[Drizzt]

Man challenges right to bear arms in public

By Cynthia Fugate

Flyer Staff Writer

DANVILLE -- When Will Hutchins walked into the Hendricks County Courthouse Feb. 4 with a Colt .45-calibur semiautomatic handgun tucked in his belt, he says he didn't get what he bargained for -- he got a lot less.

Hutchens, 53 of Plainfield, says he walked up to a Hendricks County Sheriff's Deputy in the courthouse, informed him that he had the weapon and demanded to be cited for breaking a county ordinance prohibiting deadly weapons on the premises.

His goal, he says, is to challenge any law that prohibits him from carrying a firearm wherever he pleases. He says the ordinance is the government's way of infringing on his right to bear arms.

"It's my constitutional right to carry a gun in the courthouse, a park, anywhere I want," Hutchins said.

After receiving a citation, Hutchens was told not to return to court with the gun, but that's exactly what he did for his March 24 hearing. Deputies seized the weapon.

Hendricks County Attorney Greg Steuerwald is representing the county in the case because Hutchens has, so far, only violated a county ordinance.

"There are limitations on the Second Amendment, certainly they are for the public safety," Steuerwald said. "It's analogous to the First Amendment that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire."

Hutchins appeared before Hendricks Superior Court III Judge Karen Love, who told him, "If you ever bring a weapon into this court again, loaded or not, I will find you in contempt."

Hutchins requested a jury trial and asked Love to remove herself from the case on the grounds that she was one of four judges who authored the judicial order that firearms are prohibited in the courthouse. Judges Jeffrey V. Boles, David H. Coleman and Robert Freeze also signed the order.

Though Love warned Hutchins not to return with his weapon, he says that's exactly what he will do.

"It's my right as an American to carry a gun and that's exactly what I'm going to do," he said. "All the way to the Indiana State Supreme Court, if I have to."

Steuerwald says this is the first instance that a Hendricks County resident has challenged the order.

"I believe citizens understand that reasonable limitations can be placed on the right to bear arms and carrying a loaded pistol into a courtroom is certainly one of those (limitations)," he said.

http://www.flyergroup.com/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=41391?hc_story

edited because I was working on a California project while doing this, and put the wrong state :o

[Standing Wolf]

"I believe citizens understand that reasonable limitations can be placed on the right to bear arms and carrying a loaded pistol into a courtroom is certainly one of those (limitations)," he said.

No civil rights in court rooms, eh? I wonder where that's tucked away in the Constitution.

[mons meg]

So you're saying he should have a right to carry a gun in a courtroom?

[HABU]

So you're saying he should have a right to carry a gun in a courtroom? Hellooooo, McFly!:D

Not only should he have the right to pack in a court room, he DOES have that right. As members have in their signature, What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Rights are not granted by the .gov. The .gov does not grant us the ability to seek the persuit of happiness, it is an inaliable right, for which we dont need permission.

[mons meg]

Hey, you are my density.

Anybody who thinks that rights are absolute, all the time, for everyone raise your hand. Now go pass out Berettas to all the violent felons. Is that what you meant? Of course not.

He has a right to pack a gun walking around town. But the judges have decided the only people in their courtrooms with guns will be duly appointed peace officers, etc. What's wrong with that?

[OF]

What's wrong with that?It's illegal, that's what.But the judges have decided the only people in their courtrooms with guns will be duly appointed peace officers, etc.The problem here is that the courtroom belongs to the people, not the judge, and judges don't get to make the law. The constitution is the law, and it's pretty clear about the whole thing. Judges are not above the law, they are bound by the law. They are in no way empowered to make 'decisions' about where and when anyone can do anything, let alone carry a gun.Anybody who thinks that rights are absolute, all the time, for everyone raise your hand. Now go pass out Berettas to all the violent felons. Is that what you meant? Of course not.I believe that if you are out of prison, if you have 'paid your debt to society', then you should have the protection of the constitution. The problem with this currently is, there are plenty of people out of prison who shouldn't be. The problem is with the justice system, not the Bill of Rights. The solution is to fix the justice system, not to 're-interpret' the Bill of Rights to temporarily make everyone feel better. Which is all the restriction on ex-cons owning guns is, a feel good measure. If the ex-con is going to shoot someone, what does he care if the gun is legal?

The point is, there is no need for these restrictions. And the ones we have that seem 'reasonable' only seem reasonable because of some other problem creating the issue. Such as violent predators walking the streets who should be locked up. If someone is such a menace that you can't trust them to own or possess a gun, what are they doing out of prison?

- Gabe

[WilderBill]

I wish him luck.
Being in the right does not always keep you out of trouble.

Did I start something with my sig line? :D

[Coronach]

It's illegal, that's what.No. You think it ought to be illegal. There is a pretty important distinction there.

In an ideal world, rights are absolute all of the time. This is not an ideal world. Guns are not allowed in court, and frankly, seeing as how courtrooms are populated with criminals who are present for trial, but are free on bond, I really don't have a problem with the restriction.

Nomex ON.

Mike

[Kcustom45]

Why does it have the (CA) in the title?
Since I live in Hendricks County I wish him the best of luck. I can't say that I agree with him completely, but...*shrugs sholders*

[Yohan]

What an idiot.

