View Full Version : !!BAD!! the assault weapon ban may come back!!
Now careful, he's got a point. The wording of the ammendment itself specificially implies gun-owner=militia.
You could argue that a militia is inherently defensive in nature (and this would finally end the Left's crazy claims that the National Guardsmen are the only ones entitled to 2nd ammendment rights).
How true the 2nd amendment has two parts in its wording. One being the militia concept - the other being the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers saw them inter-related to each other.
The far left is incorrect in their assumptions that the 2nd amendment does not grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms - since the founding fathers invisioned all able bodied men of military age has having the requirment to serve in the militia in the time of need (or that is what my readings have lead me to conclude.)
The far right is incorrect when they assume that the founding fathers meant that no regulations and restrictions about use could not be placed upon arms. The Constitution has several clauses about the regulating of militias embedded into the main body of the constitution.
Again, by the same token one could argue that the selective service act that requires all males to register for the draft at 18 means they're all valid targets as well. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny- it didn't then and it doesn't now.
Neither do I see how the 2A says that gun owner = militia man. If anything along those lines I would think its closer to "Because we need to be able to raise militias, the right to bear arms...." ect, ect.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
My state's constitution is even more plain:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Again, by the same token one could argue that the selective service act that requires all males to register for the draft at 18 means they're all valid targets as well. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny- it didn't then and it doesn't now. Not even close to the same thing, the selective service is a registration of all men when they enter the age of military service - the Registration with Selective Service does not equate to a draft. Nor does it imply someone will be in the military. Not even close - you might want to read Title 10 codes to fully understand what the selective service does and is.
Neither do I see how the 2A says that gun owner = militia man. If anything along those lines I would think its closer to "Because we need to be able to raise militias, the right to bear arms...." ect, ect.
You might want to try reading some of the thoughts of the founding father's concerning the 2nd Amendment. If you think we are confused now about it - they also had conflicting interpetations and reasoning behind the actual drafting of the clauses in the Constitution that deal with Militia and even more so concerning the 2nd Amendment.
My state's constitution is even more plain:
How does an assualt weapons ban prevent you or anyone from doing what the intent of that clause in your state's constitution state? Making Conceal Carry Permits more restrictive and greater qualifications to get, prevents you from achieving the intent of that clause how?
How does an assualt weapons ban prevent you or anyone from doing what the intent of that clause in your state's constitution state? Making Conceal Carry Permits more restrictive and greater qualifications to get, prevents you from achieving the intent of that clause how?It's pretty plain isnt it Red? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. So, if I want to keep or bear a firearm, my state Constitution says the state government will not question my right to do so. It doesn't say what kind, nor does it say where or how I have to bear them. I'm not arguing that we should revolt because I have to get a permit- but it's pretty clear that both owning and carrying arms is supposed to be an unquestioned right.
You might want to try reading some of the thoughts of the founding father's concerning the 2nd Amendment. If you think we are confused now about it - they also had conflicting interpetations and reasoning behind the actual drafting of the clauses in the Constitution that deal with Militia and even more so concerning the 2nd Amendment.You're not the only one that's looked into these things. Just because I arrive at a different conclusion doesn't mean I haven't done any research. Of course the wording was a result of differing views and compromises- but we still arrived at a set verbage and that's what is in the Constitution, not the debate leading up to it.
Again:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It's pretty clear to me. Because of the necessity of militias in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What are you arguing anyhow? That you should be part of an active militia to keep and bear arms?
Ah, but all of these things (with the exception of bows) are designed (with the exception of rocks) for things that are not violent. Cars for transportation, knives for cooking, hammers for putting nails in walls, pipes for moving water about, rocks...well they don't really have a purpose, chainsaws for cutting down trees, house keys for opening locks.
On the other hand, guns are designed to fire pieces of metal at things, to kill and injure.
Let's look at this idea from several aspects. First, as I've already stated, guns can be viewed as tools just like hammers or knives or chainsaws. A chainsaw is designed to cut wood, while a gun is designed for use in hunting or self-defense. My shooting is a hobby, my friends and I enjoy being together practicing our aim, trying different guns; its friendly, its competitive, just like guys who ride motorcycles or fly little RC airplanes. So guns do have purposes other than killing people.
Second, just because knives or chainsaws or pipes have other uses, they can be (and are) used to 'kill and injure'.
If I am stabbed by a paring knife it won't matter much to me that it was designed for fruit.
Third, it all boils down to whether or not you trust people or governments. I believe that men have the right to exercise responsibility, and I am willing to accept the fact that some will fail to be responsible. Proponents of gun control seem to believe that only the State can be responsible, when clearly history has shown that rarely are governments trustworthy.
Finally
I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody.
Even if you take away my right to responsibly own guns, criminals will continue to possess and use them. No one (that I know of anyway) is advocating 'giving' weapons to anybody, but gun control will only limit guys like me, not guys you should be worried about.
ichi :bow:
Third, it all boils down to whether or not you trust people or governments. I believe that men have the right to exercise responsibility, and I am willing to accept the fact that some will fail to be responsible. Proponents of gun control seem to believe that only the State can be responsible, when clearly history has shown that rarely are governments trustworthy. Amen, brother ichi. That's essentially been my overriding point all along.
It's pretty plain isnt it Red? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. So, if I want to keep or bear a firearm, my state Constitution says the state government will not question my right to do so. It doesn't say what kind, nor does it say where or how I have to bear them. I'm not arguing that we should revolt because I have to get a permit- but it's pretty clear that both owning and carrying arms is supposed to be an unquestioned right.
However again you have not addressed the question posed. You accused me of falling for hype many pages ago because I strongly disagree with the Concealed Weapons Permit. Now that we have gotten the hype accusations behind us - I hope you can see where my postion is coming from. The Constitutions grants you the right to keep and bear arms - the state gets to decide if you need a concealed permit or not. I would advocate that the government restricts and set strict guidelines for concealed weapons - that does not mean I am advocating removing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
You're not the only one that's looked into these things. Just because I arrive at a different conclusion doesn't mean I haven't done any research. Of course the wording was a result of differing views and compromises- but we still arrived at a set verbage and that's what is in the Constitution, not the debate leading up to it.
The set verbage is what is being debated. The statement in the constitution is open to interpation on several points. One being the concealed carry permits. Again I came to my conclusions not from the anti-gun sites that you accused me of - but from my own readings. Concealed carry is not within the intent of the Constitution.
Again: It's pretty clear to me. Because of the necessity of militias in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What are you arguing anyhow? That you should be part of an active militia to keep and bear arms?
No - I am showing you that instead of accusing people of hype because they don't believe exactly the same thing you do in regards to the Constitution - that maybe out research and reading lead us to a slightly different conclusion about spefics of the constitution but not the intent. The fundmental aspect of this nation is independent thought about what the government can and can not do.
And futhermore one of the founding fathers advocated just that - that in order to keep and bear arms one must serve in the militia. Its in the history if one goes back and look. Can't remember exactly which one stated it - but its there.
Amen, brother ichi. That's essentially been my overriding point all along.
When you think about it - the desire to carry a concealed permit means you trust your fellow man less then you trust the government. ~:eek:
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 03:34
Well, Redleg, I have to admit, I've sat back, and enjoyed watching you and Xiahou, and lately Ichi go around and around about this. And I admit, I'm having a hard time arguing your points against concealed weapons on legal philosophy grounds (mainly because I'm neither a lawyer nor a philosopher).
But let's take a practical view for a second. In 1789, it was nothing to walk down the street carrying your rifle, with a flintlock pistol tucked into your belt. That would cause an uproar today, and you'd be hauled off to jail for brandishing a firearm publicly.
For practical reasons, saying no concealed permits is the same as saying no right to ownership.
Well, Redleg, I have to admit, I've sat back, and enjoyed watching you and Xiahou, and lately Ichi go around and around about this. And I admit, I'm having a hard time arguing your points against concealed weapons on legal philosophy grounds (mainly because I'm neither a lawyer nor a philosopher).
