Carry vs consfication

[oldman45]

I believe in the right to own and carry when legal versus confiscation.

There is a difference but people sure get upset when it is mentioned they may not carry or limiting where one may carry.

Some compare not being able to carry to gun confiscation in other countries. Yes, we have a right to own and bear arms. We also have the right to property ownership but there are restrictions as to what can be done with the property.

Gun owners are sometimes too over zealous in what they feel is a Right. Our Right to own is there. Anyone tampering with that Right is going to get clobbered from many sides.

The Right to Bear Arms is totaly different. Owning and Bearing are two different areas but many gun owners feel they can carry anywhere or any time.

In this state, a person may not carry in a church, a bar, at a parade for which a permit was taken, a government building or property. I do not have a problem with this but apparently some feel that not being allowed to carry in these places is a type of confiscation when it is not. The Right to Bear Arms can be taken from a person for many reasons as can the Right to Own Arms.

Yet I do not feel threatened by some agency limiting where I can carry and surely do not feel as if my Rights have been infringed upon.

In the areas of the US where gun ownership is forbidden, I think is a violation of the Right to Keep and Bear and the local government over stepped their limits of power. However those living there are the ones that allowed it to happen and, in a sense, are allowing it to happen in many places by electing people to positions that have anti gun sentiment and feelings. The current Adminstration is a prime example of that and I worry about the future of our guns.

All I am saying is that limiting the places and conditions we may carry is not taking away our guns or our right to keep and bear. Sadly a post I made this morning on limiting people's ability to carry without some type of background check was compared to Russia and Germany. There is a huge difference between the two in a court of law.

 

[Raspy]

oldman,

Good post.

There are extreme views, and those extreme views are what will move the debate. The NRA, for example, has a lot of rhetoric that is over the top, but they are a strong voice and influential. The trend has been moving toward more restriction for a long time and now is turning back with the help of the NRA and a lot of interested parties that have finally decided to do something other than just complain or threaten. Democracy is hard and uninformed opinion is dangerous.

There must clearly be some restrictions on ownership and carrying otherwise we would just hand the keys to the armory to felons and the mentally ill. Or issue children guns to take to school. Many, including many police, think a law abiding and peace loving citizen with a gun is dangerous. And many pro gun citizens paint the other side with too broad of a brush by simly calling them "liberals", as though that says it all. It simply catgegorizes and divides in an attempt to demonize, instead of dealing with the real issues. And in the long run, hurts the cause of more rights to carry. For instance, I'm the most socially liberal person I know and far more so than many of my friends. I'm also an NRA member, love to shoot and wish I could get a carry permit in California without a major hassle. I usually have a gun within pretty easy reach. I travel with one and am ready to defend my family if needed. But I'm not a one issue voter and I won't jump on the right wing bandwagon of, what I describe as, fear mongering.

Now the gun debate is moving into the Supreme Court and many states have become "shall issue", some are dropping the need for permits, gun ownership is becoming legal in some areas, National Parks have been forced to "allow" guns, etc.

Instead of simply saying the President is a liberal or the Supreme Court nominee is a liberal, and declaring they, because of that definition, are doing grave harm to gun rights or the country, people should be focusing on what those people's particular view is on an issue they are concerned about. Stay on message instead of demonizing across the board. Generalizing leads to argument and gridlock. The issue now, as I see it, is incorporating the 2nd ammendment into the States constitutions through the 14th ammendment. This is where the powerful arguments are and the path is, to more rights. Rights, that is, that we already think we have, but that states have not recognized. This is where the energy is focused. Not just angry talk about cold dead hands, but the definition of "keep" and "bear" in a historical perspective. Rights recognized by the US Constitution that must also be recognized by the States.

 

[yaktamer]

Oldman,

Don't necessarily disagree with your post on this thread re: reasonable restrictions, but on the other thread you went on and on about recognizing the right to own, but not the right to carry, repeatedly suggesting that it's ok to own a gun as long as it isn't readily accessible. This simply does not square with as right to "bear."

I'll get off my soapbox now

 

[oldman45]

Oldman,

Don't necessarily disagree with your post on this thread re: reasonable restrictions, but on the other thread you went on and on about recognizing the right to own, but not the right to carry, repeatedly suggesting that it's ok to own a gun as long as it isn't readily accessible. This simply does not square with as right to "bear."

I'll get off my soapbox now

There is a fine line as where and when and who can carry.

I own a car and driving it is an earned privilege. Driving it at 140 MPH as shown on the speedometer is illegal.

