So; it took litigation to apply the 'plain language' of the Amendment.
Proves my point
- Thread starter steelslaver
- Start date
- Status
No mention of use of public property. Again, the Orlando application doesn’t allow for discrimination based on viewpoint, but is based on use of public property.
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Who is the owner? Private property is implied:
3rd: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Ah, 'implied;' why isn't it implied that the 2nd is about 'A well-regulated militia..." since that is the first part of the text?
Let's come full circle. The language of the Second is not any more clear than any of the others that involve substantial public lawmaking and (eventually) litigation - is there a logical reason it cannot be treated as are the others?
The Constitution is a framework, not a dictionary; 235 years after ratification, there are many, many, many issues that have been resolved by statutes or caselaw; there are many yet to be resolved.
Last edited:
Ah, 'implied;' why isn't it implied that the 2nd is about 'A well-regulated militia..." since that is the first part of the text?
Let's come full circle. The language of the Second is not any more clear than any of the others that involve substantial public lawmaking and (eventually) litigation - is there a logical reason it cannot be treated as are the others?
The Constitution is a framework, not a dictionary; 235 years after ratification, there are many, many, many issues that have been resolved by statutes or caselaw; there are many yet to be resolved.
The Owner was the state. The state gave their permission.
The militia is everyone not in the regular armed forces. Well-regulated meant to be proficient, not well-controlled by the state.
smithman 10
US Veteran
Rule number 1
Were my former business partner and I still teaching concealed carry classes this article would be passed out to every student. I know we are all human and prone to make mistakes but it is just so hard to believe that a LEO would do this.
Now that we have closed the business (due to Covid) with no intention of starting back up I think differently about the whole Second Amendment issue. I am more and more convinced that a lot of folks are just not mentally equipped to safely own weapons.
Not saying they shouldn't have that right protected as it is by our Constitution, just that there are a lot of folks who are just an accident/tragedy waiting to happen.
Got no answers to offer but I always used to tell the students, "One thing the gun control crowd has on us is this - you can't have a firearm "accident" if you don't have a gun."
But again, a LEO does this - just hard to comprehend.
Were my former business partner and I still teaching concealed carry classes this article would be passed out to every student. I know we are all human and prone to make mistakes but it is just so hard to believe that a LEO would do this.
Now that we have closed the business (due to Covid) with no intention of starting back up I think differently about the whole Second Amendment issue. I am more and more convinced that a lot of folks are just not mentally equipped to safely own weapons.
Not saying they shouldn't have that right protected as it is by our Constitution, just that there are a lot of folks who are just an accident/tragedy waiting to happen.
Got no answers to offer but I always used to tell the students, "One thing the gun control crowd has on us is this - you can't have a firearm "accident" if you don't have a gun."
But again, a LEO does this - just hard to comprehend.
johngalt said:
The Owner was the state. The state gave their permission.
The militia is everyone not in the regular armed forces. Well-regulated meant to be proficient, not well-controlled by the state.
It took a couple of court cases to resolve that. The 3rd hadn't been 'tested.'
That was mostly true in the 18th century. How about today? Where in the Amendment do I find your militia definition? In the Constitution?
Not simple, which is why there are still cases arising from the 2nd.
The Owner was the state. The state gave their permission.
The militia is everyone not in the regular armed forces. Well-regulated meant to be proficient, not well-controlled by the state.
It took a couple of court cases to resolve that. The 3rd hadn't been 'tested.'
That was mostly true in the 18th century. How about today? Where in the Amendment do I find your militia definition? In the Constitution?
Not simple, which is why there are still cases arising from the 2nd.
Last edited:
That’s what the word meant when the Constitution was written. Current incorrect interpretations don’t wash away what was written.
pantannojack
US Veteran
Not by any means an accident, not likely to be a negligent discharge. If I was a judge, I would call it misdemeanor assault with unintended felony result.
In Az years ago a pair of idiot archery hunters in camp were playing shoot the beer can of my head. If you know how to sight in a compound bow with a peep, you will imagine how the arrow went true to 4" below line of sight.
In Az years ago a pair of idiot archery hunters in camp were playing shoot the beer can of my head. If you know how to sight in a compound bow with a peep, you will imagine how the arrow went true to 4" below line of sight.
SCOTUS's opinion on that is the only one with force of law.