Yes it has been very enjoyable for me.
But let's take a practical view for a second. In 1789, it was nothing to walk down the street carrying your rifle, with a flintlock pistol tucked into your belt. That would cause an uproar today, and you'd be hauled off to jail for brandishing a firearm publicly.
Society changes - doesn't mean its right or wrong - just the way it is.
For practical reasons, saying no concealed permits is the same as saying no right to ownership.
Wrong - the constitution states clearly that you have the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not say you have the right to conceal your arms about your person when you walk down the street. Some states even have open carry laws clearly written on the books, and I have lived in a few of them. The conceal carry permit is a legislative action.
To throw an over-used arguement into the mix - saying concealed carry permits are a constitutional right is the same as saying same-sex marriage is also a constitutional right. Neither is spelled out in the constitution and both are legislative actions made into laws by individual states.
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 04:08
Yes it has been very enjoyable for me.
Society changes - doesn't mean its right or wrong - just the way it is.
Wrong - the constitution states clearly that you have the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not say you have the right to conceal your arms about your person when you walk down the street. Some states even have open carry laws clearly written on the books, and I have lived in a few of them. The conceal carry permit is a legislative action.
To throw an over-used arguement into the mix - saying concealed carry permits are a constitutional right is the same as saying same-sex marriage is also a constitutional right. Neither is spelled out in the constitution and both are legislative actions made into laws by individual states.
I said from a 'practical' viewpoint. I'm not arguing that the 2nd ammendment implies a right to concealed carry permits (though, there's nothing in there that prevents them, either). I'm saying not having them effectively ends handgun ownership in a state. You cannot transport the firearm to a gun range to practice with it without having it in plain view, and then you're brandishing it. It's a no-win scenario.
If I tell you that you have the right to vote, then state that the only district you're elligible to vote in doesn't actually exist, is that really giving you the right to vote?
I said from a 'practical' viewpoint. I'm not arguing that the 2nd ammendment implies a right to concealed carry permits (though, there's nothing in there that prevents them, either). I'm saying not having them effectively ends handgun ownership in a state. You cannot transport the firearm to a gun range to practice with it without having it in plain view, and then you're brandishing it. It's a no-win scenario. That is funny because when I transport my weapons I do so openly and I dont get arrested nor troubled by the citizens I live next to or even the police. I just got finished bring two of my weapons from my dad's house in Oklahoma - into Texas - the weapons in the vehicle in plain view, and not a single eyebrow or trouble by any citizen that saw the weapons in the vehicle.
If I tell you that you have the right to vote, then state that the only district you're elligible to vote in doesn't actually exist, is that really giving you the right to vote?
Ah but that is not the case with the 2nd Amendment now is it?
You have the ability to carry your weapons to the range and fire them. I have done it several times - with absolutely no problems from anyone.
The set verbage is what is being debated. The statement in the constitution is open to interpation on several points. One being the concealed carry permits. Again I came to my conclusions not from the anti-gun sites that you accused me of - but from my own readings. Concealed carry is not within the intent of the Constitution.Not within the intent of the Constitution? What do you think 'bear' or 'infringe' means? You don't think that banning various ways of bearing arms is infringement
And futhermore one of the founding fathers advocated just that - that in order to keep and bear arms one must serve in the militia. Its in the history if one goes back and look. Can't remember exactly which one stated it - but its there.What happened to dealing within the text of the ammendment? That didn't last long. I can find quotes from founding fathers who thought that any man should be able to carry weapons just as easily- this leads nowhere. As we've agreed, the text was a result of compromise but it is what it is.
I just got finished bring two of my weapons from my dad's house in Oklahoma - into Texas - the weapons in the vehicle in plain view, and not a single eyebrow or trouble by any citizen that saw the weapons in the vehicle. I'm glad it worked out for you- but you do realize in many places this is illegal?
When you think about it - the desire to carry a concealed permit means you trust your fellow man less then you trust the government.
I don't have a concealed carry permit, but Mrs ichi does.
My trust in fellow men extends to others who have concealed carry permits. I do not trust the government (as I've stated before the bastards nuked me and then lied about it) but I do trust that citizens in good standing can go about armed and not wreak havoc upon me or my community. I also have an expectation, a quite realistic one, that sick vicious types are also out and about, hence, why would I put myself at a tremendous disadvantage and disarm unilaterally. No self respecting nation would do so, and the same principle applies to individuals.
ichi :bow:
Not within the intent of the Constitution? What do you think 'bear' or 'infringe' means? You don't think that banning various ways of bearing arms is infringement
Then there would be no need for a concealed carry permit now would there if bear and infringed mean what you think it does? You have already stated that you are worried about someone robbing you - and therefor you must conceal your weapon for protection. I on the otherhand don't need a weapon to prevent a crime from happening if I remain aware of my surroundings.
What happened to dealing within the text of the ammendment? That didn't last long. I can find quotes from founding fathers who thought that any man should be able to carry weapons just as easily- this leads nowhere. As we've agreed, the text was a result of compromise but it is what it is.
Yes it is what it is - however once again what does the amendment state - it does not state bear arms mean conceal and then carry it now does it? One must put the word bear arms in the context of how the founding fathers meant it. It did not mean hid a revolver in your jacket to pull out when threatened (SP) by some would be robber.
I'm glad it worked out for you- but you do realize in many places this is illegal?
Not illegal at all in the west, the method I transported the weapons can be found in an earlier post - from Texas State Law. I have carried weapons in almost every state west of the Mississippi - expect Oregon and California - and I have had absolutely no problems nor have I broken the law in the regards to transporting weapons in state and across state lines.
in other words the weapon was in plain view for the police to notice if they so chosed. Ammunition kept seperated from the weapon. One must understand the law in order to transport weapons across state lines. When I travel east of the Mississippi - I follow the laws of the uptight east coast when taking my weapons into that part of the country. But overall - what I did was not against the law in the two states in which I transported the weapons in.
The open carrying of long guns is generally allowed in Texas. However, section 46.03(a) and (g) makes it a third degree felony to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possess a firearm of any sort in the following locations:
So as long as I don't go into a bar or other speficied locations - open carry of rifles is not against the law.
http://www.greatwesternshow.com/texas_law.htm
Its really a simple constitutional matter about carrying your weapon. You do it openly and within the state laws - and you have no problem what so ever. The western states are more relaxed about many of the gun laws because - we don't fear each other the way you seem to in the East with your desire to have a conceal carry permit.
Then there would be no need for a concealed carry permit now would there if bear and infringed mean what you think it does? You have already stated that you are worried about someone robbing you - and therefor you must conceal your weapon for protection. I on the otherhand don't need a weapon to prevent a crime from happening if I remain aware of my surroundings.Well, since I'm not emperor, what I think doesn't directly equate to what's enforced as law. Yes, I think requiring permits is an infringement- what did I ever say that made you think otherwise? I'll still take some infringement over not being allowed to carry at all as I choose.
Yes it is what it is - however once again what does the amendment state - it does not state bear arms mean conceal and then carry it now does it?Why would it need to say that? It clearly says "bear", not "bear openly" or "bear only long guns"- just "bear".
The open carrying of long guns is generally allowed in Texas. However, section 46.03(a) and (g) makes it a third degree felony to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possess a firearm of any sort in the following locations:Long guns, yes- hand guns no. You'll get arrested in Texas for carrying a handgun openly, yet you advocate open carry. But of course, your support of the 2nd Amendment probably doesnt extend to handguns does it?
Its really a simple constitutional matter about carrying your weapon.It should be- but its not.
The western states are more relaxed about many of the gun laws because - we don't fear each other the way you seem to in the East with your desire to have a conceal carry permit.