[Beorn]

I believe that if you are out of prison, if you have 'paid your debt to society', then you should have the protection of the constitution.
Ah, no.

If you are out of prison, that means that our extremely liberal court let you out of prison; overcrowding, incompetent litigators, apathetic judges, ignorant juries, an overworked parole system (that has enough idiocy of its own) are a few reasons for the above.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, then more power to you. But when you start violating the rights of others, you may very well lose some of your own.

I can respect no firearms in a courthouse. Too many violent individuals are present to ensure that 'only cool heads prevail'. I would trust many people on The High Road with a firearm in a courthouse, but the problem is, not everyone on this planet has sense. And sense is not entirely quantifiable, nor is it a pre-requisite for membership in the human race.

See, we know what's up, but not all of them know...

Spooky, ain't it?

[biere]

I would trust many people on The High Road with a firearm in a courthouse, but the problem is, not everyone on this planet has sense. And sense is not entirely quantifiable, nor is it a pre-requisite for membership in the human race.

See, we know what's up, but not all of them know...

Spooky, ain't it?

Above is from a post above.

I bust it down real simple.

If someone is in jail, they are paying their debt to society. If they are out, they are either inocent and arguing with a judge about their debt to society or they are inocent and not arguing with a judge and living their life.

Of course part of my problem comes from the hand picked juries that are not always told of the power they have.

I bust it down to the very basics.

And I feel a judge that thinks he needs to be above the basic rights of man is someone that should not be judgeing men.

Something about inocent till proven guilty seems to be my problem with judges wanting unarmed men coming to be told what their sentance will be.

but maybe that is me. And maybe that is how life will be.

[mons meg]

Look at it this way. There are certain kinds of people in a courthouse.

Cops - ok, they already have guns

Lawyers - ewww...

Criminals - ok, no.

Jurors - unlucky and/or not smart enough to get out of jury duty. :neener:

[Wildalaska]

I give the guy credit for standing up for what he perceives as right. I have waaay more respect for him than for the people who just blabber on and on about how gov't is infringing their rights blah blah blah and who do nothing to test the waters..

That being said, under any circumstances, he loses....not all rights are absolute..

Wildthefirstamdoesntletyousayf***youtoajudgeincourtdoesit?Alaska

[Blain]

That man is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO!!! We should all aspire to be as great as he. If we had a pair, maybe we could do the same and get our freedom back!

[S_O_Laban]

You gotta admitt that if 50 people did this as one this case might take on new significance, what about 200? Food for thought

[Ryder]

It's very dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
That's why people don't stand up for their rights.
Because they can be crushed by the obscene power of the government over it's citizens. (Sound like Iraq?)

What are judges worried about? They have bullet proof desks! What do you think they wear under those robes? Ballistic vests! They have armed guards besides access to their own weapons.

They are in very little danger. So what can the real reason be? Sure looks like judicail power is going to their heads. Obey the king! :uhoh: I guess in this case it is obey all the kings.

I like 2nd ammendment.

[Nightcrawler]

I guess in this case it is obey all the kings.

Have you openly violated any firearms laws and flaunted this fact in front of law enforcement, daring them to do something about it, as this man has, in an effort to change anything?

If not, I guess you're obeying the kings too, huh. :rolleyes:

[Jim March]

Sigh.

Yes of course he's right, technically.

The problem here is that he really doesn't know how to fight back effectively. They're just gonna eat him alive :(.

[Ryder]

Yeah I have Nightcrawler. Since you ask...

Charge: ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF A FIREARM.

They refused me a jury.

The judge told my lawyer BEFORE the trial to plead guilty or he would sentence me to the maximum 5 years in prison.

Then the Judge slept through the whole trial.

I testified to get my side of the whole freaking kangaroo trial on the record. I told the lawyer to appeal but he never filed the papers.

Have you stood up for your rights? Fact is you don't have any rights. But you won't know or believe that until you go through the nightmare of our "justice" system.

Your turn, lets hear about your great experiment in civil disobediance for the 2nd amendment. Sounds like it turned out a whole lot different than mine.

[Coronach]

I'll be blunt. That sounds quite doubtful. Refused you a jury trial, for a case in which you could be imprisoned? :scrutiny: A lawyer who just "never filed the paperwork?" :scrutiny: No followup appeals? Nothing? Where is El Tejon when you need him? El T? What say you?

Either you truly are on the other side of the iron curtain, or these facts are colored.

Mike

[OF]

No. You think it ought to be illegal. There is a pretty important distinction there.It's actually the opposite of what you said. Because you, and many many others - incl. the judges, think it should be illegal for law abiding citizens to carry firearms in courtrooms, it is currently "illegal" and is enforced as such. This is in contradiction to the real law, the Constitution, which says very plainly that judges and legislators have no power to restrict when or where the citizens of the United States can carry their firearms.

The Constitution is clear on this issue. Unconstitutional laws are null and void from day one. Laws restricting people from carrying firearms are illegal. Just because the status quo doesn't respect that, doesn't mean it isn't so.

So, you're right. It's a pretty clear distinction. Just not the way you layed it out.

Ah, no.

