2nd Amendment Question

[Cyborg]

"Inalienable Rights"

Beautiful words but they are no more real than "sea level". There is no "right" that anyone has that cannot be taken away by someone else with the ability, the means and the will to utilize superior force.

Life? A large caliber hollow point in the upper left chest will put paid to that.

Liberty? A gun to the head and a set of manacles will take care of that. Or do you suppose that the black Africans who were forcibly immigrated to the Americas volunteered to travel under the deplorable conditions and then be treated as sub-human property?

Persuit of happiness? Define it and I suspect I'll come up with a way to keep you from it.

People, the constitution means exactly what the Supreme Court Of the United States SAYS it means! If SCOTUS decides that there is a "Right to privacy" in the constitution then there is - until a later court says there isn't. If SCOTUS says the 2A is a corporate right then it is. It matters not what you or I or anyone else believes, SCOTUS, as final arbiter of all constitutional issues, is the de facto the supreme law of the land. The only alternative is a revolution. And boys and girls, you're gonna have to figure out another way to fight besides open field battles (ain't no way a militia can defeat a well trained/equipped standing army at that - look at our own revolution) or urban warfare. In the latter case our troops are probably the best trained, best equipped, most experienced and proficient urban warfare troops in the world. Even if we had access to the full range of military weaponry winning such a revolution would be doubtful at best.

Or we can find a way to get most all of what we want not and work to make things better later on. Half rations are better than starvation. Not a lot, I grant you, but they can keep you alive till you can secure full rations once more. It rankles me to say it but better a live jackal than a dead lion. Alive I can protect my family to at least some extent. Dead I cannot protect them at all. Even if I had to jump through hoops, if I got to carry openly it would be better than what we have today.

If the incoming administration via legislation passed by congress and approved by SCOTUS decides to take up all guns in the country they bloody well will do it - AND IT WILL BE LEGAL. Hopefully they will not have the political will to do that. So they pass a new "permanent" AWB. Guess what, amigos? Ain't nothing in Washington DC permanent! Pendulums swing both ways. Anything done by the new administration can be undone by subsequent administrations.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm looking for the authorization in the Constitution for the Court to wield this power. ..I want to know where it is spelled out in the Constitution....

Be my guest. There's a vast literature of Constitutional law, including over 200 years of judicial decisions and untold commentaries, law review articles, scholarly treatises -- tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pages. You might enjoy the research, and perhaps even learn something.

You and I both see the Court exercising this power, but I can't find it in the Constitution,...

And you seem to think that it's unconstitutional and illegal. But there first seems to be some disagreement on that point, since the courts are exercising the power and affecting the real world. That is reality. You may just someday find that it's to your benefit to understand what is actually going on and how. That sort of knowledge might help you deal with things and further then RKBA in more constructive ways than beating your breast and proclaiming that the courts are acting unconstitutionally.

...Show me....

I have no intention of trying to distill 35 years of studying the law into a post here.

...There can be no cure until you isolate the cause....

Good hunting.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Beautiful words but they are no more real than "sea level". There is no "right" that anyone has that cannot be taken away by someone else with the ability, the means and the will to utilize superior force.

The fact that a right can be violated does not mean that it is not a right. You seem to have some disagreement with natural right theory... that there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. Everything is judged by the shifting sands of societal sanction.

In fact, natural law theory is ultimately based upon what we are down to our very DNA. Self defense is a natural right because we will exercise that "right" regardles of whether it is with societies blessing or not. Try an experiment. Have someone throw water in your face and do not blink your eyes. You can not... it is an instinctual self defense reaction. This trancends society and is the first law of nature. The lion will hunt the deer to survive, but the deer is under no obligation to provide a meal to the lion. The lion will hunt by nature, the deer will try to avoid being eaten by it nature. Passing a law to prevent a deer from running away from the lion will be to no avail, the deer will run regardless of any law. Passing a law which prohibits a person from defending his own life when threatened by force will be of no avail, because a person by nature will defend his life. It is instinctual.

