CCW Holder Charged with Murder

[GoRon]

Second, disarming people during routine traffic stops or Terry stops is incompatible with the idea that everyone without a record should be able to carry a firearm. What would you do if ccw was so common that almost everyone carried? Would you disarm everyone you interview? I suspect you'd tire of that rather quickly.

When I was younger I had a lets call it, a somewhat more antagonist view of the police. That is no longer true of me.

If I was carrying I would disclose it (if required) and be disarmed as a courtesy. I have cultivated a more empathetic view towards LEOs in the last 10 years or so.

I can see where some would consider it an indignity, to be treated as a suspect and disarmed. Myself, I see it as a form of deescalation of the situation. We don't know if our vehicle matches the description of something that went out over the radio.

If everyone carried it might become so routine dealing with armed citizens that disarming us would be impractical. But as of now that isn't the case.

 

[glummer]

Misleading definition

I looked up "Courtesy" in the dictionary.
I did NOT find any listing for "Action performed under penalty of law", nor "Action performed to satisfy the wishes of a man with a gun."

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

glummer, I love it.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You keep saying that, even as CCW is saying something entirely different from what you are saying.

It only seems different superficially.

CCW said "The federalists were a bunch trying to con the citizenry into a powerful central .gov." His point, I think, is that the Federalists represented the extreme pro-centralization position at the time the US Constitution was being considered for ratification. Since most Supreme Court decisions since the New Deal have been decidedly more pro-consolidation/centralization than even the Federalists, his point is that even though the Federalists and Anti-Federalists differed, they still establish a range of centralization/decentralization within which the Supreme Court should legitimately be bound in their interpretations of the US Constitution, i.e., if they wish to retain any level of legal legitimacy. Your point, to the contrary, was that since the Founders differed, the value of the Federalist Papers is marginal as a guide for drawing the line visa vis centralization/decentralization. This is invalid, however, when one considers that the Federalist Papers constitute the extreme pro-Centralization position found among the Founders. That is to say, it should represent the point in the direction of centralization beyond which it would be invalid for the Supreme Court to take us, while claiming to be merely interpreting the Constitution. Put another way, The Federalist Papers are an ideal guide regarding what level of centralization/consolidation is beyond the pale of legitimate centralization/consolidation.

 

[Ezekiel]

I got out of law enforcement...

...but this is/was my motto:

If I see a gun, you're about to have issues.

That can range from a bullet in the cranium to being pulled out of your car.

My safety comes before your rights: end of story.

Once our matter is settled -- and if all is right with the world -- I'll put your gun in your trunk (you can retrieve it away from me) and you can leave.

If all is not right with the world, you're eating pavement (for cuffs) or lead, depending upon what YOU do.

CCW makes nobody special or righteous, and I would damned-sure disarm you before allowing you to freely interact with me with a gun within reach.

Most of the intellectual masturbation arguments here have no basis in reality and have no idea the inherent environment of law enforcement.

John Q. is a dumbass.

That INCLUDES a significant percentage of CCW-types.

I wouldn't risk it.

So a single CCW person gets charged with murder. (Original thread.) Folks are still idiots, nothing is changed.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Mr. Roberts,

Since you are unwilling or unable to accept that fact that our republic is slip-sliding into a police state and since Mr. Hawkeye is much more skilled at constitutional arguing and, yes, it can be confusing when more than one gets involved on each side and since I only got into that dialogue because of your request and since I don't want to write a run on or shout as loud as I can that something is unconstitutional and since it is obvious to me that the quote I posted by Hamilton in Federalist 28 may sound nice, but is in fact fiction (sorry Mr. Hawkeye) I am disengaging.



Thanks Mr. Hawkeye for the support.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I got out of law enforcement...

Thank you, Mr. Ezekiel

 

[Ezekiel]

Thank you, Mr. Ezekiel

Most people are idiots. Whether or not I'm in law enforcement changes nothing, friend.

In addition, I can make more $$$, at less risk, with better hours doing anything but law enforcement.

It wasn't a difficult choice.

 

[Michael Courtney]

After all easy cases that clearly contradict the meaning of every single author of the Constitution don't make it to the Supreme Court level. The easy decisions are usually long gone by the point you have reached the Supreme Court...

Please explain how Roe vs Wade is within the possible boundaries of the original authors meaning.

Please explain how the idea that the militia of the 2nd amendment can possibly refer to the National Guard which was not created until over 100 years later.

Please explain which original author asserted that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress power to regulate any item which might possibly be bought or sold in interstate commerce.

Please explain which of the founding fathers opined that private property can be taken for public uses which include selling the propery for development to other private parties.

There are many court opinions in the Federal appeals and Supreme courts that are outside any possible original intent of the Constitution.

Michael Courtney

 

[BigO01]

Well I live in St. Louis County and considering how left wing the City and County Governments are I wouldn't be surprised to see a homeowner who's homes was invaded by a dozen gang memebrs firing AK's at him charged with 1st degree Murder .

The Democrats will do everything in their power to try to get the CCW law reversed in the upcoming years , you can bet on that , and they have the Media in their pockets helping out as much as they can .

 

[Carl N. Brown]

back to thread: ccw holder charged with murder.

Why is this headline so shocking? Because it is rare.
It is the "man bites dog" story in the real gun culture.

As a population, CCW holders are less likely to be arrested,
and less likely to convicted, of a crime than the general
population.

Now, did the man really bite the dog? Shouldn't "innocent
until proven" apply for everyone?

 

[RealGun]

There are many court opinions in the Federal appeals and Supreme courts that are outside any possible original intent of the Constitution.

The dysfunction of Congress and the corruption or uncooperative independence of the States allows the Supreme Court to become apolitical legislators and imperial rulers by default. If you don't like what the Fed Courts do, blame Congress, particularly the Senate. Good luck. Keep in mind that most of them are lawyers, keeping the faith among "gentlemen".

 

[Art Eatman]

Thanks, Carl. That's as good a closing statement as I've seen in a while.

Art