OP
A very basic tenant of our law is legislative intent. What was the intent of those who wrote the law. It isn't very hard to find the intent of those who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Jefferson, who was the main author as well as several of the other authors have made several statement as as to the intent of the 2nd. They clearly believed the PEOPLE had a right to be armed and that it wasn't a Right granted by the constitution, but a natural born right that the government wasn't allowed to restrict. You have your opinion. I prefer Jefferson's after all he wrote it.
SCOTUS does have the final word on what is constitutions. THAT is why all states are now shall issue even though several states believed the had the right to require a reason and got away with it for a long time. . Tons upon tons of legislation have hit the scrap heap after their rulings AND their reversals of previous rulings. But, it takes years and sometimes decades and a lot of money to get a case in front of them and have them decide they want to rule on it.
As much as some wish to LIBERALLY twist its meaning and words it is pretty clear.
Currently lots of legislators believe they have the power to prevent women from being topless in public. Yet, if one determine woman was punished and decides go the distance fighting it as sexual discrimination none of those laws would stand unless men were also held to the same code. Watch it is happening. One of the reasons it has not 100% is because any prosecutors with an ounce of brains isn't going to press a determine woman very hard because they understand they actually don't have a leg to stand on and drop it before it can get ruled on. But a federal court ruling already makes women going topless legal in your state Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Many states have smarted up and allow it already. There are only 3 states left that actually prohibit it and 15 with ambitious laws. Some cities also have ordinances.Those will be voided if a case comes along and goes very far.
You keep saying "it took litigation to get to there". No kidding, Usually does.
SCOTUS does have the final word on what is constitutions. THAT is why all states are now shall issue even though several states believed the had the right to require a reason and got away with it for a long time. . Tons upon tons of legislation have hit the scrap heap after their rulings AND their reversals of previous rulings. But, it takes years and sometimes decades and a lot of money to get a case in front of them and have them decide they want to rule on it.
As much as some wish to LIBERALLY twist its meaning and words it is pretty clear.
Currently lots of legislators believe they have the power to prevent women from being topless in public. Yet, if one determine woman was punished and decides go the distance fighting it as sexual discrimination none of those laws would stand unless men were also held to the same code. Watch it is happening. One of the reasons it has not 100% is because any prosecutors with an ounce of brains isn't going to press a determine woman very hard because they understand they actually don't have a leg to stand on and drop it before it can get ruled on. But a federal court ruling already makes women going topless legal in your state Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Many states have smarted up and allow it already. There are only 3 states left that actually prohibit it and 15 with ambitious laws. Some cities also have ordinances.Those will be voided if a case comes along and goes very far.
You keep saying "it took litigation to get to there". No kidding, Usually does.
Last edited:
Big Constitutional fan boy here.
Will I get a speedy trial for such a horrific crime? 
Just go to court?
Taking grievances to court takes a whole lot of money. The “state” has plenty, the little guy is handicapped from the word go.
Taking grievances to court takes a whole lot of money. The “state” has plenty, the little guy is handicapped from the word go.
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
John Pepper, the creator of the Pepper Popper target, told me that when he was a kid, he'd shoot apples out of friends' hands with his .22 rifle. After he joined the NRA and discovered that shooting target held by people was taboo, he stopped and his friends all complained.
You have to be real careful not to mistake correlation with causation or even directionality.
I spent a good part of my career working with data analysis, and more importantly working with data analysts to ensure they didn’t fall in that trap, especially when it was politically expedient.
You’ve presented a mixed bag of conflicting factors and information.
For example large cities like DC, NY, Chicago, etc have historically been cities where it’s difficult or impossible to get a concealed carry permit. That’s because the governing bodies on those cities think restricting access to handguns will reduce gun violence. That’s clearly not the case.
At the other extreme you cite constitutional carry states with low homicide rates. SD now falls in that category, but it’s always had low homicide rates and had high rates (consistently in the t 2-3 nationally) of concealed carry long before Constitutional carry came along.
The differences in crime rates and homicide rates in particular come down to population density, which is very closely associated with increased crime, increase gang activity and increased homicide rates.
To a lesser but still significant extent crime rates also follow the the probability of encountering a victim who might be armed. If you look at DC and the adjacent counties in MD and VA and their respective crime rates you see sharp drops from DC to MD and then again from MD to VA as concealed carry permits go from nonexistent/very rare, to rare to common.
When I transferred to DC in 2007, the respective homicide rates were 21, 14 and 7 per 100,000.