So it is with other natural rights... I indicated that the right to arms is derivative of the natural right of self defense. So too is freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly a derivative right. It's source is the natural right of freedom of conscience. People are thinking animals. They will believe what they believe. No law can force them to believe that the sky is green if they believe that the sky is blue. Yes, society can violate that right and punish you for believing the sky is blue, they can pass a law and punish you for defending yourself from attack, they might as well pass a law which prohibits you from breathing... but you will violate that law because you have no choice... So is society wrong in passing a law which prohibits you from breathing, or are you wrong in violating that law?

Natural right theory states that society can not and must not pass such a law.. to do so is a criminal act. Law can only be valid if one is capable of conforming themselves to the requirements of the law. If they can not, then the law is criminal and not the person who is in violation of that law.

Thus, we have the example of the Nazi regime. Their "law" made it unlawful for one to be jewish or of jewish ancestory. Well, it is real difficult for one to retroactively amend their ancestory.. it was impossible to comply with the demands of the law... so they died. Do we condemn them for violating the "law" or do we condemn the "law"... The answer is clear, at least in my mind. How about yours?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So it is with other natural rights... I indicated that the right to arms is derivative of the natural right of self defense. So too is freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly a derivative right. It's source is the natural right of freedom of conscience. People are thinking animals. They will believe what they believe. No law can force them to believe that the sky is green if they believe that the sky is blue. Yes, society can violate that right and punish you for believing the sky is blue, they can pass a law and punish you for defending yourself from attack, they might as well pass a law which prohibits you from breathing... but you will violate that law because you have no choice... So is society wrong in passing a law which prohibits you from breathing, or are you wrong in violating that law?...

There is also a significant difference between a law that purports to prohibit you from breathing and a law that recognizes your rights of free speech and assembly but requires, for public assemblies of a certain projected size in certain place, but without regard to the content, that you must first get a permit. One key factor is that the law indeed recognizes a way for one to exercise the right, even if it may not permit all possible ways for one to exercise that right.

And then again, we now have laws in many places that might recognize your natural right to exhale, unless, in certain places, the breath you are exhaling contains tobacco smoke.

 

[Audrey]

Until and unless EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US is willing to ASSERT our UNALIENABLE RIGHT to RKBA we will have a society that fiddlesticks advocates.

Is that how YOU want to live?

I do not, have not and will not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

But Audrey, you are living in that society. That is how things are here and now. You are living among folks who object to your owning guns, and they wield political power. You are also living among folks who indeed take the RKBA very seriously but who are willing to put up with some minor inconveniences because the bottom line is that they are still able to have their guns and are in a position to defend themselves, their families and their homes. And in our socio-economically interrelated and interdependent world, these people are providing you with the goods and services that support your life, as you are for them.

And perhaps some of us with whom you disagree, and who you may even have insulted, actually spend their time and money promoting the RKBA.

For years I've helped coach a youth trapshooting team and thus introduced young people to guns and shooting. Many of these kids would not otherwise have had the opportunity to become involved with guns, because their parents were not. And as a result of our efforts some of these parents have become shooters themselves. I've also spent my time and money to become certified as an instructor in a number of shooting disciplines. I've participated in teaching shotgun and wingshooting to many beginners. I also teach, with a group of other instructor, handgun and personal protection classes, again introducing to shooting many people who have never so much have held a gun before.

I've done all this for free -- I've never accepted a penny in compensation of any of this. Neither do the other instructors I work with. And this is a direct, on the ground and tangible contribution to the RKBA.

But if you don't want to live among us, that's fine with me. Go off and be a hermit and live all by yourself. But as long as you're here, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it, you are living in, and deriving benefit from, a society made up of people with all manner of views on the RKBA, including those who will flatly and unequivocally deny it.

 

[Audrey]

Is the RKBA an unalienable right?

