Civil Rights Violation

[MSgtUSMC]

Today, once again, my civil rights were violated when keeping a doctor appointment at a Veterans Administration health clinic. There was a sign on the door prohibiting firearms. I have a state concealed firearms permit. One would think that in light of the Heller decision by the Supreme Court recognizing that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms that all U. S. government agency would abide by that decision and take down all such signs. Is there any hope that such agencies will be compelled to abide by the law of the land?

 

[Tyris]

Heller pertains to DC, not Nevada.
Heller only pertains to people in DC keeping a registered handgun in their house, not going to the doctor's.

It has no bearing on you. Law of the land is still pretty much toothless as DC is about to get away with mooning the Supreme Court's decision.

-T

 

[ilbob]

Law of the land is still pretty much toothless as DC is about to get away with mooning the Supreme Court's decision.

What makes you think that the inane restrictions DC wrote into the law are going to be allowed by the district court?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

MSgtUSMC - Heller is the first step on a fairly long road. There are a lot of other steps and expanded right to carry (see Jim March's post on this subject - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=377848) is certainly a good bet; but first we need some wins on other issues in order to be successful on some of the carry issues.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Heller pertains to DC, not Nevada.
Heller only pertains to people in DC keeping a registered handgun in their house, not going to the doctor's.

It isn't about Nevada, or the Doctor's office, but a place purchased by the Union as a needful building, and comes under the same exclusive legislative power of Congress as does the Seat of the Government(Washington, DC), per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

No one "lives" there, but many vets end up spending much time in such places(weeks, months, years) recuperating, or whatever. I have spent more than one night myself after some bypass surgery in my left leg. Fortunately, I didn't have to leave my arms(guns) in the parking lot, because my wife took them home with her. I would have felt more secure if I could have kept one with me in an overnight bag. You never know when some crazed jihadist might decide to act out his(or her) "Divine inspiration" on a few Vets.

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

 

[no_problem]

Civil rights legislation was enacted to protect the rights of African-Americans, not gun owners.

 

[Coronach]

First off, Heller, in and of itself, is of fairly limited scope. Just like the foundation of a house. Pretty much worthless for shelter, right? but try building a house without one. It's a first step. In and of itself, it means nothing outside of DC.

It has no bearing on you. Law of the land is still pretty much toothless as DC is about to get away with mooning the Supreme Court's decision.

Oh, they're mooning the decision, all right, but I doubt they'll get away with it. Fenty and Friends are just taking the foot-dragging route. "Oh, you mean it pertains to semi-automatic handguns, too?" "Yes, Numbnuts, it does."

I figure after getting their heads handed to them in court a few more times, they'll give up and try something different.

Mike

 

[Rugerlvr]

Of course nothing any of you have said negates the 2nd Amendment, and the FACT that his civil rights WERE violated... Of course MSgt, to prove it, you're going to have to take the VA to court.

"Civil rights" refers to any right guaranteed by the Constitution, not just the laws enacted in the '60s to try and right the inequities of the treatment of blacks by the government and other entities.

 

[Tyris]

I would have felt more secure if I could have kept one with me in an overnight bag. You never know when some crazed jihadist might decide to act out his(or her) "Divine inspiration" on a few Vets.

So you think a hospital with old vets is a better target than say a recruitment center? hah. False sense of grandeurs aside, think about it from a hospital bureaucrat's stand point, he's got 3 options:

1. let everyone carry a gun (wont be terribly useful against a bomb)
2. put up a metal detector and harden the entrance
3. do nothing

I put my money between 2 and 3, more on 3.

-T

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So you think a hospital with old vets is a better target than say a recruitment center? hah. ...

Where did I or anyone else in this thread ever make such a statement?

False sense of grandeurs aside, think about it from a hospital bureaucrat's stand point, he's got 3 options:

I think you could have said that without the snark.

Besides, what would be the difference between killing young would-be soldiers as compared to old ones who have already served? In my book, there is no difference.

As for the bomb, no where would be "safe" from a bomb. However, in such a place as any "gun free zone", sneaking in a gun, knife, sword, bat, or whatever would be easier than building a truck bomb or dropping something from a small plane, and has the potential to be more effective.

Regardless, the bomb example doesn't negate the need to protect oneself from a possible ground attack by gun, knife, sword, or even a pair of strangling hands.

The hospital bureaucrat has no right to choose submission to death for another, nor has any such power been granted to anyone in government to disarm anyone in any circumstance short of while incarcerated after due process.

Again, a VA hospital should be treated no differently than any other such place under the direct legislative control of Congress.

Woody

 

[Double Naught Spy]

One would think that in light of the Heller decision by the Supreme Court recognizing that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms that all U. S. government agency would abide by that decision and take down all such signs. Is there any hope that such agencies will be compelled to abide by the law of the land?

I don't think you understand the Heller decision at all.

 

[Jeff White]

Justis Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that the government had the right to restrict possession of firearms in sensitive areas. I don't think that any court in the nation is going to interpret Heller to state you can carry everywhere, and I think most courts would uphold the government's right to restrict you from carrying in a VA clinic.

Jeff

 

[MSgtUSMC]

Thank you Jeff, Woody, Rugerlvr, and Bartholomew for addressing my question as asked. I expected there would be responses from those who enjoy exercising their over-inflated egos and their need to belittle others because of their inferiority complex and it was as expected. The way I look at it is the VA clinic and all government buildings are mine (yours also). I have paid for them. Keeping out somebody who has no intention of doing harm makes no sense to me. It frightens me to know there are people in positions that have an effect on my life that are incapable of clear thought and logical reasoning.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It frightens me to know there are people in positions that have an effect on my life that are incapable of clear thought and logical reasoning.