If you are out of prison, that means that our extremely liberal court let you out of prison; overcrowding, incompetent litigators, apathetic judges, ignorant juries, an overworked parole system (that has enough idiocy of its own) are a few reasons for the above.Your text here lays out pretty well some of the problems in the justice system we have currently and why there are people on the street who we feel uncomfortable restoring their rights to. So, what's the solution to this problem? Rewriting the 2nd to mean something it doesn't? Or fixing the problems you cited above?

The point is, there are real-world problems with implementing a true-to-intent 2nd Amendment. The shame is that instead of trying to preserve the rights, we seek to take the easy way out and restrict the right to accomodate our failures in other areas.

- Gabe

[Drjones]

Wow.

This guy has you-know-whats the size of CHURCH BELLS.

And they are SOLID BRASS.

Wow.

What a real, American Man.

I wish more of us would do that.

I'd buy him a few beers if I met him...

[DeltaElite]

Yah, what a great idea, let Mr and Mrs Mook carry guns to their divorce proceeding so they can shoot people when one of them doesn't get the boat or the summer house. :rolleyes:

While we are at it, let's let Robert Blake carry a gun to court for his murder trial. He made bail, so why shouldn't he be allowed to? :rolleyes:

We have people try to go after the judge for losing a traffic ticket, they should have a gun in court also. :rolleyes:

Never let logic or reality cloud your judgement. Just mindlessly recite the 2A. :D

[Ryder]

Hi Coronach,

Thanks for the kind doubts. Didn't seem too blunt to me. :) I can give more info in regards to your suspicions. No rant, just facts. Perhaps some among us can benefit from it.

Certain juristictions develop into "good old boy" gangs after years of working together and they work together to get unjust convictions of honest people. It's called railroading and any one of us as a single person has no chance of winning a case in that kind of environment. :banghead:

Being not a lawyer and young I had little choice but to believe what I was told by my lawyer. I know the whole bunch got together for lunch after the case and had a good laugh at my expense (my brother-in-law was a deputy). I believe this is the reason my lawyer failed to file the papers. Papers which I was informed had a deadline and that I entrusted him to meet. For all I know that deadline for filing was just another lie. I found out about it shortly after the claimed deadline by asking wasn't there something I needed to sign for the appeal. I talked to him once after the trial, before the deadline, about some payment stuff and he never let on that I was going to be ignored. I became extremely depressed upon hearing of this and knowing what I had already been through I just flat out gave up on receiving any justice at the hands of such a worthless system. :mad:

I was told by my lawyer that jury trials are based on the severity of the crime and since there was no "crime" in my case a jury was not an option. I did have a trial and I did have NO JURY. Can you get a jury for every trial? Heck if I know! I am not a liar for telling you about a lie if that is the case. You do cause me to wonder the way you state it. If you doubt the judge threatened me before the trial I don't know what to tell you. There is no way to prove that. Believe it or don't. I can offer explanations or theories but defending my honesty is a really strange concept. :confused:

I'll not bother to list the numerous lies told by police officers who testified some of which were not even involved in the arrest. Lies against which I forced my lawyer to speak up and defend me. He did prove me innocent of those lies with cross examination. They gave verbal testimony that was even at odds with the written arrest report. It was like two different cases and very easily accomplished. Never a perjury charge filed. It is trully sickening to be dragged through such a thing. I think I would have preferred physical torture. Did I mention that the cops wrote a confession for me to sign? Now there's some Iron Curtain material for you! :barf:

The only true thing in the whole arrest report was where I was quoted as saying "That law sucks". This law no longer exists in this state and since I have out-survived everyone involved I care not to keep picking the scab any longer, it is a painful memory. I have a perfectly clean record these days and I've fought my windmill. :cool:

Maybe if we all took one little bite at this assault on our 2nd amendment rights such as Mr. Hutchins things would get better for us? Though indirectly, I like to think I did my small part since the law I challenged was eventually changed. Somebody elses turn now to jump on the horse now. :D

Still waiting to hear from Nightcrawler. I am beginning to think he might be one of the king's guards to have insulted me in such an obtuse manner. Here's one back for you worm guy :rolleyes:.

I stand by my belief that judges have nothing to worry about (at least from me) if they make rulings based on law, it is straying from the rule of law that they have cause to fear. Spoken from experience.

If somebody wants to kill somebody else they can still do it outside of court. What good are bans only in court then? This can only be resolved by bans everywhere.

[MitchSchaft]

Yohan,
What an idiot.

You've already used your "get outta jail free" card.
What's your excuse this time? :neener:

[Coronach]

It's actually the opposite of what you said. Because you, and many many others - incl. the judges, think it should be illegal for law abiding citizens to carry firearms in courtrooms, it is currently "illegal" and is enforced as such. This is in contradiction to the real law, the Constitution, which says very plainly that judges and legislators have no power to restrict when or where the citizens of the United States can carry their firearms.

The Constitution is clear on this issue. Unconstitutional laws are null and void from day one. Laws restricting people from carrying firearms are illegal. Just because the status quo doesn't respect that, doesn't mean it isn't so.