There is only one answer: yes or no.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Is the RKBA an unalienable right?

There is only one answer: yes or no.

If I say "no" do you promise to go off all by yourself and live like a hermit?

I'm not going to play your game. Maybe others will. That's up to them. But I'm not going to play your game because I will not be led around by the nose by you or anyone else.

 

[Bubba613]

Is the RKBA an unalienable right?

There is only one answer: yes or no

Of course it isn't. People in WI for example have no right to bear arms. Therefore the right was alienable.
I think they ought to. I think it's terrible they dont.
But that doesn't change the fact.
People seem to think rights are given by the tooth fairy or something. They aren't. They are brought into law one way or another and reflect societal values. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. But there is one in American law thanks to Griswold. It was a societal change that occasioned that.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Is the RKBA an unalienable right?

There is only one answer: yes or no.

Looks like I have to play both ends of the spectrum on this one...

No Audrey, the rkba is not an unalienable right. The right to self defense is an unalienable right and the rkba is created by man to enhance and provide for a more effective means of exercising that unalienable right. However, what man creates, man can destroy.

Most of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are of that type... they are derivative of and relate to underlying natural rights, which are indeed "unalienable", but the derivative rights themselves are not "unalienable".

A more apt question would be is the rkba" a "fundamental" right? Of course, the first issue in that analysis is "fundamental to what?" Let me postulate the first criteria that a fundamental right is one that is essential to a free society.... In which case I would contend that some form of rkba is indeed "fundamental".

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the rkba is not an unalienable right. The right to self defense is an unalienable right and the rkba is created by man to enhance and provide for a more effective means of exercising that unalienable right. However, what man creates, man can destroy.

Most of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are of that type... they are derivative of and relate to underlying natural rights, which are indeed "unalienable", but the derivative rights themselves are not "unalienable".

A more apt question would be is the rkba" a "fundamental" right? Of course, the first issue in that analysis is "fundamental to what?" Let me postulate the first criteria that a fundamental right is one that is essential to a free society.... In which case I would contend that some form of rkba is indeed "fundamental".

Very well put.

 

[Sam Adams]

Cyborg & Ed N.

We cannot yell "fire" in a theater but isn't that an infringement of the right to free speech?

Your analogy isn't a good parallel. Look at it this way.

Suppose the law required that you attend a training class regarding laws regulating speech, covering topics such as fraud, slander, libel, inciting to riot, etc. You would have to pass a test and be certified in free speech before you could legally enter a theatre, all because you might yell "fire."

Would that be an infringement on your rights?

You see, the 2A addresses the right to "keep and bear." It does not address using arms (actually firing a shot [like actually yelling "fire"]). When it's legal to shoot is a matter addressed by a completely different set of laws. You're suggesting a form of prior restraint on a right, justified by the notion that someone's use of the firearm might be illegal.

I agree with Ed N. The infringement of the 2nd by the feds and the states is in the nature of prior restraint. If the 1st operated like the 2nd, in order to get a permit to enter a theater you'd either have to have you're mouth sewn shut or your tongue removed.

Oh, BTW, you CAN yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater - though if you'd like to avoid civil suits and a criminal prosecution, there had damned well better be a fire. The reasoning is that such an utterance is highly likely to injure people, so that if people are injured you are responsible (unless you made a true statement). But, no, they don't take your tongue out before the usher takes your ticket.

 

[Cyborg]

Theory Vs Reality

fiddletown and legaleagle_45, we do not disagree. The difference is that you are interested in the theory while I concentrate on the practicality. It's like the difference between a scientist and an engineer. There is an old story to compare the two the bottom line of which is that the engineer knows he will eventually get "close enough". Me, I am more of a technician. I tend to blow off the formalisms in the quest to make things work.