Nice attempt at turning the tables, but you're the one who has come out and said that you don't trust the average law-abiding citizen with guns, so you can save your condescension. The people I don't trust are the criminals, and they're always going to conceal their weapons- legal or no. I favor concealed carry permits insofar as they better allow us to exercise our previously trampled rights. Like the state of Vermont, I believe that if you can legally own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it, concealed or otherwise. In PA, open carry of handguns is legal- without permit -but as I've stated many times, there are practical reasons not to do so. So, for $24 and a background check, I can do either as I feel necessary.
Well, since I'm not emperor, what I think doesn't directly equate to what's enforced as law. Yes, I think requiring permits is an infringement- what did I ever say that made you think otherwise? I'll still take some infringement over not being allowed to carry at all as I choose.
Oh I knew your thoughts were center around conceal carry permits were an infringement. However you want to think its a legislated law by not the United States government but by individual states. Conceal Carry is not covered by the United States Constitution's 2nd Amendment at all. Its one of the area's that yes indeed the states have the ability to regulate as they chose to. The Infringement into the right to bear arms by the Federal Government is the concept of Registration of weapons.
Why would it need to say that? It clearly says "bear", not "bear openly" or "bear only long guns"- just "bear".
Again one must go back into history and see what the term Bear Arms mean. The United States Constitution states only what it does, and like above the individual states are what set the conceal carry permit laws not the Federal Government.
Long guns, yes- hand guns no. You'll get arrested in Texas for carrying a handgun openly, yet you advocate open carry. But of course, your support of the 2nd Amendment probably doesnt extend to handguns does it?
No I don't like handguns - and no my support of the 2nd Amendment means that I tolerate your right to own a handgun. Your right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed by me, nor my beliefs. Your wanting to have a conceal carry permit and carry your weapon into public circumvents my right to know what circumstances I am facing when I go into public. Your desire to carry a conceal weapon circumvents the private property owner's right to know what is going on in his establishment.
And yes I advocate open carry - always have and always will. I carry my weapons openly when I go out into public - not hidden underneath my jacket, or wrapped in a blanket.
Nice attempt at turning the tables, but you're the one who has come out and said that you don't trust the average law-abiding citizen with guns, so you can save your condescension.
When you stop maybe I will.
The people I don't trust are the criminals, and they're always going to conceal their weapons- legal or no. I favor concealed carry permits insofar as they better allow us to exercise our previously trampled rights. Like the state of Vermont, I believe that if you can legally own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it, concealed or otherwise. In PA, open carry of handguns is legal- without permit -but as I've stated many times, there are practical reasons not to do so. So, for $24 and a background check, I can do either as I feel necessary.
Goes to show you that conceal carry permits are not a United States Constitutional manner but individual states. Which goes again to prove my main point. The United States Constitution's 2nd Amendment does not grant you the right to conceal carry any weapon.
Your wanting to have a conceal carry permit and carry your weapon into public circumvents my right to know what circumstances I am facing when I go into public.
I contend that you have no right to know what circumstances you face when you go into public. The Constitution makes no guarantee of safety or omniscience. Even if (assuming for the sake of argument) that you do have a right to safety or total knowledge of potential circumstance, concealed weapons could be carried my those without a permit, thus subverting your ability to be aware.
Your desire to carry a conceal weapon circumvents the private property owner's right to know what is going on in his establishment.
I agree with you here, private property rights are, IMHO, superior to the right to bear arms. In other words my right to have a gun is trumped by your right to control what happens on your property.
Regardless, open carry is not a valid option currently. Try it, walk around with a gun in public places, see what happens.
ichi :bow:
Oh I knew your thoughts were center around conceal carry permits were an infringement. However you want to think its a legislated law by not the United States government but by individual states. Conceal Carry is not covered by the United States Constitution's 2nd Amendment at all. Its one of the area's that yes indeed the states have the ability to regulate as they chose to. The Infringement into the right to bear arms by the Federal Government is the concept of Registration of weapons.So, for clarity, you're now arguing that the Federal Constitution only applies to the Federal Government?
Again one must go back into history and see what the term Bear Arms mean.Bear- to carry. What historical context is there in that? It couldnt be more plain. You're again searching for meaning outside the text to prop up your argument.
I agree with you here, private property rights are, IMHO, superior to the right to bear arms. In other words my right to have a gun is trumped by your right to control what happens on your property. I basically agree with you here, except I don't see the 2 as competing rights. A property owner has a right to allow or prevent whoever they want from entering their property. Whether its people who have guns, long hair or baggy pants its no different. A property owner can't strip you of your rights, all they can do is tell you to leave/stay off their property and prosecute you for tresppassing if you don't comply.
I contend that you have no right to know what circumstances you face when you go into public. The Constitution makes no guarantee of safety or omniscience. Even if (assuming for the sake of argument) that you do have a right to safety or total knowledge of potential circumstance, concealed weapons could be carried my those without a permit, thus subverting your ability to be aware.
True - but that does not entitle another to carry a concealed weapon just because criminals do it.
I agree with you here, private property rights are, IMHO, superior to the right to bear arms. In other words my right to have a gun is trumped by your right to control what happens on your property.
One of my biggest concerns and problems with the conceal carry permits - is that individuals that carry concealed weapons believe that their rights override the private property owners.
Regardless, open carry is not a valid option currently. Try it, walk around with a gun in public places, see what happens.
Done it several times with my long guns - no problems carrying them at all.
And I don't own handguns - so I don't have the problem carrying them.
ichi :bow:
So, for clarity, you're now arguing that the Federal Constitution only applies to the Federal Government?
That has always been my postion. The constitution applies to the Federal Government. Individual states have thier own constitutions which can not override the United States COnstitution but can place greater definations on behavior then what is contained in their own the Federal constitution. Again nowhere is concealed carry permits detailed in the constitution.
Another examble is marriage laws, adoption laws, driving laws, drinking laws, etc.. and etc..
Bear- to carry. What historical context is there in that? It couldnt be more plain. You're again searching for meaning outside the text to prop up your argument.
Yep it means to carry weapons, the choice of words is an interesting one for the founding fathers - militia and bear arms imply a different set of conditions just in the context of the ammendent itself- however it the term does not imply a right to conceal carry your weapon - that is a state regulated permit, not a constitutional right.
The Federal government can not deny you the right to keep and bear arms - the state can define what the believe the term means. Its held up in the Supreme Court on several occassions - with the Miller Decision being the main one used by both sides in the arguement to support their postion.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all.
There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation? In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today. In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states.
The third case posted here is U. S. vs Emerson. Emerson offers a thorough historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment supporting its conclusion that the Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to own and carry firearms. In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue in Emerson as a narrowly tailored reasonable restriction on Second Amendment rights--but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias."
A baised opinion piece that mentions several other court cases.
http://www.speakout.com/activism/opinions/5237-1.html
These were reviewed by no less an authority than Erwin N. Griswold, former solicitor general in the Nixon administration and former dean of Harvard Law School. He concluded: "Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of fire-arms on Second Amendment grounds. Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun [control] laws is perhaps the most well settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade congressional debate."
The Supreme Court first addressed the issue to the right to bear arms in the United States v. Cruikshank. In that case, Ku Klux Klan members were charged with infringing the constitutional rights of black citizens to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution."
The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank's rule in Pressner v. Illinois. The issue in this case an Illinois statute which prohibited private organizations from parading with firearms in any Illinois city without license from the governor. The Court allowed the ban to stand and reiterated its position that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals.
In Miller v. Texas, Franklin Miller was convicted for murder. He appealed, challenging a Texas statute prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons. The Court ruled that "a state law forbidding the carrying of dangerous weapons on the person ... does not abridge the privileges of immunities of the citizens of the United States."
The most often-cited case regarding gun control is U.S. v. Miller. Here, Jack Miller was charged with transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce in violation of the national Firearms Act of 1934. In addition, Miller had failed to register the shotgun, in violation of the act. The lower court ruled dismissed the charge against Miller, but the Supreme Court unanimously reversed this ruling. Most important it stated that in the absence of showing that the sawed-off shotgun had any "reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
More recently, the Supreme Court maintained its strong stance against interpreting the Second Amendment as a protection of an individual citizen's right to possess weapons in three other cases: Lewis v. United States, Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove and Farmer v. Higgins.
