MitchSchaft
member
Yohan,
You've already used your "get outta jail free" card.
What's your excuse this time?
You've already used your "get outta jail free" card.
What's your excuse this time?
(CA) Man challenges right to bear arms in public
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Even the Founding Fathers recognized that not all rights were absolute.
Even the Founding Fathers recognized that not all rights were absolute.
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?
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?
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
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
Member
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
Member
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 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.)
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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
I exist quite happily in shades of gray, thanks.
Mike
Wildalaska
member
A voice of reason in the wilderness....
WildthankyouAlaska
Zander
member
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...
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
==
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
- Status