For me there is no difference between a right that is violated and one that is taken away. In both cases I lose the ability to exercise that right. I believe in the principle that "a difference that makes no difference IS no difference". While the man from whom JFK cribbed the "Some men see things as they are" quote was a visionary, I am a poor man and if I am going to get by in the world I have to concentrate on how things are so that I can make the best of conditions as they exist. I am free to work towards better conditions, but I first and foremost have to understand the way things are if I am going to get by in this world as it is. I am very much one of those folks fiddletown described as

folks who indeed take the RKBA very seriously but who are willing to put up with some [to me, C] minor inconveniences because the bottom line is that they are still able to have their guns and are in a position to defend themselves, their families and their homes.

BTW, I consider that protecting/defending hearth and home is a DUTY given to me by Creator God who made me a man, a husband and father and a firstborn son. I believe that my duty was imposed upon me when I was born. I don't like it but I cannot change it without being derelict of said duty.

I believe that being able to carry openly in Texas will allow me to better protect hearth and home.

Of me leagleagle-45 wrote:

You seem to have some disagreement with natural right theory... that there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. Everything is judged by the shifting sands of societal sanction.

and he is correct - at least in part. The difference is that I believe that the rightness/wrongness of an action are dependent not on "societal sanction", but on what allows a society to function. People who live entirely to themselves have no need for standards of conduct. It is only when we choose to live in groups that the need arises for stardards of conduct. I believe that laws are just society's way to codify acceptable and prohibited conduct.

If you want to hear/read the story about the scientist, the engineer and the technician, send me a private message. I believe it is VERY illustrative. Also, nothing I wrote here about those interested in things theoretical was intended to be in any way derogatory or perjorative. I respect people who ponder and study theory. I have neither the time, inclination nor spare intellectual horsepower to do so.

Respectfully and sicerely,
Cyborg

 

[legaleagle_45]

I agree with Ed N. The infringement of the 2nd by the feds and the states is in the nature of prior restraint. If the 1st operated like the 2nd, in order to get a permit to enter a theater you'd either have to have you're mouth sewn shut or your tongue removed.

In some instances, the 1st does operate in a manner which can properly be called "prior restraint". The right of the people to peaceably assemble is a 1st Amend right. However, content neutral restrictions on time place and manner are consistantly upheld by the courts. Thus, the need to apply for a parade permit and the like.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sam Adams,

You apparently have missed some things. There are plenty of examples of the prior restraint of the freedoms of speech and assembly. There are laws requiring the prior regulatory review and approval of certain types of advertising (e. g., solicitations of offers to buy certain types of investments). There are laws requiring obtaining a permit before holding a public assembly.

See posts #3 and #42.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I concentrate on the practicality....

It's very important to remember the practical side of things. I always ask what the goal is. Here, is the goal ideological purity or to find a way that will permit honest folks in Texas to lawfully carry their guns openly?

 

[legaleagle_45]

It's very important to remember the practical side of things. I always ask what the goal is.

Lawyer joke de jure...

The city council for a small but growing town decided that it was time to hire a city attorney on a full time basis, as it was no longer cost effective to parcel out the legal work the town needed to have done to private law firms. One of the council members opined that the search for a city attorney should be relatively simple, there being no real distinction between attorneys. The Mayor disagreed and to prove his point, arranged to have the council sit in on interviews of 3 different lawyers.

The first lawyer interviewed was a recent graduate of a local law school. The mayor asked only one question "What is 2+2?" To which the young lawyer responded "The answer is 4". The Mayor thanked him for his time and excused him while calling in the 2nd candidate.

The 2nd lawyer was a recent honors graduate from Harvard Law, who had decided to eskew the big city offers he had recieved in order to return to his home town. Again, the Mayor asked only one question "What is 2+2?" To which the Harvard grad responded "The answer is 4 if you are using base 10, 10 if you are using Base 4, 11 if you are using Base 3 and 100 if you are using Base 2". The Mayor thanked him for his time and excused him, while the other members of the city council sat in amazement. "You are right, there is a big difference between lawyers, we should hire the Harvard guy!!!" The mayor merely smiled and called in the 3rd candidate.