Hince the concealed carry permits vary by state to state, because the ruling of the courts based upon the interpations of the 2nd Amendment do not reach the same conclusion as you would like. Same thing as many of the open carry laws as it applies to handguns. Most states allow open carry of long guns without any problems - there are a few expections - but they are expections not the rule.
I basically agree with you here, except I don't see the 2 as competing rights. A property owner has a right to allow or prevent whoever they want from entering their property. Whether its people who have guns, long hair or baggy pants its no different. A property owner can't strip you of your rights, all they can do is tell you to leave/stay off their property and prosecute you for tresppassing if you don't comply.
And when you bring a concealed weapon onto his premise you are by default denying him the right to know what is present on his property. So yep they are competing rights when you attempt to hide the fact that you are carrying a weapon onto his property.
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 19:11
Done it several times with my long guns - no problems carrying them at all.
And I don't own handguns - so I don't have the problem carrying them.
Yeah, but you live in Texas. You couldn't get away with that here in North Carolina, let alone a Leftist bastion like New York or Massachussets. You'd be locked away for years for even thinking of it.
In Massachussets, they have a law that you need a special license issued by the state to own long guns, such as hunting rifles. Violation of it is a class C felony. They will sieze your car and your guns, and you face a minimum of one year in prison and a $5000 fine if they catch you with a rifle in your trunk without this license. What does that mean? That means if you live in Rhode Island, and want to drive to Nashua NH to go to a gun show, you have to drive West out of Connecticut to New York, north, then east across Vermont, because you can't get that license since you don't have a Massachussets address.
Just because they let you brandish weapons in Texas doesn't mean that's how it is nationwide.
That has always been my postion. The constitution applies to the Federal Government. Individual states have thier own constitutions which can not override the United States COnstitution but can place greater definations on behavior then what is contained in their own the Federal constitution. Again nowhere is concealed carry permits detailed in the constitution.Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, if your state said free speech doesn't apply to protestors you also think that would be Constitutionally sound since it's not federal law? Or does this only apply to the second amendment? By your argument its only the state further defining what free speech is- no problem then right? The state decides what the term means.
And when you bring a concealed weapon onto his premise you are by default denying him the right to know what is present on his property. So yep they are competing rights when you attempt to hide the fact that you are carrying a weapon onto his property.There's no such right. Do you announce that you're wearing underwear (or not) when you visit someone's home? If not, arent you denying him the right to know what is present on their property? Don't get me wrong, when it comes to personal dwellings, Im going to respect thier wishes- whether legally obligated to do so or not. However, this doesn't apply to public places of business. If they don't want me there, they need to tell me.
Yeah, but you live in Texas. You couldn't get away with that here in North Carolina, let alone a Leftist bastion like New York or Massachussets. You'd be locked away for years for even thinking of it.
One must comply with the law - or protest the law if you believe it violates the constitution.
In Massachussets, they have a law that you need a special license issued by the state to own long guns, such as hunting rifles. Violation of it is a class C felony. They will sieze your car and your guns, and you face a minimum of one year in prison and a $5000 fine if they catch you with a rifle in your trunk without this license. What does that mean? That means if you live in Rhode Island, and want to drive to Nashua NH to go to a gun show, you have to drive West out of Connecticut to New York, north, then east across Vermont, because you can't get that license since you don't have a Massachussets address.
Again an individual state can determine what laws are to be held within its state. I am willing to bet that the law can be challenged until several aspects of the constitution as it relates it interstate travel on the highways, and not just the 2nd Amendment. However its up to the citizens to challenge the law if they feel it is unjust.
Just because they let you brandish weapons in Texas doesn't mean that's how it is nationwide.
Not just Texas my friend - I have lived or traveled in about 20 states west of the Mississippi and have never had problems carrying a weapon in the open when transporting them either hunting or going to the range. The simple matter is one must follow the law for the state in which one lives.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, if your state said free speech doesn't apply to protestors you also think that would be Constitutionally sound since it's not federal law?
Try again - free speech and right of assembly is for the most part in each state constitution. And some states have laws that restrict assemblies without permits - which has stood up for reasons of public welfare. So yes indeed states can place restrictions on speech and still be within the COnstitution
Although freedom of speech, being a systematic right, is entitled to heightened protection from the government, this protection is not absolute. Our common sense tells us that freedom of speech does not include the right to tell the cashier, "I have a gun, give me the money;" nor to falsely tell a child that his or her parents have just died. As Justice Holmes said, "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
In legal practice, the Supreme Court imposes some very narrow restrictions on freedom of speech by defining a few established categories of speech, which are deemed not fully protected under the First Amendment. These categories have traditionally included advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, defamation, obscenity, and fraudulent misrepresentation. Unless the speech falls within one of these established categories, it is simply not open to the government to argue that the speech should be suppressed because of its harmful content. This can be illustrated by a closer examination of some of these categories.
One accepted basis for regulating speech is proof that the speech in question may cause imminent illegal action. The Supreme Court has generally tried to distinguish between general political dissent and advocacy of abstract theories on the other hand and incitement of particular illegal acts on the other. The dividing line between legal advocacy and illegal incitement of criminal conduct is drawn by the use of the "clear and present danger" test. The government cannot punish speech because it has a tendency, or even a reasonable possibility, of inciting illegal conduct. Before the government can punish speech on the grounds of incitement, a three-part criterion must be met. First, the speech must be directed to inciting lawless action. Second, the advocacy must be calling for imminent breaking of the law, rather than illegal conduct at some future time. Finally, the advocacy must be likely to produce such conduct. This clear and present danger test focuses on the probability and imminence of the danger arising from the speech in question. Up to the point of clear and present danger, the evil to be prevented by outlawing the advocacy is not as great as the harm of outlawing it. At the point at which a clear and present danger becomes evident, the evil to be prevented by outlawing the advocacy of illegal conduct outweighs any damage to the right of free speech, including advocacy of illegal conduct.
The "clear and present danger" test is a very high standard to meet. In Hess v. Indiana, an antiwar protester used words such as "we'll take the fucking street later". The Supreme Court concluded that this statement could be interpreted as advocating any action. Further, it was not likely to produce imminent disorder since "at worst it amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. a civil rights activist told a black audience: " If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we are going to break your damn neck." The Supreme Court concluded, however, that advocacy of force and violence alone would not justify suppression. A speaker must be free "to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause." When such appeals do not incite the illegal conduct, the right to advocacy is protected.
Another well-established category of unprotected speech is defamation. False statements of fact prevent the marketplace of ideas from functioning fairly to let ideas stand or fall on their own merits. Therefore, publicizing false facts should not be protected by the right to free speech and expression. However, the line between false statements of fact and political opinion is sometimes hazy. Is "Clinton is a crook and Hilary a bitch" a statement of fact or a presentation of personal political opinion? Society highly values a citizen's right to criticize elected leaders. The Court, in New York Times v. Sullivan, announced, at least in the case of defamation of public figures, that the First Amendment protects the speaker unless the false, defamatory statement is made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Plaintiff in New York Times was a public official whose duties included supervising the Montgomery, Alabama Police Department. He alleged that the Times had libeled him by printing an advertisement that stated that the Montgomery police had attempted to terrorize Martin Luther King and his followers. The Supreme Court viewed this case as one involving criticism of government policy and not merely factual statements about an individual. Noting that the First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas, the Court reiterated the Constitutional faith in the power of reason as expressed through public debate. Justice Brennan said in his opinion that public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Still the marketplace logic does not require that all defamation be protected. While the New York Times rule fully covers speech that stems from honest participation in the marketplace of information and ideas, it need not protect a false statement made with actual malice. As Brennan later explained, the "calculated falsehood is no essential part of any exposition of ideas" and should not be protected under the Constitution.
http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/11_043001/freedom.htm
Care to attempt again with your question. I bolded the relative section to highlight the restrictions already established.
