CCW and 2nd Ammendment

[Genghis77]

Wow, you got me thinking here. With CCW and 2nd Ammendment the weapons of the time were pretty big and not readily concealed except under a cloak. Typical pistol was in about .78 cal and either a flintlock or matchlock to boot. Might get burned by the matchlock if you had it concealed and in ready to use mode. Flintlocks would likely spill the powder from the flash pan and also be rendered useless except as a club. That probably takes it to concealed daggers and boot knives as the CCW's of the time. Yep! I think that covers it.

[Bill of Rights]

Genghis:
With respect, I have to disagree. To make the comparison to the weapons of the day, you have to extend the comparison to all the other rights, too. Do you have a right to not have your vehicle searched without probable cause, only if you drive a wagon or a buggy? Do you have the right of free press only if you publish with a hand run printing press, or the right to worship as you see fit only in churches lit solely by sunlight and candlelight?

Even if those can all be answered "yes", the phrasing of the 2A is unique and does not specify by whom, it only says that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I could make the argument that since the unalienable rights are listed in the non-comprehensive order of life, liberty, and property, life being first, the right of self-defense takes precedence over the rights of property, since your right to own and control your property does not preclude me from being able to protect either my life or my property, which in this example are the same thing. Instead, I would say, and I doubt I'll find argument out there, at least on this BB, that if you require me to disarm to be on your property, you then take full and complete responsibility for my safety, and in the event that I am injured but not killed, but could have defended myself absent your mandate, you would then be liable for any losses I suffered as a result.

What think you?

Blessings,
M

[Genghis77]

Sorry I didn't better express myself. Just saying the firearms of the time really wouldn't have been very concealable and also functioning problems. I didn't mean to imply that they would be uncovered but that in those times you would probably have found knives the preferred concealable weapon. A few years later, and once percussion caps came into being, pistols became much more practical as concealable weapons.
Course if someone was really wealthy they might afford a wheellock pistol that was available as early as mid 1600's. I had a couple old Moorish pirate pistols that dated to the mid 1700's. Quite difficult to conceal.

I have never really dug much into the subject of concealing and the Bill of Rights.

Off subject, I read an article of a British soldier that had George Washington in the sights of his telescopic sighted Brown Bess musket. Seems that he was impressed by Washingtons stature and comportment as he rode his horse. Anyway he didn't take the shot. Considering Brown Bess lack of accuracy, a telecopic site made me laugh a bit.

[VegasGeorge]

I'm just guessing, based on what I've seen in movies, and using common sense. But, I think plenty of men carried concealed pistols under those long coats they wore in revolutionary days. I've seen many scenes where they drew them out from under those coats. I doubt if they gave any thought to the concealment of their weapons, but they were concealed nonetheless.

[Bill of Rights]

Too, in the day, concealed or not, you pretty much expected that every man you met was armed, unless I'm misinformed. The unarmed man would be the curiosity, the aberration. A man's pistol or even a knife was as much a part of his daily wear as his coat and hat. (It's not like they could call 911, y'know? :lol: )

Blessings,
M

[Genghis77]

Most people carried knives. I have frequently read where dinner guests would provide their own knives for eating. And it seems a knife and fork as well.

I own and have shot some pistols of the era. I have 2 Moorish pirate pistols as well as a couple British made deuling pistols. With all consideration they would best be used as clubs. Most deuls of the time resulted mostly in mild wounds. Arron Burr though seems to have been an exceptionally good shot. In another thread I mention the Brown Bess rifle. It also had amazingly short accuracy. The effective parts of the Brown Bess were the bayonette and stock butt. On the other hand the Colonists had some fairly accurate sporting arms. Most a considerably smaller bore and rifled. In fact .32 to .45 cal the most likely against .78. More velocity, rifled bore and hiding behind trees and rock walls to take on the most powerful army of the time. Most guns owned by colonists were sporting weapons. Around 1805 everything changed fast and accuracy better. Almost hard to believe, but by the Civil War, there were plenty of sniper reports of 1 mile kills. Pretty amazing.

While I'm good at closer ranges with handguns, I have always wanted to make those 600 and 1000 yard shots Ed McGivern did. I can sometimes get 100, maybe 125 yards. After that the target has little to fear.