An old country lawyer appeared... white hair, pot bellied and wearing suspenders. Again, the Mayor asked only one question "What is 2+2?" The old country lawyer stood up, peered over his glasses while holding onto his suspenders with both hands and replied "What would you like it to be?"

The city council unanimously agreed to hire the old country lawyer...

 

[Cyborg]

leagaleagle, that story scares the crud outta me. Not that I think it is wrong, just that it illustrates so very well what total whores lawyers can be. Irrespective of the wording of the statute, lawyers can always twist things to suit their needs. And that is frightening for a layman such as myself. When I was a the BLE course in 06 I spent a lot of time in the Texas Penal Code. There are lots of amendments in the code that obviously were added because some defense attorney got creative. The one that comes to mind is in the statute covering online solicitation of a minor for sexual purposes. The statute defines a minor as:

Sec. 33.021. ONLINE SOLICITATION OF A MINOR. (a) In this section:
(1) "Minor" means:
(A) an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or
(B) an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.

so the true age of the person the perp solicited is irrelevant (I can see the fine hand of a defense attorney in that, can't you?). Plus, it specifically excludes a defense based on the the person doing the soliciting allegedly indulging in a fantasy

Sec. 33.021.d) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that:
(1) the meeting did not occur;
(2) the actor did not intend for the meeting to occur; or
(3) the actor was engaged in a fantasy at the time of commission of the offense.

I hope I am not the only one who sees the legislators closing loopholes "found" (created??) by defense attorneys.

What legaleagle's story illustrates is that the law is what lawyers SAY it is. Irrespective of anyone's fantasies, in practical terms nothing is illegal unless you are caught and prosecuted for it. If the DPS troopers are not writing citations for speeding until the speeder is going >10mph over the posted limit on I10, then going 5 miles over the posted limit is not illegal. Getting back to the topic at hand, nothing is an infringement of the RKBA until and unless the SCOTUS says it is. Legaleagle-45 is right. I do not believe there ARE any absolutes - only conduct for which I am prosecuted. The best illustration of this principle is where the legislature clarified the law that allows one to have a gun in their vehicle when travelling. The legislature expressly said travelling meant going from anythwere to anywhere in a vehicle. Prosecutors in Houston and other places ignored that and continued to operate under the old interpretation of the law. Irrespective of the legislature's express intent, the law was what prosecutors were willing to go after people for. In San Antonio, under the current DA, aggravated assault of a peace officer only occurs if the cop is hurt badly enough to spend at least 3 days in hospital. I guarantee, there is nothing in TPC's definition of "serious bodily injury" (what makes an assault aggravated) that mentions hospital time.

 

[legaleagle_45]

leagaleagle, that story scares the crud outta me.

Not that I think it is wrong, just that it illustrates so very well what total whores lawyers can be.

Yeah, but we are high priced whores...

I realize that the terminology "lawyers ethics" is oft times described as an oxymoron similar to "military intelligence", however, lawyers (for the most part anyway) do have ethics, it is merely skewed from the norm. We live within an adversarial system of justice. A lawyer is ethically bound to advocate his client's position "zealously" within the bounds of the law (e.g. no bribing of judges allowed) even if the lawyer finds the position asserted to be personally repugnant. To fail to do so is not merely a disservice to your client, but a disservice to society. It is not the job of a lawyer to declare what the law is. It is their job to advocate what the law should be. It is the job of the judge to determine what the law is. Through the process of the adversarial system a judge is provided with both sides of the story and can more adequately and intelligently do his job, which is to determine what the law is. If an attorney fails in his quest to zealously advocate his client's case, then the judge is not adequately prepared to declare what the law is because he has not heard all of the appropriate argument from both sides.... thus a disservice to society.