So, you're right. It's a pretty clear distinction. Just not the way you layed it out.Uhm, no. Under our justice system, as currently constituted, courts interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. Unless the US Supreme court (or one of your local district courts) hears a case and agrees with you, the aforementioned is your opinion and little more. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, but thats the way it is. You may think that a law should be unconstitutional, but until it is ruled so, it isn't, by definition.

Ryder:

I'm confused. You were tired for Illegal Transportation of a firearm? What was the penalty? What degree was the crime? What state was this? If what you say is true, fine. Nothing there makes sense, however. I'm familiar with the idea of the courtroom work group, but that sounds like a a situation begging for a lawsuit or a federal investigation.

Mike

[Ryder]

What was the penalty? What degree was the crime? What state was this?

This was over 20 years ago in Michigan. "Illegal transportation of a firearm" was just revised. There used to be only a few acceptable reasons for having a firearm in a vehicle. Even unloaded and locked in a case in your trunk was a no go except for these exceptions:

- Transporting home from the store after purchase.
- Transporting to or from a certified gunsmith.
- Transporting to or from a range with membership.
- Transport to or from the police station for registration.
- Transport to or from the woods with a hunting license.

My crime was being in possesion of my own (legally registered) property. Pretty rediculous law that makes it illegal to even transport a gun over to a friend or family's house to shoot on their private range.

Lawyer said "any gun violation is a mandatory 5 year felony". Is that what you mean by degree? I got a delayed sentence (of 5 years) with one year probation. That means (according to what I was told) my record would be clean after successful completion of the probation. That's just plain irresistable considering how cold the water turned out to be and the fact that I had a young family to support which would not have been possible if I plead innocent because I would have been appealing from prison. The probation was only offered as an alternative to the judge's threat after I told them I was taking it to the Superme Court on 2'nd amendment grounds. I kind of whimped out wanting to stay free while appealing. Never got the chance.

BTW - I had to play the system again to clear my record 16 years later. I didn't know that they lied about that. Toooooo many lies! Do you know how many of those federal gun forms I unintentionally falsified because of that? Too many!!! I bought a bunch of pistols and rifles. I even had a concealed permit issued (3 years after the trial) while that felony was in my record! Pretty loose MO they practice around here protecting us from ourselves.

Judges don't care one bit if the law is right or wrong, they don't want to hear it. More like "did you do it? Too bad". This is the problem anyone fighting a "carrying a gun in court" charge would face, especially when the judge is among those who made the proclamation.

Any criminal too dangerous not to be allowed a gun in court should not be walking in of his own free will in the first place! We have had a few court house murders here recently. They happen in the parking lots. Could it be the criminal knows their victims will be disarmed by law and when to expect to find them there? This is very bad. I can see that discouraging people from using the system to address their grievances. What's that lead to?

[org]

So...if the congress passes a law that makes it illegal for anyone for any reason to defend himself against life threatening attack, and the supreme court upholds that law, it's valid?

Don't think so. Simply putting black robes on someone doesn't make him omnipotent, even if some judges think so.

Coronach, generally I agree with you, but this is the kind of thinking that's turned the UK into the mess that it is.

[OF]

You may think that a law should be unconstitutional, but until it is ruled so, it isn't, by definition.I think we have a minor communication problem, I'm pretty sure we're almost on the same page here... A law is either unconstitutional or it isn't. It has nothing to do with what I think or how the judges 'interpret' that law. The judicial branch is not deciding if a law is constitutional, they are verifying that a law is constitutional. The constitutionality of the law is a concrete property of that law from the moment it is becomes law. This is why when a law is found to be unconstitutional by the courts, it is null and void from the time it was enacted. Not just from that day forward.

If there was a machine that could rubber-stamp laws as a yes or no as they rolled off the legislative assembly line, that would be preferable to the court determining constitutionality. Just because a judge says something is so, doesn't make it so. It forces (or allows) the gov't treat it as so, but they (the gov't) don't get the last word.Never let logic or reality cloud your judgement. Just mindlessly recite the 2A.Sure thing, buddy. If anyone can be said to have a mindless contribution to this thread, it was your post. If you have some logic to contribute, be my guest. Short of that, keep your insults to yourself.

- Gabe

[Mike Irwin]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

Even the Founding Fathers recognized that not all rights were absolute.

[org]

Mike, the biggest, hardest question is: where do you draw the line and who draws it? If the courts say you are free to exercise your rights only on the fourth Tuesday of each month while swimming in the pool at the Holiday Inn, are they still rights? If they are at the pleasure of government officials, are they rights or privileges? The only thing that makes sense is that rights by their very definition ARE absolute unless that right conflicts with another.

I can't see how the carrying of arms conflicts with anyone's other rights. No rights are in conflict unless the arms are used, which is in most cases covered in law.

As another (can't remember who) asked, do you remove someone's tongue because he MIGHT yell fire in a theater? Is there a difference in the 1st and 2nd that I am missing?

[OF]

Well, when the document says things like "Congress shall make no law..."; "shall not be infringed"; "shall not be violated"; etc. it would appear that the intent was very much to 'make absolute' those rights that are qualified with terms like 'shall not be violated'. Call me crazy, but when the man says 'congress shall make no law' I think that means congress shall make NO LAW, period.