——
In short, there are a number of factors and the ease at which a law abiding citizen can conceal carry is a big factor in reducing homicide rates - when everything else is equal. But things are often not equal and you have to account for that on any interpretation of the data.
The research done several years ago regarding potential for armed citizens to be convicted of a crime, relative to police officers and the general public made a clear case that properly vetted armed citizens are extremely unlikely to commit a crime, on the order of 20 times less than the general public and 3 times less than police officers.
It’s yet to be demonstrated that people who choose to conceal carry firearms in Constitutional Carry states will show a similarly very low rate of conviction for misdemeanors and felonies.
You can complain about training requirements but more training and education on the laws pertaining to the use of deadly forces is usually better than less training.
For example, I saw a customer come in and complain that some one had reached around and grabbed a $20 bill out of his hand in a convenience store and ran off. Another customer commented how he’d have been within his legal rights to shoot the thief. Shoot an unarmed suspect. Over $20.
That’s not only a patently stupid statement, in NC it’s also clearly illegal as deadly force is north authorized in defense of property. Anyone who has sat through the required use of deadly force training in NC to get their concealed carry permit has both heard it and passed a written test on it.
But the day NC goes to Constitutional Carry, that idiot will be able to conceal carry, and that’s not a great thing. He can still open carry, but at least we’re all able to see it, ask ourselves “why doesn’t he have a concealed carry permit?” and keep an eye on him.
I’m not a fan of the cost of a concealed carry permit in NC as by the time you add it all up, it’s in the $250-$300 range. I’d like to see state sponsored no cost training and more reasonable permit fees,
However, it is reasonable to expect citizens to be reasonably competent and understand the laws of the state while exercising their right to bear arms. One of the fundamental tenets of western civilization is that each of our rights comes with a commensurate responsibility to wield that right in a manner that doesn’t violate or infringe the rights of others. Way too many people on both sides of the fence prefer to conveniently ignore personal responsibility aspect of the social contract that exists in civilized societies.
I taught 3 to 5 Iterations of Intro to Criminal Justice in community College from 2003 to 2013. When we would get to 'affirmative defenses,' every class would have students who thought you could shoot people for trespassing or another favorite, "...shoot them and drag them inside." EVERY CLASS.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
A rural New Mexico Sheriff friend once told me the bane of his existence was people shooting at trespassers. He would ask them why they did it and the reaction was usually: I tolt you already - THEY WAS ON MY LAND!
Then there's this....
A California man who allegedly shot a Black man who was walking to the grocery store in what prosecutors called an "unprovoked attack" has been charged with felony assault, NBC News reports.
Mark Waters, 66, was charged felony assault with a semi-automatic firearm resulting in great bodily injury and personal use of a firearm. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office says more charges may come as the investigation is looking into the incident as a possible hate crime.
The victim, who is 21-years-old, left the Airbnb he was renting to walk to the grocery store. He then saw Waters exit a home and “quickly approach him while holding a black handgun." When the victim turned to run, Waters fired a single shot which struck him in the leg.
Neighbor shoots Black Airbnb renter who was walking to the grocery store in 'unprovoked attack' - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism
A California man who allegedly shot a Black man who was walking to the grocery store in what prosecutors called an "unprovoked attack" has been charged with felony assault, NBC News reports.
Mark Waters, 66, was charged felony assault with a semi-automatic firearm resulting in great bodily injury and personal use of a firearm. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office says more charges may come as the investigation is looking into the incident as a possible hate crime.
The victim, who is 21-years-old, left the Airbnb he was renting to walk to the grocery store. He then saw Waters exit a home and “quickly approach him while holding a black handgun." When the victim turned to run, Waters fired a single shot which struck him in the leg.
Neighbor shoots Black Airbnb renter who was walking to the grocery store in 'unprovoked attack' - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism
Last edited:
Old Arkansawyer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- 4,750
Has intentional shooting been ruled out?
sigp220.45
US Veteran
When Bill Jordan killed fellow Border Patrol Officer John Rector in 1956 in the Chula Vista station, I wonder if people speculated it was a love triangle, or he was high on drugs, or if it was intentional.
Different times, for sure.
Different times, for sure.
A state police officer I worked with starting in recruit school had very recently been Air Force Security Police. He killed a Marine in their guardpost because the guy went nuts and was about to shoot everyone at the checkpoint. Excrement happens in the human zoo.
- Status