Or does this only apply to the second amendment? By your argument its only the state further defining what free speech is- no problem then right? The state decides what the term means.
The states were given the power by the constitution to futher define things for the terrority of that state. As long as the state regulations and laws do not run counter to the United States Constitution its a matter for that State to settle.
There's no such right. Do you announce that you're wearing underwear (or not) when you visit someone's home? If not, arent you denying him the right to know what is present on their property? Don't get me wrong, when it comes to personal dwellings, Im going to respect thier wishes- whether legally obligated to do so or not. However, this doesn't apply to public places of business. If they don't want me there, they need to tell me.
Again you are incorrect in my opinion - public places owned by private persons such as grocery stores, malls, and any other business that deals with the public have the same property rights as a home owner. Its their property remember not yours. You might want to check out the law concerning the concealed carry permit - most states that have the conceal carry also allow the private property owner of a business to post a sign that states no concealed weapon. If you were to carry your concealed weapon into that premise - you would be violating the law and can lose your conceal carry permit.
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 21:02
That last bit is absolutely true. In NC, they make no bones about it, and what's more, if you carry in a place where it's posted that you cannot, you're banned from CCW elligibility for life.
So, in two sentances or less, Redleg, you're arguing against concealed carry permits, and you're arguing nothing in the Constitution protects them, correct?
Xiahou, you're arguing that in favor of them, and claiming that not allowing them infinges your 2nd ammendment rights, correct?
Ichi, you're arguing that while it's not a constitutional right, you support conceal carry permits and think they should be enacted into law, correct?
If so, I'd have to go with Ichi on this one. There's nothing in the 2nd ammendment to support CCW permits, but there's nothing to oppose them either, and I personally think they're a great idea. I'm not sure we want to live in the world Redleg's suggesting, with us strapping holsters to our side.
What's more, I'd argue CCWs help prevent crime. Think about it. If you force everyone to carry openly, criminals can selectively pick their targets. With CCWs, the criminal never knows which victims are packing and which aren't.
That last bit is absolutely true. In NC, they make no bones about it, and what's more, if you carry in a place where it's posted that you cannot, you're banned from CCW elligibility for life.
So, in two sentances or less, Redleg, you're arguing against concealed carry permits, and you're arguing nothing in the Constitution protects them, correct?
You are absolutely correct.
(in four words or less.)
If so, I'd have to go with Ichi on this one. There's nothing in the 2nd ammendment to support CCW permits, but there's nothing to oppose them either, and I personally think they're a great idea. I'm not sure we want to live in the world Redleg's suggesting, with us strapping holsters to our side.
A misrepresentation on your part - what I have stated is if you want to carry a weapon then do so openly.
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 21:21
-
A misrepresentation on your part - what I have stated is if you want to carry a weapon then do so openly.
I wasn't trying to misrepresent your argument, but if people cannot carry a handgun concealed, how else are they supposed to carry them but hip holsters? How can a woman who has to park in a parking garage where women are known to have been raped carry? Her purse in one hand and her pistol in the other?
I wasn't trying to misrepresent your argument, but if people cannot carry a handgun concealed, how else are they supposed to carry them but hip holsters? How can a woman who has to park in a parking garage where women are known to have been raped carry? Her purse in one hand and her pistol in the other?
Then you missed the postion - try approaching it from this angle - far more people go unarmed then go armed.
So its not society going around all strapping on hip holsters or even shoulder holsters - its about those who feel it necessary to carry a weapon do so openly.
And think about this - we wouldn't be getting into the details of this discussion if someone had stated that they wanted teachers to carry weapons - concealed weapons - into the classroom with a bunch of kids ranging from the age of 6 in Elementry school to 18 in High School. As a parent - in no way shape or form do I want my child in a school where the teacher has a concealed handgun or where the teacher feels it is necessary to come armed to teach my child or any child. When the teachers go that route - I will be leading the local campaign to halt funding of the public school system - so I can either educate my child myself or use my tax dollars to pay a private school.
That is about the most ridiculous statement coming from the pro-gun crowd - arming teachers in their own classrooms. Bah - riduclous.
Try again - free speech and right of assembly is for the most part in each state constitution.So is the right to bear arms.
Care to attempt again with your question. I bolded the relative section to highlight the restrictions already established.How does that support your argument? In your examples the (federal) Supreme Court allowed for some infringement of free speech, and also told the states that it is not up to them to redefine it and that they are bound by it (Hess v. Indiana). We can debate the theory (Id rather not- its not relevant), but in practice the SCOTUS regularly overturns state laws for infringing on Constitutional rights. Again, in practice, the federal Constitution trumps federal, state, and local laws.
Again you are incorrect in my opinion - public places owned by private persons such as grocery stores, malls, and any other business that deals with the public have the same property rights as a home owner. Its their property remember not yours. Sure, they have the same rights- but they choose to open their property to the general public. If they wish to discriminate against certain customers, they can. But, in my opinion, the burden is on them to do so- by entering the public areas of their property there's no reason for me to offer up my privacy. If they want to take steps to ensure only people they want there are there, its up to them- Im not going to do their work for them. If I'm at a public place of business and not breaking any laws, you arent going to make me ashamed to be there. If a property owner doesn't want me there doing business they can say so and I'll gladly take my business somewhere else.
You might want to check out the law concerning the concealed carry permit - most states that have the conceal carry also allow the private property owner of a business to post a sign that states no concealed weapon. If you were to carry your concealed weapon into that premise - you would be violating the law and can lose your conceal carry permit.
Thanks for the tip, but I'm well aware of my state laws. I can freely ignore 'no firearms' signs, just as easily as I could a 'no green shirts' sign. If a proprietor sees me with a firearm (or green shirt), they're free to ask me to leave and I'm obligated to do so or Im then tresspassing. Of course, it's never happened.
Also, your above statement proves that store owners have no inherent right to know what's brought on their property... In the states where such signs are legally binding, they are only so because of specific and narrowly worded laws allowing for it- most of which specify the exact size, shape, and text required for a sign to be legally binding. There is no default right for them to know and certainly no default obligation for me to inform.
Xiahou, you're arguing that in favor of them, and claiming that not allowing them infinges your 2nd ammendment rights, correct?Don, I think it does- but Im a realist, not a fool. ~;) The SCOTUS has allowed for infringment, to varying degrees, of virtually every right in the Bill of Rights. Instead of crying about that, I support sensible legislation that allows me to exercise my rights with minimal interfence. I felt like I was reluctantly dragged into the debate on Constitutionality and just wanted to make my views on it clear. I don't think its particularly useful when discussing 'assault' weapons or concealed carry- common sense arguments are much more meaningful. :bow:
So is the right to bear arms. And again the concept of conceal carry permits is a regulated license - which means its a legislative process not a right.
How does that support your argument? In your examples the (federal) Supreme Court allowed for some infringement of free speech, and also told the states that it is not up to them to redefine it and that they are bound by it (Hess v. Indiana). We can debate the theory (Id rather not- its not relevant), but in practice the SCOTUS regularly overturns state laws for infringing on Constitutional rights. Again, in practice, the federal Constitution trumps federal, state, and local laws.
It supports the arguement because the Supreme Court has upheld that states can define different aspects of the Bill of Rights as long as in the opinion of the court it does not change the overriding principle of the United States Constitution. It also shows that the concept of Free Speech also has restrictions and limitations placed upon it. Which is the counter to your arguement that the 2d amendment grants you unrestricted access and rights as it relates to weapons.
Sure, they have the same rights- but they choose to open their property to the general public. If they wish to discriminate against certain customers, they can. But, in my opinion, the burden is on them to do so- by entering the public areas of their property there's no reason for me to offer up my privacy.