Let’s put the 'crowded theater' angle to rest right now. Why are you subject to arrest for yelling fire in a crowded theater? It is because you are infringing on the rights of others, namely the property rights of the paying patrons and the business owner. You most certainly could yell fire in a crowded theater if that was, say, part of the audience participation segment of a play. So, there is a good reason you can’t yell fire, and it has nothing to do with 'infringements' or 'rights are not absolute'. There is nothing about the 'crowded theater' argument that provides for the conclusion 'rights are not absolute' or provides proof that the legislature or the judiciary can infringe on your rights at will simply because they 'are not absolute'. They are absolute. They are your rights. But when your exercise of those rights intersects the rights of others, you, as the antagonist, lose. You have the absolute right to speak freely. And you will absolutely be held accountable for what you do or say - after you say it, not before. You can be arrested because it is the sole purpose of gov't to protect the rights of the citizens. When you are arrested for yelling fire, it is because you have willfully infringed on the rights of the patrons and owner. It is their absolute rights that are being protected through the vehicle of your arrest.

Again, the legislature and the courts have no power to infringe on your right to bear arms. In the courtroom, in the gallery or in the post office. And some people being 'uncomfortable' with other people carrying guns in court is not justification for an infringement. Disarming people because of what you think they might do is prior restraint and it is unconstitutional.

Prohibitions on carrying firearms in a courtroom are a clear infringement of the 2nd Amendment, and the 'rights are not absolute' comment does not provide cover for infringements that the majority of people or some judges think make sense to them. So unless someone here can prove to me that the constitution provides for that infringement, I ain't buying. Scary stories of how divorcees will be gunned down by their husbands does not qualify as proof, obviously.

Now you may still be all for the prohibition on carrying arms in the courtroom, but don't try and pretend that it's constitutional, because it isn't. We can argue all day over whether carrying arms in court is a good idea or not, but it is most certainly your right to do so.

If we're worried about people shooting judges over traffic fines, maybe we should rethink the fines. After all, that is the point of an armed populace, isn't it?

- Gabe

[BogBabe]

Yah, what a great idea, let Mr and Mrs Mook carry guns to their divorce proceeding so they can shoot people when one of them doesn't get the boat or the summer house.

While we are at it, let's let Robert Blake carry a gun to court for his murder trial. He made bail, so why shouldn't he be allowed to?

We have people try to go after the judge for losing a traffic ticket, they should have a gun in court also.

This sounds just like what the anti-gun liberals always say. We can't let your average Joe/Jane carry firearms, because at the slightest provocation they'll pull out their gun and shoot everyone in sight.

As an aside, I'm a little iffier about Blake than the other examples -- but then, Blake is, in fact, innocent until and unless proven guilty. Is his right to self-defense, while going to and from the trial, forfeit just because the gov't accused him of a crime?

[voilsb]

While we are at it, let's let Robert Blake carry a gun to court for his murder trial. He made bail, so why shouldn't he be allowed to?well, he is innocent until he has been proven guilty. so I think he should be treated as if he were innocent until proven guilty.

what if he didn't actually murder anybody, and he was being set up b/c someone had a grudge? then he's found innocent, and after he leaves the courthouse he's attacked? should he be allowed to defend himself?

what if Christian Brando (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/02/09/26a.html) really did it, and someone who thinks Mr. Blake did it decides to carry out justice as they see fit as Blake leaves the courthouse?

(I have very little information on this case, but it doesn't matter because you can use any names you want and the scenario still applies.)

[Coronach]

I think we have a minor communication problem, I'm pretty sure we're almost on the same page here... A law is either unconstitutional or it isn't. It has nothing to do with what I think or how the judges 'interpret' that law. The judicial branch is not deciding if a law is constitutional, they are verifying that a law is constitutional. The constitutionality of the law is a concrete property of that law from the moment it is becomes law. This is why when a law is found to be unconstitutional by the courts, it is null and void from the time it was enacted. Not just from that day forward. Lets deal with the last point first. Since the law in question has yet to be found unconstitutional, the rest of the discussion is moot. I understand what you're trying to say- if a court decides that a law or a state action is unconstitutional, all similar actions, either predating or postdating the decision is also unconstitutional. A constitutional lawyer (which I am not) might want to adjust that a little, but lets go with that for the moment. Thats fine...but thus far no court has ruled that the law in question is unconstitutional...or found it to be unconstitutional, or whatever verb you may wish to apply. So, by definition, it is not unconstitutional.

As to the rest of your argument (re: yelling fire in a crowded theater), I find that logic to be novel. I'll not address it here for 2 reasons...1. It, again, is moot, given the aforementioned lack of case law support and 2. I'm in a bit of a hurry and don't want to get into it at the moment.

Mike

[DeltaElite]

Under your logic system, inmates at jails and prisons should be allowed to carry firearms, since they still have the right to self defense.
How can we "infringe" upon a convicts right to self defense, just because he is incarcerated.
People are innocent until proven guilty, but that has no bearing on whether they can carry a gun into a court room, jail, police station, etc.
The court room is no place for armed confrontations between legal opponents, so a ban on weapons is both reasonable and logical.

