense purposes. Arkansas law 5-73-120 currently prohibits the possession of a handgun if it is possessed "readily available for use with a purpose to employ the handgun… as a weapon against a person", which puts the burden of proof of legal carry upon the person carrying the handgun. Act 746 changes the prohibitive language in July . . .

Thus Arkansas joins Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming in enjoying full "constitutional carry" rights. (Certain parts of Montana and New Mexico have such systems, too.) Effectively, "constitutional carry" means that citizens are presumed to enjoy the right to bear arms as a matter of course, rather than that right's being contingent upon a permitting process. This is clearly preferable even to liberal permitting regimes, not just because it better abides by the logic of Anglo-American liberty but because it removes the scope for middlemen to interfere or to use the system as a means of raising money.

It is a rare thing indeed when lost rights are recovered. But gun rights really are in the midst of a tranformation. Until 2003, Vermont was the only state that retained its "constitutional carry" system. Now, there are five, and 13 other states are currently considering joining them. The progress that has been made in this area and with concealed-carry permitting over the last 20 years is nothing short of astonishing:

 

[Ouachita]

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... Act746.pdf

I couldn't get it to copy paste. Appears the operative language is in Section 2 a. I have heard a few "experts" say that prior to this change, the burden of proof was on the citizen, now it's on the State to prove the citizen was "attempting to use the weapon unlawfully". Oh well, we see how this all comes out in the wash.

 

[jedstivers]

Until CC permits came along it was lawful in AR to carry a firearm if you we're traveling more than 25 miles from home.

 

[Ouachita]

Well I'm certainly not an attorney, but it does appear our Republican majority distracted McDaniel with those open carry bills and slipped this through. Good for them

 

[Jogeephus]

I'm not so sure I like these laws like this because this could easily be reworded at a later time. Personally I think the 2nd amendment states it plainly enough.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Its my opinion this is plain enough and I think it is an infringement of my rights to have to get a permit to carry a weapon and the politicians need not attempt to explain this or redefine this in any other way. If, however, I prove to the court system that I am not responsible enough to have this right and a court rules this to be the case then I would agree that my actions have caused the forfeiture of these rights. I also think the use of Arms in a manner that harms other law abiding citizens should be treated with the utmost severity and punishment by the penal system including death.

 

[Ouachita]

I'm not so sure I like these laws like this because this could easily be reworded at a later time. Personally I think the 2nd amendment states it plainly enough.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Its my opinion this is plain enough and I think it is an infringement of my rights to have to get a permit to carry a weapon and the politicians need not attempt to explain this or redefine this in any other way. .

I agree

From what I understand and read regarding this "technical change" to the previous law, the Arkansas legislature has restored our 2nd Ammendment rights. They took an existing law which placed the burden of proof on the citizen, and made changes to it which places this burden on the prosecutor, basically pulling the teeth out of the law once used to arrest folks for carrying a weapon without a CCL. The big selling point on this bill was to finally define the word "journey" which Pubs and Libs both agreed needed to happen, but they appear to have gotten crafty, and the liberal governor and AG did not read what went across their desk.
No permit is required to carry a weapon in Arkansas any longer, open or concealed. 2nd ammendment is king again best I can tell. CCL is still highly recommended, especially for traveling out of state

 

[Jogeephus]

That may be but I think the first law should have been declared unconstitutional instead of it being on the books for precedence for later arguments. I think the founding fathers crafted the wording of the 2nd amendment for a reason. No other amendment states that in NO WAY SHALL IT BE INFRINGED. In my opinion both laws are unconstitutional.

The problem with politicians is they feel they have to make laws and rules and find ways to tax. I think it would be better if they had to remove a law if they wanted to pass a new one. Look at all the messes their meddling has caused. Take marriage for instance. This is a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God and the church. Its no one else's business but the politicians saw a way to tax marriage with the marriage license. Now look at the mess we have.

 

[Ouachita]

I cannot argue with your logic Jo. I agree with you. But remember there is opposition out there and sometimes the best first step is to use their own tactics against them. I've been proud of this AR congress. They have passed the most restrictive abortion legislation, vetoed by the dim governor, and they over road his veto. I'm sure that will come up in a court battle too. Keep your eyes on Arkansas. The rest of the nation ain't figgerred out weez here yet

 

[Ouachita]

I reckon this is all big news for me. Just thought I would share what I believe to be good news; a step in the right direction. This congress is the first time both houses have been republican majority since reconstruction.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

I am happy with the change for now/

 

[Jogeephus]

I'm sure its good for now but in all honesty I don't think the 2nd amendment is up for any discussion because the founding father's put it about as bluntly as possible and there is no need for the politicians to even discuss it. I view it as the old saying you use on children, "What part of NO do you not understand?" In other words, you can't mess with it. Its not open for discussion. Leave it alone.