Now, to weave this thought back into the subject of this thread, in order for an attorney to adequately advocate what the law should be, it is essential to know the "why" of the law... the philosophical underpinnings of same. In my job, it does in fact make a difference in my capacty and ability to advocate... and it is not merely "a difference that makes no difference." However, I realize that for most individuals not in the legal profession, it is indeed a distinction without a difference.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"Inalienable Rights"

Beautiful words but they are no more real than "sea level". There is no "right" that anyone has that cannot be taken away by someone else with the ability, the means and the will to utilize superior force.

Life? A large caliber hollow point in the upper left chest will put paid to that.

Liberty? A gun to the head and a set of manacles will take care of that. Or do you suppose that the black Africans who were forcibly immigrated to the Americas volunteered to travel under the deplorable conditions and then be treated as sub-human property?

Persuit of happiness? Define it and I suspect I'll come up with a way to keep you from it.

In all these cases, all you've done is infringe the rights. The rights still exist. We keep and bear arms so that no one shall infringe those rights without due process or negative consequences. To take away my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without due process, you'll indeed need to kill me - or face death yourself in your quest.

People, the constitution means exactly what the Supreme Court Of the United States SAYS it means! If SCOTUS decides that there is a "Right to privacy" in the constitution then there is - until a later court says there isn't. If SCOTUS says the 2A is a corporate right then it is. It matters not what you or I or anyone else believes, SCOTUS, as final arbiter of all constitutional issues, is the de facto the supreme law of the land.

Um - where did you learn to read? The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Court only gets to say what it says as long as we the people allow the Court to say what it says.

If the incoming administration via legislation passed by congress and approved by SCOTUS decides to take up all guns in the country they bloody well will do it - AND IT WILL BE LEGAL. Hopefully they will not have the political will to do that. So they pass a new "permanent" AWB. Guess what, amigos? Ain't nothing in Washington DC permanent! Pendulums swing both ways. Anything done by the new administration can be undone by subsequent administrations.

If those in Congress, the Administration, and on the Court do not have the political will to make the keeping and bearing of arms illegal, it's because, as daft as they are, they realize it will be a bloodbath. Many of us out here might die, but so will all the infringers. Then, we'll be left with a society populated by people who believe in human rights and the sanctity thereof. That's the kind of world I want for my kids. If you settle for being a live jackal, that's all your kids will ever be as well.

fiddletown,

You won't answer me because there is no such power granted to the Court. It's all usurpation. It won't require you to distill your 35 years of studying the law, but it might take what I hope was at least one semester of constitutional study during your college years. That power that is affecting the real world is illegitimate where it concerns those afore mentioned "permissible grounds". Is it so difficult for you to admit that these "permissible grounds" don't exist in the Constitution, and the Court hasn't been granted the power to make them up?

Hi woody. It does indeed matter.. If the right is not "God Given" and/or a "natural right" then by consequence, it must be created by man. Now obviously, if something is made by man, the question then arises, when was it made and how was it made? It is only when you can answer those question can you begin to discover what exactly the right to keep and bear arms is.

All one needs to know is what the contextual word "arms" means. The Second Amendment takes over from there. It doesn't matter from whence the right comes. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon it. Attempting to confuse or obfuscate origins is simply a game; an attempt to distract from the real issue.

There is also a significant difference between a law that purports to prohibit you from breathing and a law that recognizes your rights of free speech and assembly but requires, for public assemblies of a certain projected size in certain place, but without regard to the content, that you must first get a permit. One key factor is that the law indeed recognizes a way for one to exercise the right, even if it may not permit all possible ways for one to exercise that right.

That is a fallacious example. No on has a right to free speech. Our speech is protected from abridgment by the government. Period. The protection of our right to assemble is limited to assembling peaceably. Being forced to acquire a permit does not violate that right so long as the purpose of the permit only and specifically assures it will be a peaceable assembly.

No Audrey, the rkba is not an unalienable right. The right to self defense is an unalienable right and the rkba is created by man to enhance and provide for a more effective means of exercising that unalienable right. However, what man creates, man can destroy.