Actually, the conditions of release or bail for someone like Mr Blake include a prohibition on weapons possession, which he has to agree to in order to get out of jail.

As for the arguments parallelling the antis argument against citizens carry, the two are apples and oranges.
One is a specific building, the other is society at large.
Even though the courts are of the people and for the people, they are legal property of the govt and the govt has the right as a property owner to prohibit weapons at courts, jails, police stations, etc.
I don't believe they have the right to do so to society at large as they do in several fascist states in this union.

I know a small faction disagrees with the ban of weapons in the court room, but some people still think the Earth is flat. :)

[LiquidTension]

The constitution DOES say "...shall not be infringed." Many of you are saying that some people should not be allowed to carry. You are saying that we need reasonable restrictions. Diane Feinswine also wants reasonable restrictions. Watch yourselves.

Now before someone says that I'm in favor of murderers having firearms, let me go ahead and cut you off. I'm simply stating what the Constitution says, I am neither condoning it nor condemning it.

[Coronach]

ah, the forced dichotomy. Or, the slippery slope, depending on how the argument is made. Suffice it to say that I am no Diane Feinstein, but I also do not think that it is unreasonable to limit the carrying of weaponry into a court of law.

I exist quite happily in shades of gray, thanks. ;)

Mike

[Wildalaska]

I exist quite happily in shades of gray, thanks

A voice of reason in the wilderness....

WildthankyouAlaska

[Zander]

If there was a machine that could rubber-stamp laws as a yes or no as they rolled off the legislative assembly line, that would be preferable to the court determining constitutionality.For decades, legislation has been introduced each and every year mandating that any proposed legislation introduced in the House of Lords and/or the House of Commons show its relevant authority under the US Constitution.

As you might expect, each and every year, such a needed prohibition/criterion never makes it out of committee.

That's the fault of us American citizens...

[tyme]

It's rather amusing that the dallas courthouse I went to last year for jury duty had rather decent security, but the SFO Bryant St. courthouse did not. I went in there probably a dozen times, and at least half of those times there was either nobody sitting by the metal detectors or they were letting people put closed bags on the table, walk through, and pick them up without checking.

I say each citizen should be required to bring a concealed handgun to jury duty. If any of them volunteer to security that they have a handgun or do something moronic like walk through a metal detector with the gun on their belt and get caught, they have to leave, wait a while, and try again. If all 12 members of a jury get their firearms confiscated (temporarily - until they leave), the judge can prohibit firearms in that courtroom. Otherwise, anything goes.

I bet less than 1% of non-federal courtrooms would be able to have firearms banned the first day such a policy went into effect unless the courthouse security officers were alerted to the policy.

[twoblink]

I think Colorado did something like put in a (show which article in the state constitution grants you the power) but I am not too sure.

But I think this is the first thing that needs to get done. All other points seem to fall by the wayside; as judges give their opinions as the law...

I think this guy has brass the size of church bells as well; but I don't think he is up to the task of taking on the biggest mofia in the world; the US government. So unfortunately for him, I think he is going to get strung up and used as an example. :(

[OF]

Thats fine...but thus far no court has ruled that the law in question is unconstitutional...or found it to be unconstitutional, or whatever verb you may wish to apply. So, by definition, it is not unconstitutional.But that's just the thing, it is unconstitutional. It's just not acknowledged by the gov't as such until the court gets around to looking at it. If you are imprisoned for disobeying an unconstitutional law between the time it is passed and the court rules on it, you are falsely imprisoned. That imprisonment is false from the moment you are arrested, it does not magically become unjust only when the court decides to recognize it as unjust.

It is the people's responsibility to know what the constitution allows. The judiciary is one of the 'checks and balances' that is, supposed to be, there to check the power-grabbing of the legislature. But who checks the judiciary? We do. Laws prohiting the carrying of arms are unconstitutional. Period. It has nothing to do with what the court says or doesn't say. The court is not in charge.

==Under your logic system, inmates at jails and prisons should be allowed to carry firearms, since they still have the right to self defense.
How can we "infringe" upon a convicts right to self defense, just because he is incarcerated. Nothing I have said would lead you to that conclusion. Inmates, obviously, have their rights on hold. Inmates have been stripped of their rights as consequence of actions they have taken that caused them to be arrested and incarcerated in order to protect the rights of others. Grandma stepping foot in the courtroom to pay her parking ticket has not done anything to justify her rights being curtailed. The court room is no place for armed confrontations between legal opponents, so a ban on weapons is both reasonable and logical.How about: 'The freeway is no place for shootouts between motorists involved in accidents, so it is both reasonable and logical to prohibit the carrying of arms in vehicles on state roads. And since the state roads are the "property of the gov't" (as you said in your post), the state is within their "rights" to enforce that prohibition.' The fact is, we can argue about the reasonable part, as that is subjective, but it is certainly not logical. On top of that, it is unconstitutional.Even though the courts are of the people and for the people, they are legal property of the govt and the govt has the right as a property owner to prohibit weapons at courts, jails, police stations, etc.The gov't has no rights. The gov't is the property of the people. The gov't can not claim to have it's rights infringed upon because it has no rights, it has powers. And only those powers as are bestowed upon it by the people.

