Carrying a gun is not per se illegal

One of the problems with you lot is that you are really super at taking things out of context.

We have two different phrases at work here

• per se--on its own
• illegal per se means that the act is inherently illegal

An act is illegal per se without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of scienter (knowledge) or other defenses. Acts are made illegal per se by statute, constitution or case law.

For example, Many drunk driving laws make driving with a blood alcohol content over a certain limit (such as 0.05% or 0.08%) an act which is illegal per se.

This quote means that carrying a gun is not illegal without some other contributing factor.  In the case of open carry, that would mean causing a disturbance, or in the case of the NC statute being armed to the terror of the people.

Thus, while carrying a gun without any other factor is not illegal--the fact that you have caused terror in the public (even if they are being "hoplophobes" in your opinion) is what makes the act illegal.

Again, the fact that you feel the need to "educate" to seeing armed people in publi the public betrays your attempted defence of saying this was innocent, since deep down you must know this is not normal behaviour.

It is not your unqualified opinion that will keep you out of trouble, but knowing the law.

Your interpretation might be more detrimental than you would believe.

But, I know that you know much more about the law than I do.  You can live with the results of your knowledge.

Well, they say I know the law:

Take this test here

And while we're at it:

Remember--people who are naturalised citizens have to pass a test before they can become a citizen.

Verb sap

Today's lesson in Latin:

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

I have been known to say that a trained chimp could practise law (and can if he passes the bar).

On the other hand, I have noticed a bad case of why it is said that anyone who has themselves as a lawyer has a fool for a client coupled with why "A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing".

If you can say that waging war is somehow acceptable according to the Constitution.

And don't understand the significance of this quote (even with my little hint here):

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

Then, you really have no reason to pretend you understand law.

Or to criticise my intellect.

Question for gunloons

O.K., you lot like to tell us what "elitists" we are about self-defense?

Can you tell us how much it will cost you to defend yourself if you are:
a) charged with a firearms offence?
b) civilly sued for use of a firearm?
c) both?

Let's face it, you're walking around with a weapon. You're setting yourself up for criminal and civil penaties for the misuse of your firearm.

Let's face it, you are getting your share of misinformation from the internet by experts such as Greg--you're bound to screw up in some way.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat!

TS's dilemma

Speaking about surplusage, why bother with the second amendent when Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the constitution already grants congress the power to organize and arm the militia? Are you saying a whole amendment to the bill of rights is mere surplusage? Or is it completely separate from Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 and affirms an individual right of the citizens to keep and bear arms- which the aforementioned clause does not?

If the Second Amendment right "pre-exists the Constitution", then The Second Amendment is surplusage--Why have this right if everyone knew it exists?

If Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 has no effect--why have the Second Amendment since it would be surplusage?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 does not have effect--then it is surplusage.

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States--reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither--this power being exclusively given to Congress.--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788 Elliot 3:51--52

Note that Henry is specifically addressing Congress's Powers under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 and mentions them in this quote.

But, it's a right of the people.

This is law, not math, not science, not philosophy--one uses the rules of legal construction, not the rules of other disciplines.

The Second Amendment only addresses the concern expressed by Patrick Henry: "If they (Congress) neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia".

BTW, if you are going to talk about Occam's razor, which is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

This is the solution which gives you that answer.