This is an interesting spin on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, legaleagle. Any arms created by man are a direct consequence and a prerequisite of man's inalienable right to self defense. We didn't create the right. Whether I block your punch with my forearm, or meet your flying fist with a rock in mine, I've defended myself from your punch. I used the rock as a consequence of having to defend myself while absorbing the least physical harm to myself. It's no different than using a firearm to halt your aggression. My right to defend myself from a charging grizzly is proof enough that man relies upon his inalienable creativity to defend himself. A forearm, or even a rock is hardly sufficient in the case of the grizzly.

I have the right to defend myself by what ever means necessary, and you have no right to prohibit me from defending myself, nor have those of us in government been granted power - or have power simply because they comprise government - to prohibit me defending myself. Government at certain levels may limit my use of arms in defending myself in certain cases so long as it doesn't render my self defense ineffective or dubious, but may not limit my keeping and bearing of whatever arms I so choose.

Have you ever seen a law that prohibited aggression that was so effective that even grizzlies abided it? How about the Adolph Hitlers of the world...?

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood

 

[punkndisorderly]

If you can't pass either the written or the live fire portions of the Texas carry test, it's in society's best interest that you NOT be armed. Seriously, it's not something that takes much skill or intelligence.

If you can't hit a man sized target at 3 and 7 meters consistantly under optimal circumstances, you shouldn't be carrying.

If you're not able to know or at least use common sense to figure out even the basics of gun safety, state laws, and such to pass a written test, you probably shouldn't be carrying.

My wife came within 2 points of passing her first time shooting a glock pistol with perhaps 20 rounds of centerfire before that.

That said, can someone explain WHY they would want to open carry other than farmers, ranchers, and hunters out in the country when carrying concealed is already allowed. Most of the people I've talked to that wanted open carry struck me as falling into two camps: the "because the second amendment says I can" camp and the "so I can look cool at the mall" camp.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy
All one needs to know is what the contextual word "arms" means. The Second Amendment takes over from there. It doesn't matter from whence the right comes.

Only if you believe the rkba originated with the 2nd Amend. If it did, then all one need do is look at the 2nd., try to figure out the definitions of the words and phrases and then you are done. However, I do not believe you think that the rkba originated with the 2nd.

Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy
Attempting to confuse or obfuscate origins is simply a game; an attempt to distract from the real issue.

Incorrect. You have claimed on numerous occasions that the rkba arose before the 2nd and that the 2nd merely prohibits the infringement thereof.. It does NOT create the rkba. Well, I think it is rather important to know just exactly what we are not supposed to be infringing upon, don't you? What exactly is the nature of the preexisting right which the 2nd protects from infringement? To suggest that I am is attempting to confuse or obfuscate, is, in fact an attempt by you to confuse or obfuscate. Other preexisting rights which are protected by the BoR's have their scope and nature explained and delineated by their historical preexisting precedents. The 4th amend historical exceptions for warrantless arrests when a crime is committed in ones presence is an example, as is 1st Amend non application to libel and slander. Those preexisting rights all had preexisting precedents which we employ even today to explain the breadth and scope of the right as well as the limitations thereto. The 2nd is no exception to this method, Woody. In fact, I am rather amazed that you do not want to discuss what this preexisting right was.

Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy
This is an interesting spin on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, legaleagle.

I am glad you find it interesting, but I confess it is not original or unique. It is similarly described as such by Blackstone in his Commentaries, also by St George Tucker and by Story.

Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy
It's no different than using a firearm to halt your aggression.

It is different for the simple reason that a firearm is the creation of man, it is not a creation of either God or nature. Sorry Woody, I will stick by Blackstone, Tucker and Story and refuse to allocate the rkba to the category "inalienable rights" and leave it within the category of "fundamental rights" where it properly belongs... Yeah, I know it is a demotion of sorts, but to do otherwise kinda messes up the whole fabric and logic of the natural law philosophy, and I do not want to do that. Sorta like a true baseball fan and afficionado being forced to endure the abomination known as the "designated hitter rule".