Owning a gun is a Right, Bearing it is a fine line between legal and illegal. When everyone is allowed to carry, without some restrictions, then problems will happen. Without training, people will carry them wrongfully and use them wrongfully.

I will ask you a question: Would you want your family to be sitting next to a man that is carrying but not legally qualified to do so due to mental problems? A police officer can stop him and see that he is armed but without a background check of some type, as far as the officer is concerned, it is a legal carry. Let the man get upset, despondant or on some type medication, even legal, and there is a greater potential for wrong doing with a gun that could have been prevented with a short background check and a simple permit.

Please note, I have not suggested people not be allowed to carry. I think people should be allowed to carry in many places where carry is banned. I have not asked for guns to be registered and in fact am against it. Citizens carrying legally have saved the lifes of many officers and assisted thousands more. Citizens carrying not qualified or trained to do so have injured or killed innocent people many times more.

A small percentage of attorneys have ruined the reputation of the rest of the attorneys. The same with gun owners. The small percentage of people made the majority of people pay for their misdeeds. In order to keep wrongful use of guns down, we have to know who is carrying the guns.

 

[Bullzaye]

Respectfully...I tend to disagree. The 2nd Amendment mentions BEARING arms specifically...not merely owning them. Owning arms, without the right to bear them, is analogous to owning a car, but not being permitted to drive it.

As to your question regarding the family sitting next to an armed and possibly unbalanced person...I would only repeat what I've stated earlier; Freedom can sometimes be a dangerous thing. I'd rather live in freedom and accept a small risk, than be completely assured of my safety, living in a padded cell.

Additionally, I refer to a great quote from a wise man; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Tim

 

[oldman45]

I received an email from a person following this thread and he made a fairly close analogy.

Doctors go to medical school to learn their trade well. They are also required to be tested and they undergo background checks since what they do can effect the lives of people. Gun carry can effect others. Proper training, background checks and limits will not hurt anything but can help.

I say a bit dog will holler the loudest. If one has nothing to hide and no reason to be denied the right to carry, then why object.

 

[oldman45]

Respectfully...I tend to disagree. The 2nd Amendment mentions BEARING arms specifically...not merely owning them. Owning arms, without the right to bear them, is analogous to owning a car, but not being permitted to drive it.

As to your question regarding the family sitting next to an armed and possibly unbalanced person...I would only repeat what I've stated earlier; Freedom can sometimes be a dangerous thing. I'd rather live in freedom and accept a small risk, than be completely assured of my safety, living in a padded cell.

Additionally, I refer to a great quote from a wise man; "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Tim

In another thread from days ago, it was learned many here are too young to know when we had fewer gun laws and less gun control. The reason we lost those freedoms was due to people abusing the freedoms. Unrestrained actions only lead to more stringent controls.

 

[oldman45]

Now if you guys are feeling I am against carry, you need to read this out of Shreveport.

Traffic stop raises gun rights question, Mayor responds - KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana |

While I disagree with that Mayor, he is pretty much correct as to the law. I also disagee with the police officer.

 

[Raspy]

oldman,

I'm afraid you are missing the point.

The 2nd ammendment holds equal weight for the words "keep" and "bear".

You are making a distinction between the two. In other words you are reading for what you want it to say.

I'm with you on some definition or controls needed so criminals and kids don't have the same freedom as others to carry. But that is not what is written and it must be worked out.

This has nothing to do with having something to hide. And to use your own example, you would not want me to search your house, and by not wanting me too, you are not showing you have something to hide. No.

We don't need the mentally unstable walking around in cities with loaded guns, and we don't need peaceful normal citizens kept from their rights by a paranoid few who don't get it. And we can't read the 2nd ammendment with more emphasis on the words we agree with. But, yes, we do need some definition and some open discussion without labels.

 

[Bullzaye]

Doctors go to medical school to learn their trade well. They are also required to be tested and they undergo background checks since what they do can effect the lives of people. Gun carry can effect others. Proper training, background checks and limits will not hurt anything but can help.

Practicing medicine is not a constitutionally protected right.

I say a bit dog will holler the loudest. If one has nothing to hide and no reason to be denied the right to carry, then why object.

I object to this characterization. If we disagree, then we obviously have something to hide? For your information, I have a CCW, and have had one since they became available in AZ. Additionally, I spent 15 years serving my country in the military, and I don't feel that some bureaucrat has the right to grant or deny me the ability to defend myself. Yes, I know I sort of gave them that power by applying for the CCW, but one must pick and choose their battles. I will likely continue to maintain a CCW permit, for other advantages...but I still see no reason why law-abiding gun owners should be denied the ability to carry concealed, should they so desire.