Again incorrect - if you carry your concealed weapon and the owner has a sign that states no concealed weapons - you not only violate his property rights - you are also in violation of the concealed carry laws for most states.
If they want to take steps to ensure only people they want there are there, its up to them- Im not going to do their work for them. If I'm at a public place of business and not breaking any laws, you arent going to make me ashamed to be there. If a property owner doesn't want me there doing business they can say so and I'll gladly take my business somewhere else.
Again the store owner has the right to control what is on his property and what is not. You violate the store owner's right to restrict guns on his property you not only violate his rights - but you also violate the law.
Thanks for the tip, but I'm well aware of my state laws. I can freely ignore 'no firearms' signs, just as easily as I could a 'no green shirts' sign. If a proprietor sees me with a firearm (or green shirt), they're free to ask me to leave and I'm obligated to do so or Im then tresspassing. Of course, it's never happened.
The sign alone makes it a violation of the concealed carry permit - again your attempting to have your individual rights override the rights of another individual.
Also, your above statement proves that store owners have no inherent right to know what's brought on their property... In the states where such signs are legally binding, they are only so because of specific and narrowly worded laws allowing for it- most of which specify the exact size, shape, and text required for a sign to be legally binding. There is no default right for them to know and certainly no default obligation for me to inform.
Thats were we differ - The sign is there to prevent you from losing your license by violating his rights. If you chose to violate his right then you get to lose your license to carry a concealed weapon. The state law makes it uniform code so that the concealed carry holder knows what to look for. Take a look at most of the laws - the owner of the establishment does not have to register his sign with the court - all he has to do is post it.
I have the absolute right to control what I have on people bring on my property or not bring onto my property. This right happens to stand up in most courts - over all other legal matters.
Again the store owner has the right to control what is on his property and what is not. You violate the store owner's right to restrict guns on his property you not only violate his rights - but you also violate the law.*sigh* I just told you that it doesn't violate a law in my state.
Thats were we differ - The sign is there to prevent you from losing your license by violating his rights. If you chose to violate his right then you get to lose your license to carry a concealed weapon. The state law makes it uniform code so that the concealed carry holder knows what to look for. Take a look at most of the laws - the owner of the establishment does not have to register his sign with the court - all he has to do is post it.You better look again. In the states that I'm familiar with there are specific requirements for a such a sign, as I already said, anything from height, shape, to the exact wording. In such states, if the signs don't conform to the legal standard they can be ignored. Its the specific law that gives the sign force.
I have the absolute right to control what I have on people bring on my property or not bring onto my property. This right happens to stand up in most courts - over all other legal matters.Sure you do, if the neighbor starts building a treehouse in your backyard and you tell them to stop and they refuse, I have little doubt that a court would find in your favor. However, if you discover someone visited your house and had a pocket knife in their pocket all you can do is tell them to get rid of the knife or leave. You can't say nothing and then sue them later for violating your property rights. If you own a ranch and someone inadvertently wanders onto your property you can't automatically have them arrested for tresspassing. For it to be illegal, they have to know you don't want them there and they have to refuse to leave. Again, if you find someone lurking around your house and you call the police, they can't just arrest him. They usually give him notice of his tresspassing and any subsequent tresspasses are punishable offenses.
note: Of course, this may vary somewhat. I hear that in Texas, it's still perfectly legal to blast someone on your property after dark. :shrug:
Don, I think it does- but Im a realist, not a fool. ~;) The SCOTUS has allowed for infringment, to varying degrees, of virtually every right in the Bill of Rights. Instead of crying about that, I support sensible legislation that allows me to exercise my rights with minimal interfence. I felt like I was reluctantly dragged into the debate on Constitutionality and just wanted to make my views on it clear. I don't think its particularly useful when discussing 'assault' weapons or concealed carry- common sense arguments are much more meaningful. :bow:
You got dragged into the discussion because of your own statements at the very beginning toward my views on concealed carry permits, handguns and schools.
If you hadn't of stated this - the discussion would of never happened.
Redleg, your horror at the thought of responsible, safety concious individuals carrying a concealed weapon to defend themselves and others is disappointing. Guns in schools is not so foreign a concept... not too long ago students would bring their rifles with them to school and have target shooting competitions on school grounds. I've been to a school that has an indoor shooting range (now a storage room) in its basement. The idea that guns somehow manifest an evil consciousness when they enter a school or that responsible, law abiding suddenly lose all self-control just because they have a gun is not only silly, but its factually false.
and this little gem
I'm glad that there are enough people can see through the hype to keep it legal most everywhere in the US. For my part,I won't live in a state that doesn't allow for concealed carry. Personally, Im intrigued by how the issue is handled in Vermont- if you can own a gun you can carry it... no permits or other nonsense.
Opposite view points are going to sometimes clash - but after several lengthly debates on many different subjects - you should be more then aware by now that I rarely use hype to come to my own conclusions about a subject.
Conceal carry permits are allowed through your state legislative process - which entitles me to have an opinion about the law, and the process - and one must honor the law even when one does not agree with it - but it doesn't prevent one from protesting or arguing their point about how they feel about that law.
Finally the constitution does not grant you the right to conceal carry your weapon anywhere you please, nor in fact does it grant you the right to carry your weapon anywhere you please. It states something completely different.
Conceal Carry permits in my opinion allow those who want to carry their weapons to tramble on the property rights of other law abidding citizens. Nor does the average citizen have the skills or the training needed to control fire a weapon in a public setting to protect themselves. Hell the police can't even do it and they get more training on it then the average requirement for the conceal carry permit.
*sigh* I just told you that it doesn't violate a law in my state.
sure there is a law - just look at the posted sign about no firearms.
You better look again. In the states that I'm familiar with there are specific requirements for a such a sign, as I already said, anything from height, shape, to the exact wording. In such states, if the signs don't conform to the legal standard they can be ignored. Its the specific law that gives the sign force.
Exactly what I stated - except you missed it - or refuse to understand the important part. You need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The store owner only has to put the sign up in the required place in the required speficiations of the law He doesn't have to get permission from the state to post the sign now does he?
Sure you do, if the neighbor starts building a treehouse in your backyard and you tell them to stop and they refuse, I have little doubt that a court would find in your favor. However, if you discover someone visited your house and had a pocket knife in their pocket all you can do is tell them to get rid of the knife or leave. You can't say nothing and then sue them later for violating your property rights.
Never said you can't say something and have them arrested afterwards. Try reading the statement again. - If the owner does not want firearms on this premise and he has a sign posted - he doesn't have to ask you - you already know. Your carrying a concealed weapon forces him to have a sign verus being able to polite ask you to leave his property.
If you own a ranch and someone inadvertently wanders onto your property you can't automatically have them arrested for tresspassing. For it to be illegal, they have to know you don't want them there and they have to refuse to leave.
Incorrect all you have to do in most states is have a sign that states No tresspassing in obvious locations to allow would be tresspassers to know you don't want them on your land.
Again, if you find someone lurking around your house and you call the police, they can't just arrest him. They usually give him notice of his tresspassing and any subsequent tresspasses are punishable offenses.
True - and all it takes is one warning to get arrested after that.
note: Of course, this may vary somewhat. I hear that in Texas, it's still perfectly legal to blast someone on your property after dark. :shrug:
More complex then that. Goes into the same requirements to blast someone that enters into your house. So I guess you want to disarm everyone because someone disagrees with you about conceal carry of firearms. Yep right.
You got dragged into the discussion because of your own statements at the very beginning toward my views on concealed carry permits, handguns and schools.You're missing my point there. I didnt want to debate the Constitutionality of it- due mainly to our courts, it has become far too murky compared to the plain english it was originally written in.
Hell the police can't even do it and they get more training on it then the average requirement for the conceal carry permit.Police train more than the average requirement for concealed carry permits? No doubt, in PA there is no requirement for training- you only have to be an upstanding, mentally stable citizen without a criminal record. If you looked into how much training the average police officer puts himself through and compared it with how much the average concealed weapons carrier puts themselves through I bet you'd be suprised. Almost all concealed carriers are also gun enthusiasts who enjoy shooting and take pride in being good at it. You can't say the same for all police officers.