 

[Audrey]

Wow.

Sounds like an NRA meeting in here.

"How can we all agree how to limit the RKBA?"

Good thing a few of the founding fathers had a few "theories" they wouldn't compromise and were willing to die for. I for one am thankful. We need to spawn a few more of them, and sooner rather than later it appears.

I joined THR thinking I might find some likeminded "theorists;" perhaps they're off being hermits ...

 

[legaleagle_45]

Originally Posted by Audrey
I joined THR thinking I might find some likeminded "theorists;" perhaps they're off being hermits ...

Audrey, meet ConstitutionCowboy; ConstitutionCowboy, meet Audrey. Your comments reminds me of a joke, to wit:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"

"Religious."

"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

To which I said, "Then die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...leagaleagle, that story scares the crud outta me... Not that I think it is wrong, just that it illustrates so very well what total whores lawyers can be....

But the reality is that we are obligated to (1) zealously represent the interests of our client, within the bounds of the law; (2) tell our client's story to the best advantage of our client, within the bounds of the law; and (3) to the extent possible within the bounds of the law achieve the goals of our client. legaleagle stated it very well.

...We live within an adversarial system of justice. A lawyer is ethically bound to advocate his client's position "zealously" within the bounds of the law (e.g. no bribing of judges allowed) even if the lawyer finds the position asserted to be personally repugnant. To fail to do so is not merely a disservice to your client, but a disservice to society. It is not the job of a lawyer to declare what the law is. It is their job to advocate what the law should be. It is the job of the judge to determine what the law is....

I would propose an amendment. It is the lawyer's job as advocate to advocate what the law should be. It is the lawyer's job as counselor to advise the client what a judge would be most likely to rule that the law is under various circumstances so that the client can order his conduct in such a way as to best realize his goals.

fiddletown,

You won't answer me because there is no such power granted to the Court. It's all usurpation. It won't require you to distill your 35 years of studying the law, but it might take what I hope was at least one semester of constitutional study during your college years.

[1] Actually, the court decisions relating to the permissible regulation of Constitutionally protected rights were fully covered in my Constitutional Law class in law school. There may have even been a bar exam question on it, but I can't remember at this point.

[2] And it doesn't matter whether you understand or accept it, because courts will continue to rule this way whether or not you do. It is reality. Just as gravity is reality. Whether or not you accept or understand gravity, if you jump from a tall bridge, you will fall and hurt yourself.

[3] If you really want to understand the law, the libraries are there for you. But I'm not going to take the trouble because I really don't care whether or not you understand things, since whether or not you understand doesn't matter in the real world anyway. And I also don't think that you're really interested in understanding the law. You are inexorably tied to certain preconceived notions that stand in your way of understanding the law.

...The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Court only gets to say what it says as long as we the people allow the Court to say what it says....

Go ahead and stop them from doing so.

That is a fallacious example. No on has a right to free speech. Our speech is protected from abridgment by the government....

Nonsense. A law requiring a permit for an assembly is government abridging your free speech. It prevents you from addressing your throng without jumping through some hoops. It is, however, an abridgment that courts have allowed insofar as it serves the compelling state interest in protecting public health and safety, by, among other things requiring you to show adequate provision for traffic control and sanitation. Laws requiring the prior regulatory review and approval of certain types of advertising (e. g., solicitations of offers to buy certain types of investments) are also governmental abridgments of free speech that courts have permitted.

Good thing a few of the founding fathers had a few "theories" they wouldn't compromise...

You're a little weak on your American history. The Founding Fathers didn't all agree with each other. From the drafting of the Declaration of Independence to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation (which failed) to the drafting of the Constitution, to the drafting of the Bill of Rights and its incorporation into the Constitution to the ratification of the Constitution, the birth of this nation was an extended exercise in political process, including compromise, harmonizing divergent views and accommodating disparate interests.