Secondly, you're completely missing the point. This is like saying, "If you have nothing to hide, why not let the police officer search your car/home whenever they ask?" You're imagining someone is guilty of something, merely because they don't feel they require a government permission slip to exercise a right.

Tim

 

[Raspy]

Bullzaye,

Good post.

It's not just some beaurocrat who decides. It's the folks we elect to do our business in the Nation's and States capitols or in the city and county governments. We must make sure we send those that are clear thinking and not just pandering to fear. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we have had such a comfortable life in this country, in general, that we are not involved enough as citizens concerning our own governance.

Those in power are simply reflecting those who sent them there and saying what was necessary to get the job. People are easily swayed by fear mongering. It's much harder to do your own research and call out the liars. Or, people who live a comfortable city life might think guns are dangerous to them, even when carried be responsible people. But the same folks living in rural Nevada won't be told they can't have gun. A sherrif in one community will declare that all guns are dangerous and in another will recommend having one.

This is why the struggle must go to the National level and be won at the Supreme Court. Then defined accordingly at the local level. A more uniform set of standards that are not subject to political games and personal agendas. Not a confusing patchwork where doing one thing in California is a felony and doing the same thing over the Nevada state line is normal and accepted. No broad labels designed to scare the ignorant, etc.

 

[OKFC05]

Would you want your family to be sitting next to a man that is carrying but not legally qualified to do so due to mental problems?

They might be right now, today.
Informal estimates for most cities are that more guns are carried illegally by unqualifed people than by licensed people.
And most gun crimes are committed by previously convicted felons who are not supposed to touch a gun.

Criminals don't obey laws!

If laws prevented crimes, none of us would need guns. And if frogs could fly......

 

[Raspy]

OK,

Absolutely right, and it shows the falacy of the current system.

People must think if they don't see a gun, it doesn't exist. Or, even worse, if law abiding citizens have guns they will become crazed killers.

I don't think, for me, it's a good idea to open carry in the city. I'm not interested in "in your face" confrontation with the anti gun group. And I would hate to have some nut grab it and start shooting, as happened to a friend of mine's father, who was a cop. Or some city girl who starts screaming if she sees it while out walking her baby. Bad news. Concealed means it's not seen, but available if needed. Not there to intimidate and raise questions, but there to defend, if needed. Concealed, safe, and hopefully, not needed.

I recently was working in a high crime area at night and wished I had my PM9 in my pocket. There alone and the gate was open. But I didn't. Machinery was running and someone could have easily walked up without me noticing. The last thing I want is a gun fight. The second to last is a legal fight if I defend myself with one. Sheesh.

 

[DeathGrip]

They might be right now, today.
Informal estimates for most cities are that more guns are carried illegally by unqualifed people than by licensed people.
And most gun crimes are committed by previously convicted felons who are not supposed to touch a gun.

Criminals don't obey laws!

If laws prevented crimes, none of us would need guns. And if frogs could fly......

And how many times do the police catch a felon with a gun?One thing's for certain,He'll be arrested and go to court.Now if the courts would convict and the judges apply long term housing then I'd say the law worked pretty good.But the revolving door in the prison system one of the biggest problems.Felons don't obey because they have little to fear or truly just don't care,Think loose screws.And loose screws never learn.

And if frogs could fly......

D.G.

 

[oldman45]

Bullzaye,

We will have to disagree here. I feel you are reading more into the Constitution than is there. Using your unrestricted reading, anyone can own and carry. OK, let's give twelve yr olds guns and let them buy them legally.

If you were to go to any of the schools where Constitutional Law is taught, you would soon learn that the Amendments were not given out without background reasoning. The 2nd was written to give us the power to defend the Country from overthrow by other Countries like England. The Framers had just came from a land that had a State church, a state militia and the people could not worship or many other things. Under the 2nd, the people were allowed to own firearms (no particular type mentioned but the weapon of the day were single shot muskets) and to carry them in times of need. Paul Revere is said to have warned those living in the countryside that the British are coming. He did this so the people could get their arms and powder in an effort to protect themselves, their families, their property and the country they wanted to establish.

While I do not hold to the theory that a well regulated Militia means the National Guard as does many such as Mr Obama, I do think the Framers meant the Second to be used in times of crisis against invaders on a large scale. I also think and maybe wrongly that they never would have imagined NOT owning a firearm and using it as need be for personal and home protection. Everyone owned firearms back then and individual ownership was not in question unless the government ordered the country to be disarmed. England would have done that had they been able to take us over.