I never wanted to make my argument about the Constitutionality. My main theme has always been that the people who are going to carry legally are not the one's that you need to be afraid of. Bad guys are always going to carry concealed whether its legal or not.
Edit: Here's a survey of readers from the Concealed Carry info website Packing.org
I go to a range and practice with my pistol:
(Survey ran: Dec 11, 2001 through Mar 23, 2002)
Answer Votes Percentage Graph
At least once a week 1599 30%
At least once per month 2300 43%
At least once every three months 789 15%
At least once every six months 271 5%
At least once per year 129 2%
Infrequently 196 4% About 73% of respondents practice shooting once a month or more. For myself, it would be monthly- including practice drawing my weapon from it's concealed position and firing at short range in addition to the regular aimed firing at various distances.
You're missing my point there. I didnt want to debate the Constitutionality of it- due mainly to our courts, it has become far too murky compared to the plain english it was originally written in.
However you made it debatable (SP) when you challanged my positon as hype. I base my opinion on concealed carry on how I envision the founding fathers meet for the 2nd Ammendment to mean - not what the NRA or the Bradley Campaign attempt to tell me it means. And when you challenge my thoughts and views concerning the 2nd Ammendment what did you expect - you made it a Constitutional issue.
Police train more than the average requirement for concealed carry permits? No doubt, in PA there is no requirement for training- you only have to be an upstanding, mentally stable citizen without a criminal record. If you looked into how much training the average police officer puts himself through and compared it with how much the average concealed weapons carrier puts themselves through I bet you'd be suprised. Almost all concealed carriers are also gun enthusiasts who enjoy shooting and take pride in being good at it. You can't say the same for all police officers.
Again shooting targets at a target range is completely different from shooting at a stress range to insure you can fire the weapon under stressful conditions. I fired expert with handguns when I was in the military and sharpshooter or expert with an open sight M16 - but that does not mean I can fire the weapon accurately in stress now does it, nor does it mean I can not -
Look at studies of soldiers in warfare - less then 10% aimed their weapons when firing at the enemy.
what it means is I don't think its necessary for concealed weapons to be carried by the average citizen when he goes outside his home, because of the stress involved in shooting at a real target under extreme conditions.
I never wanted to make my argument about the Constitutionality. My main theme has always been that the people who are going to carry legally are not the one's that you need to be afraid of. Bad guys are always going to carry concealed whether its legal or not.
And my main point is being afraid of bad guys does not mean one must carry a concealed weapon in order to protect themselves. Being scared of harm is the worst reason for carrying a weapon.
Situational awareness goes much father in protecting one's self from harm then packing a weapon. Which is the driving point behind never allow teachers to carry concealed weapons to school - train them on the signs to look for concerning possible danger developing from a student. The FBI and even the Secret Service reports on School Shooting indicate that students were aware at least a day in advance that the even could happen, and that other signs of manifestation of violence by the kids was present if the teachers had been trained on what to look for. That is a whole lot better then packing weapons into the school by teachers.
Nor am I afraid of people who have concealed carry permits - however they violate my ablity to know my immediate surroundings just as bad as the criminal does. Which is the other point about conceal carry - while its your right to bear arms - you are by default adding a dangerous element into any situation. Not all people are capable nor able to handle the stress envolved with pointing a weapon at another human being and pulling the trigger - even if they are law abidding and honest citizens. The accuracy of police in shoot outs with criminals is more then enough testimony for me, in that regards.
Edit: Here's a survey of readers from the Concealed Carry info website Packing.org
About 73% of respondents practice shooting once a month or more.
Again how much of that practice is stress shooting in situations that appoxiamate the conditions of firing a weapon at a criminal in a public setting. I bet it is not 73%.
However you made it debatable (SP) when you challanged my positon as hype. I base my opinion on concealed carry on how I envision the founding fathers meet for the 2nd Ammendment to mean - not what the NRA or the Bradley Campaign attempt to tell me it means. And when you challenge my thoughts and views concerning the 2nd Ammendment what did you expect - you made it a Constitutional issue.Nope, what I challenged as hype was your implication that legal concealed weapons carriers are some great danger- the statistics don't back that up. At best, they reduce and prevent crimes, at worst they have no net effect- it depends who's numbers you want to believe, but even in the worst statistics put forth by the gun-grabbers there is no clear evidence of harm. That's pretty compelling evidence against banning it, imo.
Look at studies of soldiers in warfare - less then 10% aimed their weapons when firing at the enemy. I think warfare is a different situation. Things such as supressing fire do not need to be carefully aimed to achieve their purpose. Often you just want someone to duck their head.
Situational awareness goes much father in protecting one's self from harm then packing a weapon. Which is the driving point behind never allow teachers to carry concealed weapons to school - train them on the signs to look for concerning possible danger developing from a student. The FBI and even the Secret Service reports on School Shooting indicate that students were aware at least a day in advance that the even could happen, and that other signs of manifestation of violence by the kids was present if the teachers had been trained on what to look for. That is a whole lot better then packing weapons into the school by teachers. Being aware of your surroundings can go a long way, but it's meaningless without being able to act on it. If you suspect your in a bad situation, obviously the first thing you need to do is remove yourself from it, but occasionally that isn't an option for people.
There's not much point in carrying if you're not going to be aware of surroundings. But, if you are aware, armed and prepared to defend yourself should the need arrive you're in a better position than just being aware.
Nor am I afraid of people who have concealed carry permitsIm glad you're now saying this. You gave me a very different impression earlier when you said you didnt trust them.
The accuracy of police in shoot outs with criminals is more then enough testimony for me, in that regards.Myself and other CCW advocates often discuss in disbelief the stupidity displayed by some police officers when it comes to handling weapons- it makes the news all too often. Many officers take it upon themselves to become proficient with their weapons, unfortunately, too many also do not.
About schools, I guess you haven't been to as many as I. Particularly inner city schools. There are schools that are in neighborhoods were you are told your life will be in danger if don't leave the school by dusk. There are schools, that when you arrive, you are instructed to never be in a hallway during class changes because you could be assaulted or shanked- some have acloves with closable gates for people caught in that situation. There have been teachers raped and murdered in their own classrooms- by students. I'd never allow a child of mine to attend such a school- but apparently some people don't have a choice.
Nope, what I challenged as hype was your implication that legal concealed weapons carriers are some great danger- the statistics don't back that up. At best, they reduce and prevent crimes, at worst they have no net effect- it depends who's numbers you want to believe, but even in the worst statistics put forth by the gun-grabbers there is no clear evidence of harm. That's pretty compelling evidence against banning it, imo.
In a class room full of kids was the context of that statement. And in that context its not hype. The worse thing you can do is put a firearms in the public school system as a means of security.
I think warfare is a different situation. Things such as supressing fire do not need to be carefully aimed to achieve their purpose. Often you just want someone to duck their head.
And in a stressful situation where accuracy is important because of innocent people being in your immediate surrounding.
Being aware of your surroundings can go a long way, but it's meaningless without being able to act on it. If you suspect your in a bad situation, obviously the first thing you need to do is remove yourself from it, but occasionally that isn't an option for people.
some times its not an option - and I still don't advocate carrying a concealed weapon to protect yourself from that odd occurance when you can not avoid the situtation.
There's not much point in carrying if you're not going to be aware of surroundings. But, if you are aware, armed and prepared to defend yourself should the need arrive you're in a better position than just being aware.
And I would counter that there is no need to carry a concealed weapon if you are aware of your surroundings.
Im glad you're now saying this. You gave me a very different impression earlier when you said you didnt trust them.
Trust and being afraid are two different things.
Myself and other CCW advocates often discuss in disbelief the stupidity displayed by some police officers when it comes to handling weapons- it makes the news all too often. Many officers take it upon themselves to become proficient with their weapons, unfortunately, too many also do not.