 

[Ouachita]

Ok. I understand you now

 

[Dega Moo]

I'm sure its good for now but in all honesty I don't think the 2nd amendment is up for any discussion because the founding father's put it about as bluntly as possible and there is no need for the politicians to even discuss it. I view it as the old saying you use on children, "What part of NO do you not understand?" In other words, you can't mess with it. Its not open for discussion. Leave it alone.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2008 2nd amendment case - "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…". It is "…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

From the 2008 US Supreme Court 2nd amendment ruling - written by Scalia - "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "

The same ruling said that despite the preamble about a 'well regulated militia', American citizens have an established right to personally own weapons for self-defense and not just for common defense. That precedent is pretty much set in stone. We can own and posses personal weapons but what has not been established is the demarcation of 'dangerous and unusual' and how the words 'in common use' are interpreted. Notice also Scalia's phrase '..for whatever purpose'. Future gun control battles will revolve around those words and phrases.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Flat bottom clarify something for me is this new law open carry or do you still have to have concealed carry?

 

[Jogeephus]

I think it goes without saying that if you have been proven by the court or the medical field that you are not of sound mind or character to exercise your right to have arms this right should be taken away and/or you be removed from society. The irony is this same court system that is so eager to release dangerous felons on society also appears to want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "

This quote is exactly why I think these attorneys need to keep their mouths shut because this quote could mean two things. One, it gives us the right to carry flintlocks but we all know this is BS. Flintlocks were the most modern and powerful firearm at the time and the founding father's had no problem with the citizens having up to date weapons because this would give the citizens equal footing if they had to remove themselves from tyrannical rule. I will however concede to Miller's wishes if I ever get my hands on a death ray or a WMD because these would be unusual weapons.

 

[Ouachita]

Flat bottom clarify something for me is this new law open carry or do you still have to have concealed carry?

Again, I'm no expert, but it is neither open carry nor conceal carry. Both of those required permitting. This "Constitutional Carry" idea appears to decriminalize the act of carrying a weapon for self defense or any other legal means. And because it was not specified in the Act as either "open" or "concealed" or both, then both are allowed. No permit required. State and Fed Constitution's rule again.

As jed already said above we have always had the "Journey" law on the books here. This is what has always allowed me to carry without a CCL (cause if I get stopped and they ask about my weapon, I'm on my way across the state to visit my buddy jed :lol: ), but now the burden of proof shifts from me to the prosecutor to show that I intended to use the weapon in an unlawful manner.

I don't know how the courts will view this. It will be interesting.

 

[Ouachita]

Hey CB, here is how wikipedia defines it.......

In the United States, Constitutional Carry is a situation within a jurisdiction in which the carrying of firearms, concealed or not, is generally not restricted by the law. When a state or other jurisdiction has adopted Constitutional Carry, it is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license. The scope and applicability of such laws or proposed legislation can vary from state to state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry

And another opinion for comparison.......

...........Arkansas law will handle people carrying guns the same way many state laws handle possession of "tools of burglary". Normally you can get away with carrying common hand tools anywhere you otherwise have a right to be. But if you are caught trying to use them in an attempt at breaking and entering or even trespassing you can be charged with a crime based on obvious intent to use that tool in furtherance of a crime. This is an excellent way to deal with people carrying guns. As long as you are not harming, or attempting to harm others with a weapon then possession alone should not be a crime...........
http://www.mississippigunnews.com/arkan ... y-weapons/

More to read at both links and many more. Our AG is left leaning and has already issued his "opinion" that this Act does NOT make Arkansas a Constitutional Carry state. Ultimately, it will most likely be decided in the court room, after the first non-freeloading white male eats dirt at the hands of an overzealous LEO.

 

[jedstivers]

Flat bottom clarify something for me is this new law open carry or do you still have to have concealed carry?

Again, I'm no expert, but it is neither open carry nor conceal carry. Both of those required permitting. This "Constitutional Carry" idea appears to decriminalize the act of carrying a weapon for self defense or any other legal means. And because it was not specified in the Act as either "open" or "concealed" or both, then both are allowed. No permit required. State and Fed Constitution's rule again.

As jed already said above we have always had the "Journey" law on the books here. This is what has always allowed me to carry without a CCL (cause if I get stopped and they ask about my weapon, I'm on my way across the state to visit my buddy jed :lol: ), but now the burden of proof shifts from me to the prosecutor to show that I intended to use the weapon in an unlawful manner.

I don't know how the courts will view this. It will be interesting.

Yeah, if your coming over here better be armed and have plenty of ammo. We have some places here that we just tell people and practice ourselves "duck low and drive fast".

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Jed we will let you drive slow past the hardware store. Maybe threw the whole county.

 

[jedstivers]

Jed we will let you drive slow past the hardware store. Maybe threw the whole county.

I need to get up there and see my buddy at the hardware store, bet he don't even remember me.