Now if you want to consider this, there are different opinions on this site just as any other site. People are different, come from different backgrounds and have different educations. Thos Mr Obama will be appointing to the US Supreme Court will have a view of the Second much different from yours and mine. There are now two anti gun people on the Bench and will soon be three. While you and I may differ on minor issues, I fear that those issues will soon be taken away by liberal interpretations of the Constitution. If you remember, Mr Obama took Constitutional law in college and taught it in college. His view of the Second can be seen in Chicago as well as the State of IL. I can assure you that as he interviews for his appointments to the Bench, the gun issue will be discussed.

And yes, I did go to Law School and studied Constitutional Law.

 

[yaktamer]

I went to law school too (considered by many to be one of the top 3 in the country). They taught all kinds of crazy things, especially in my Con Law class. My con law prof was basically Reverend Wright with a J.D. I'd suggest you be skeptical of much you were taught. Any serious review of the framers' views recognizes that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to afford the citizens the means to defend against domestic tyranny, not only foreign invasion.

 

[Raspy]

oldman,

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, I've already said this in so many words, but I think you are just doing the same thing you accuse the "liberals" (an unfortunate and innacurate label) of doing. Namely, interpreting the words in advance to promote your own philosophy.

You've apparantly decided that "keep" and "bear" mean only qualified people. But it doesn't say that and I'm not recommending that everyone should be allowed to keep and bear. It must be interpreted and restricted as needed. But pre-deciding what it means and then applying it in the way that brings about a pre-determined outcome is not the game. That's where we are now as a country. A big unresolved argument based on personal bias.

Try changing the derogatory generalization of "liberal" to anti gun activist or some other more specific label that gets to the point without demonizing a larger segment. Liberal covers a much bigger set of interests than guns, and liberal folks can be on your side with guns. You weaken your argument by setting up an us vs them generality.

 

[oldman45]

oldman,

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, I've already said this in so many words, but I think you are just doing the same thing you accuse the "liberals" (an unfortunate and innacurate label) of doing. Namely, interpreting the words in advance to promote your own philosophy.

You've apparantly decided that "keep" and "bear" mean only qualified people. But it doesn't say that and I'm not recommending that everyone should be allowed to keep and bear. It must be interpreted and restricted as needed. But pre-deciding what it means and then applying it in the way that brings about a pre-determined outcome is not the game. That's where we are now as a country. A big unresolved argument based on personal bias.

Try changing the derogatory generalization of "liberal" to anti gun activist or some other more specific label that gets to the point without demonizing a larger segment. Liberal covers a much bigger set of interests than guns, and liberal folks can be on your side with guns. You weaken your argument by setting up an us vs them generality.

In a way, it is an us vs them situation. I am conservative to the core. If you knew me, knew my background and my work in the firearm movement, you would not make such a statement.

I admit I come on strong and I do so in court, depostitions and in the field. I want everyone to be able to own and carry. The problem is when you look at the practicality of it happening, it dooes not pass the smell test. Then when implemented into law, things happen and the antis use the adverse events against us.

Not everyone will agree with me and I do not want them to do such. Yet if facing facts, all I am saying is there are many people that should not carry firearms openly or concealed. Some of these people will cause problems when allowed to do so.

A good friend of mine is an attorney (as are many of those I associate with) and he is on a depression medication. He applied in LA for a CCW and was rejected for the medicine he takes. It was learned the medicine makes him sucidal and violent. He went through the appeal process and lost. Being a friend, I would like to see him be able to carry. Being a realist, I would hate to see him do a terrible deed due to being able to carry so it may be good he does not carry. Yet he can carry openly in this state. Is there a difference in the way he can carry? Probably not but in perception it is.

I am simply saying there is a major difference between having guns confiscated and not being allowed to carry.

 

[MSgt G]

Owning a car and going to medical school are NOT rights. Keeping and bearing arms IS a right. These are entirely different things.

 

[oldRoger]

I don’t want to butt into an argument in progress. However, the 2nd Amendment grew from the “God Given right to Life.” It is a self-defense statement pure and simple. You and I have the right given by our creator to Life, Liberty &,....

The right recognized, not given by the 2nd is to self-defense, and yes; keep and bear are joined.

Now we may have given the government that we established to protect those rights, the power to regulate some aspects of our enjoyment of the rights when our common safety requires it. Thus we may have given the gov the right to deny some part of the right to those who can not safely exercise it.

This is a MAY not a given.... I think the court will apply strict scrutiny.