And I would expect most CCW permit holders - not advocates - would have similiar statistics if a study was done. Slightly smaller on the careless handling of weapons - but on accuracy under stress - it will most likely be similiar or worse for the CCW permit holder.
About schools, I guess you haven't been to as many as I. Particularly inner city schools. There are schools that are in neighborhoods were you are told your life will be in danger if don't leave the school by dusk. There are schools, that when you arrive, you are instructed to never be in a hallway during class changes because you could be assaulted or shanked- some have acloves with closable gates for people caught in that situation. There have been teachers raped and murdered in their own classrooms- by students.
Still doesn't mean we should arm our teachers in the classrooms. Better counselling and discpline procedures to throw students out of the education process when they demonstrate their unwillingless to learn. If a school is that dangerous and disruptive - close it down and bus the students who want to learn to other locations - and arrest those who want to be disruptive animals for their behavior as it comes up.
To many states have the laws stated that a child must stay in school until they turn 18.
Hell throw them out of the education process when they become a disruptive distraction to the other students. Ie situational awareness. You might see the need to arm teachers with conceal carry firearms - however I think if that is the case shut down the whole school system and let me have my tax dollars back to educate my child in my own way.
True - but that does not entitle another to carry a concealed weapon just because criminals do it.
I believe that legally permitted people are entitled to carry a concelaed weapon, because legally carrying a concealed weapon is not a criminal act, and that government should only attempt to prohibit criminal acts.
The fact that criminals also carry concelaed weapons doesn't entitle those who are authorized by the State to do the same, altho it does provide the motivation for many. I mentioned that criminals also carry concelaed weapons not to justify anyone else doing it, but to demonstrate that even if there were no persons legally carrying guns, that you would not be able to evaluate your circumstances when in public, because criminals might be secretly armed.
I'm glad we agree on the private property issue, but I respectfully disagree with you about open carry. I'm inclined ot think that your expereince with open carry isn't typical. In most places people would piss themselves over a 'man with a gun'
ichi
ichi :bow:
I
I'm glad we agree on the private property issue, but I respectfully disagree with you about open carry. I'm inclined ot think that your expereince with open carry isn't typical. In most places people would piss themselves over a 'man with a gun'
ichi
ichi :bow:
IT might be because I have almost always lived or been in rural areas when I have been around weapons other a few location when I was in the Military - and now Dallas.
Growing up in rural Texas and New Mexico - one can normally do what one pleases without to much trouble from neighbors or the law. Until of course your actions cause others problems - or are criminal behaviors.
Still doesn't mean we should arm our teachers in the classrooms. Better counselling and discpline procedures to throw students out of the education process when they demonstrate their unwillingless to learn. If a school is that dangerous and disruptive - close it down and bus the students who want to learn to other locations - and arrest those who want to be disruptive animals for their behavior as it comes up.
To many states have the laws stated that a child must stay in school until they turn 18.
Hell throw them out of the education process when they become a disruptive distraction to the other students. Ie situational awareness. You might see the need to arm teachers with conceal carry firearms - however I think if that is the case shut down the whole school system and let me have my tax dollars back to educate my child in my own way.That may sound reasonable, but we both know it isn't going to happen. People would be up in arms if we closed down inner city schools and expelled kids from the education system if they don't want to be there. I'm not saying we should arm all teacher either- someone else said that. I'm saying, essentially, that if the law trusts people to carry concealed weapons (via permits) for defense of themselves and others why stop that at the door to a school? If a teacher is legally allowed and willing to do so, I don't see the great harm in it. Would you feel better if it was only school administrators? They have less contact with the students. If someone is concealing properly it shouldn't be possible to tell he's carrying, so students shouldn't be aware of it.
That may sound reasonable, but we both know it isn't going to happen. People would be up in arms if we closed down inner city schools and expelled kids from the education system if they don't want to be there. I'm not saying we should arm all teacher either- someone else said that. I'm saying, essentially, that if the law trusts people to carry concealed weapons (via permits) for defense of themselves and others why stop that at the door to a school? If a teacher is legally allowed and willing to do so, I don't see the great harm in it. Would you feel better if it was only school administrators? They have less contact with the students. If someone is concealing properly it shouldn't be possible to tell he's carrying, so students shouldn't be aware of it.
If I discover that teachers believe that its a necessity for protection to carry concealed weapons into a school - my child would not be in that school at all. Not because I am afraid of guns - but because where one believes it is necessary to carry a gun for protection - is no place for a child to be educated.
It seems to me that it all boils down to how you read the Constitution.Now as a Limey when I read it I see a new weak and decentralised nation with only a tiny standing army and enemies within trying to guarantee that all the States will have a body of armed men to call upon as a militia. Thus one of the first federal edicts specifically prohibits States from disarming their citizens. However IMO this is only in the context of a militia.In modern day context a part time, limited deployment defensive and domestic force like the National Guard would fit the bill (although current world events have such forces fighting well outside this remit).
What it does not do IMO is ban State laws from regulating weapons. If serving NG members can keep their weapons at home then that is fine. Any other weaponry is open to local regulation. This includes Conceal Carry Permits (the idea of concealed weaponry on the streets chills me as a Brit), bans on certain weapons etc. If the State declares that handguns must remain at home or that rifles must remain at the range or such like then it seems to me they are acting within the Constitution. Indeed it can still be claimed that even by restricting citizens to handguns only they would still not be infinging your Constitutional rights.
Just an outsider's view. I tried to be objective!
Crazed Rabbit
07-14-2005, 21:50
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
As the 2nd amendment was made to keep the tyranny of government in check, how would soldiers under the direct command of the government, who are shipped off to foreign wars, count as a citizen's militia?
Crazed Rabbit
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
Shall I explain it to you - again about what the Constitution States and the many different interpatations of what the 2nd Amendment means or doesn't mean. Some of it out of the Supreme Court itself from several different time periods. Be very careful of telling people they don't understand what it means when we as a nation change what the 2nd Amendment means. And then you might want to check out individual state laws on weapons - you will discover that in many ways guns rights have been infringed upon - to include the registation of weapons when you buy them.
As the 2nd amendment was made to keep the tyranny of government in check, how would soldiers under the direct command of the government, who are shipped off to foreign wars, count as a citizen's militia?
Crazed Rabbit
And then again you don't seem to understand the 2nd Amendment or the concept of militias either.
You might want to read a little on the history of the National Guard - and the concept of citizen's militia as invisioned by the founding fathers.
Read the main clause of the constitution - Congress has the right to call the militia to fight enemies. It comes from right there.
scooter_the_shooter
07-14-2005, 23:30
The militia argument doesnt hold cause WE ARE A MILITIA ~:cheers:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
Today we had a fire near a small town, and we responded with a crew, several engines, and two single engine airtankers (SEATs).
During the SEAT drops (each one carries 500 gallons) some local kids stole their dad's 22 rifle and shot 100 rounds at them from the next hill.
OMG, here we fighting a fire and getting shot at and I'm thinking 'what will the boys in the Backroom say when they hear about this'
All said, I still support the right to keep and bear arms. And to spank the $h!t out of little hoodlums!
ichi
Today we had a fire near a small town, and we responded with a crew, several engines, and two single engine airtankers (SEATs).
During the SEAT drops (each one carries 500 gallons) some local kids stole their dad's 22 rifle and shot 100 rounds at them from the next hill.
OMG, here we fighting a fire and getting shot at and I'm thinking 'what will the boys in the Backroom say when they hear about this'
All said, I still support the right to keep and bear arms. And to spank the $h!t out of little hoodlums!
ichi
They need to be charged with felnoy assualt - and given a couple days in the slammer - then your fire fighters can chose to press charges or just scare them silly with the possiblity of jail.
scooter_the_shooter
07-15-2005, 19:25
thats atempted murder and should be treated as such. give the punks the full penalty
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.