Yup. Me too. I can name four such persons who just happen to be on the Supreme Court.

Woody

PS: As for the "limits" Justice Scalia wrote about, I'd ask all to read footnote #26 in the ruling and see the gaping hole he crafted and the rest of the Fab Four along with Justice Kennedy signed on to.

 

[romma]

Civil rights legislation was enacted to protect the rights of African-Americans, not gun owners.

And Women, and recently handi-capped and plenty of others as well...

 

[bdickens]

The VA hospital is the property of the Federal government. So is the Post Office and the Federal Building downtown and you can't carry there either. Don't like it? Write to your Congressman.

 

[gc70]

From the Heller decision:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings...

It is ironic that the Second Amendment was written to prohibit government infringement of gun rights, but even the 'friendly' Heller court deems government buildings out of bounds for guns.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Oh, they're mooning the decision, all right, but I doubt they'll get away with it. Fenty and Friends are just taking the foot-dragging route. "Oh, you mean it pertains to semi-automatic handguns, too?" "Yes, Numbnuts, it does."

I figure after getting their heads handed to them in court a few more times, they'll give up and try something different.

It might be helpful for people here to recognize that Mayor Fenty and the city's other administration are behaving just like the bigots who opposed civil rights for black people during the 1960s.

These are the New Bigots and the course they're taking is what their parents' generation fought against and had to overcome. They will not abide by the law of the land willingly. It will take patience, persistence, and commitment to overcome their steadfast refusal to concede rights they have fought so hard to deny others.

Complaining, griping, and whining accomplishes nothing useful and only adds to the background noise that impedes serious work. If you're not going to help, don't get in the way or discourage those willing to do the heavy lifting.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

I've always felt that gun-ownership was a civil right. You're correct in viewing the issue in the same light as the social conditions of the 1960s.

But even then, unjust laws had to be broken.

I don't mean to make light of the situation, but:

Having dogs let loose on you, and hose streams pinning you against brick walls, especially when you haven't done anything to bother anyone, tends to garner a larger support base for your cause. I'm not saying that anyone wants (wanted) this to happen to them, but it does (did) work.

I just don't know how they pulled it off. It seems like having a million-man-march took an unprecedented amount of effort. Protesting in the heart of the land of the KKK during the 1960s probably took a lot of courage. Not listening to 'the man' when he told them they couldn't use the nicer restrooms was downright disrespectful.

I guess for now, we can all agree that we should continue to educate the public, so that when it becomes necessary to break unjust laws, they can wonder, as many fence-sitters wondered during the 1960s, "Why are these people being tasered (or worse) for exercising the right of self-defense?"

Or, we could just keep writing letters.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings...

It is ironic that the Second Amendment was written to prohibit government infringement of gun rights, but even the 'friendly' Heller court deems government buildings out of bounds for guns.

Let me caution you, or advise you, to read that statement from the ruling with the footnote. The footnote opens the door for these "restrictions" to be throughly challenged and examined.

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Yup, it's short but oh, so sweet!

"Presumptively" adv assumed in the absence of contrary evidence; probable.(Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus)

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as the right to keep and bear arms is so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[Robert Hairless]

But even then, unjust laws had to be broken.

You don't get it. The reason why DC v. Heller came into existence is that Dick Heller did not think or behave the way you advocate. The position you advocate causes problems for us all. I don't expect you to agree or even to understand. If you could do either you would not be making such statements or thinking that way.

When faced with a law that he believed unjust, Heller complied with it and used the courts to challenge it.

That is why Alan Gura and Robert Levy took Dick Heller, Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon as their clients in what they planned as a landmark Second Amendment case.

Bob Levy began planning this case in 2002--six years before the Heller v. DC decision--and recognized that the clients would have to be law abiding people with spotless backgrounds. They needed to be mature, non-threatening, and stable.

Your comment above would have disqualified you as a plaintiff in this case. Hard as it might be for you to believe, you don't get to decide which laws are "unjust" and all right to be "broken."

When you think that way or make such statements, you become a potential defendant.

The more gun owners who think and talk about breaking laws they decide they don't like, the harder it is to represent gun owners as law abiding and the heavier the burden for sensible people who do the heavy lifting while others do the freeloading and griping.

This kind of stuff is counterproductive and adds to the load:

I guess for now, we can all agree that we should continue to educate the public, so that when it becomes necessary to break unjust laws, they can wonder, as many fence-sitters wondered during the 1960s, "Why are these people being tasered (or worse) for exercising the right of self-defense?"

In fact no sensible person will wonder why people who run around breaking the law with guns are tasered or even shot.

It will hurt rather than help that those lawbreakers with guns who are tasered or shot don't understand the nature or elements of self-defense.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Yep. Very few people even cared what Andrew Whatshisname was trying to say just before he uttered a t-shirt worthy catchphrase (Don't tase me, Bro!), but they remember seeing him get lit up by the Officers.
However, I'm sure that Dick Heller's name and case is on the lips of quite a few people who were sitting on the fence.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that civil disobedience has its place in the toolbox. It just may not be the best tool, considering the audience and what's at stake at this time.

 

[ilbob]

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings...

It is ironic that the Second Amendment was written to prohibit government infringement of gun rights, but even the 'friendly' Heller court deems government buildings out of bounds for guns.

I would note that the quoted sentence does not say such restrictions are OK either. It is something for future court and legislative battles to decide.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lotsa good points, but way too much wandering about.