Again, so we can stop with the unconstructive 'flat earth' jabs, we can certainly argue whether or not arms in the courtroom are a good idea or not. My only point (so far ;)) is that the prohibition on arms in the courtroom is clearly unconstitutional. I'm still waiting for anyone to provide any argument or evidence to the contrary. When we have established that, we can move on to whether or not it's a good idea.

- Gabe

[cordex]

I'd be interested to see a valid argument against CCW in a courtroom that does not mirror garden variety anti-gun talking points. Not sure I'm so comfortable with the stereo effect I'm hearing with the "blood will run in the streets" bit coming from both sides.

"You can't CCW in hospitals!" or "you mean you want to carry a gun at a church?!?" or "if you carry a pistol at a school you will surely shoot up a classroom!" or "every minor car accident will turn into a massacre!" or "if you take a gun into a courthouse you must be there to blast the judge and prosecutor".

I'd support a regulation saying that if you are the subject of a criminal trial, you could be denied CCW in a courtroom if the prosecutor requests it. Still, contrary to popular belief, not every person who goes into a courthouse is on trial for murder.

[Coronach]

But that's just the thing, it is unconstitutional.According to...whom?

You.

And likely many people here on THR as well.

Fine.

Democratic Underground thinks it isn't.

So. We have a disagreement. Which, incidentally, is what the courts settle. So, we're back around at the beginning point of your merry-go-round of an argument. The courts have not ruled in your (our?) favor on this. They may be right to have ruled as they did, they may be wrong to have ruled as they did, or they may be right or wrong to have not granted certiorari to the case (as too often happens)...but the fact remains that until the courts end up ruling "your way" on a case, your opinion on what is and isn't constitutional is just that- your opinion. None of us are sovereign, I'm sorry to inform you.

Mike

[OF]

It's not a merry-go-round, Mike, except for you dragging us back to this 'my opinion' 'your opinion' thing. Yeah, it's my opinion, so what? That's not evidence of truth and I never presented it as such, so lets move on. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't, but don't pretend there's no answer here other than some silly 'he said/she said' impass.

The 2nd is very clear. The starting position is: any prohibition on the carrying of arms is unconstitutional. That's what the document says. You say that a certain prohibition is not unconstitutional. Fine. Prove it.

Lets try picking this up and getting past the 'my opinion/your opinion' roadblock. We're at the point now where you are arguing that a law is only unconstitutional if the court says it is. I'm arguing that a law is either unconstitutional or not, and all the court ruling does is officially acknowledge or deny that status for the purposes of gov't enforcement.

So, I said:

"If you are imprisoned for disobeying an unconstitutional law between the time it is passed and the court rules on it, you are falsely imprisoned."

Is our hypothetical prisoner falsely imprisoned or not? If he is, why?


- Gabe

[Coronach]

We are talking past each other.

You are taking your view of the constitution and the 2nd Amendment as being correct, by fiat. Whether it is or is not 'correct' is not relevant, unless you are a sovereign (which you are not). What is relevant is that the justice system of the USA does not recognize the laws or state actions in question as unconstitutional. Right or wrong, the case law is what determines constitutionality, not your (or my) opinions, thoughts or fervent desires.

Sir, you're more than welcome to continue in this manner, but, in my opinion, your argument relies upon sophistry, and I'm not going to bore the readers by upholding my end of the 'debate' any further.

Good day,
Mike

[org]

The bottom line: the second is in plain language, basic English. It doesn't take a lawyer to "interpret" it.

My original question was "who draws the line." If you say the courts have the power to tell us what every line of the Bill of Rights means, even when they obviously are wrong, then the constitution (which is a LIMITATION on the power of government) is meaningless. The courts after all are a part of that very government the constitution limits. Saying they have absolute power to decide that a very clear passage in the constitution means something other than it says takes the Judiciary from being a branch of government to being the supreme rulers of the country.

I know that's what the courts have been in the past few decades, but I don't think they were meant to have the power they wield today. In the early days of the country they didn't.

[GSB]

"It's analogous to the First Amendment that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire."

Probably already been mentioned, but for the last frickin' time, yes you CAN run into a crowded theater and yell fire -- and you probably should, it there actually is a fire. You can be prosecuted if you yell fire and there is none, but nobody is somehow stopping you physically from yelling it if your little heart desires.

[labgrade]

A courts' "interpretation" (I do hate that word in this context) would be a clear reading of the constitution based on what it just says & on historical documentation on what the founders meant.

Seems pretty clear to me that none of that is happening any longer.

"Courts" are appointed (for life likely) by those latest in power to adjudicate for "legislative reasons" - allow a "judicial interpretation" of what they wished they could have passed through the legislature, but couldn't.

Makes the whole system out o' whack.

"Constitutional" used to mean that it passed constitutional muster. These days, it merely means that The 9 refused to view the case, that someone with "good hair" has decided such to be true.

Case in point is the 9th Circuit. Can we perhaps agree that these nut-jobs have very much so bastardized what we used to think that we had as rights?

Thought as much.

These "activists" have really put a crimp on y'all's flavor of life based on what they believe, & nothing to do with what the constitution says.

Other Circuit Courts have ruled consistantly contrary to their rulings & the 9th is the most overturned ever.

Why? Because even The 9 think that the 9th is full of crazed folk. ;)

So, have they been correct in their rulings & assumptions? Obvioiusly not (through the desenting rulings from higher courts), BUT, in the meantime, you are under "constitutional law" - until decided otherwise.

Or not?

We all know the answer, just yakkin' it up to make conversation.

Far as the original post:

""There are limitations on the Second Amendment, certainly they are for the public safety," Steuerwald said. "It's analogous to the First Amendment that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire." "

& again. Of course you can yell "Fire!," if there is one. The analogy falls short in that yelling fire when there is nore is potentially harmfull, yelling fire when there is, is potentionally life-saving. Mere possession of said firearm implies no threat whatsoever.

& isn't that what the second used to mean?

Our side of the slippery slope seems to make mention that we cannot be trusted with the possession of a firearm - but just in certain instances.

& in some, I would agree. I too live in that grey shade, but we are our worst enemy when we assume somehow that we, or perhaps just some, are to be more trusted than others - sometimes.

As an aside. At 16, I was "trusted" to carry a 20 gauge shotgun w/ammo on a domestic commercial flight. At 45, I was "trusted" to carry a pocket knife on an international commercial flight .... now I will never again fly commercial because they don't trust me to file my own fingernails.

So much for the slippery slope & trust.

That the slope exists, is not in dispute. That we have furthered it is as well.

Do be careful what you wish for.

[DeltaElite]

If govt property is not private property and the govt has no rights concerning that property, then why do we arrest people for damaging govt property if it is really their own property? ;)


I am beginning to think you guys are right, a guy on trial for murder should be allowed to be armed when the jury reads its verdict, that way he can mow them down also when he is found guilty. :D
All in the name of the 2A, yanno? ;)

[OF]

If govt property is not private property and the govt has no rights concerning that property, then why do we arrest people for damaging govt property if it is really their own property?Good point. :)a guy on trial for murder should be allowed to be armed when the jury reads its verdict, that way he can mow them down also when he is found guilty.Not if the jurors draw first.

- Gabe

[DeltaElite]

LOL :D
Armed Jurors, maybe they could pass sentence also. ;)

[OF]

It sure would save us all alot of money and headache.

- Gabe

[amprecon]

First off, let me say that I have chosen Gabe's side in this "discussion". Some people will believe what they will and no amount of evidence or proof will change their minds.

For the sake of brevity I will not quote the 2nd Amendment here, for we are very well of what it says, however, some are confounded by "other" interpretations.

I am a practical person, I have logic and reason, I like to believe that I think about things before I make decisions. To make sound judgement and sound decisions you have to have a foundation, to acquire a foundation you must learn your history.

Once you learn the history, then you better understand why things are the way they are and have a guide to plot your course. You will be better equipped to make sound and proper decisions aligned with your community, your country.

I'm afraid that many Americans have not learned or have forgotten their American history. These rights were not made up by men (founding fathers), they were identified by them. They were identified and then written down on a guiding document as a foundation for the future.

Man has no right or obligation regarding the rationing or metering out of these rights because the rights do not belong to them to do so with.

These rights worry authorities, because it threatens their goal of an unthreatened authority, so they try to justify their acquisition of power with the excuse of safety for the people. When in all actuality, they are trying to reduce the threat to their acquisition and retention of more power.

For the people who agree that rights should be regulated, do you also believe that all predators should be defanged and declawed because they pose a possible threat to humans?

It's absurd and ridiculous. As for the court problems and prison overcrowding, let me say this, if the vicitims were not debarred the use of arms or if they had chosen to have and use them where not debarred, would our prisons be overcrowded today?

Who is the government to not trust the entity that endows them with that power? It's absurd and obnoxious. I suggest that every person have a gun as is the intent of the right, those that abuse their right will be dealt with by others who are responsible with the right.

To choose which places are appropriate or inappropriate to have a gun is to say that the right is non-existent, because criminals do not abide by laws and will profit in places where guns are not appropriate.

Either way, I understand that the 2nd amendment affirms something that God has given me, the ability to defend myself. It can be argued until judgement day and it can be ruled illegal. Regardless, I will continue to do what is necessary to protect my family and my person regardless of illegitimate laws.

[labgrade]

DE,

"LOL
Armed Jurors, maybe they could pass sentence also. "

Perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but quite likely the degradation of our "criminal justice system" has also contributed to our decline, huh?

It all goes hand-in-hand & w/o swift, sure punishment, we'll continue to have nut-jobs running about loose, causing not only personal, but societal harm.

[Justin Moore]

Call me crazy, but when the man says 'congress shall make no law' I think that means congress shall make NO LAW, period.

I guess it all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' IS? ;)

[DeltaElite]

labgrade,
Our legal system is a farce and has definitely contributed to our societal decline.
It gets worse in the courts everyday.

[Pappy John]

Exercising my 2A rights on a daily basis and having lived 46 years without seeing the inside a courtroom, how bent out of shape should I be about defendents in a criminal case not being able to be armed while thier case is tried? grumble, grumble, grumble....something about picking fights that are worthwhile