Since my response got stifled.......(for civilians only)

[Ryder]

cropcirclewalker - "The local police in the town 8 miles from where I live know me and we wave at each other. Those guys would not run me in on a "weapons charge"."

I live in that place too! I'm even on smiley speaking terms with them. But trust them to walk my dog? Pfff, forget it.

These small towns are not exactly overflowing with evil. These cops have seen their co-workers go unemployed due to lack of work and funding. Keeping a job means looking busy. Quantity not quality is the way of our times. Justice is a huge beaurocratic industry stocked full of little Hitlers who would love to fry your freedom in their ovens. We the people are their only source of income and job security. They aren't going to start selling brownies and holding dances.

It is said that money is the root of all evil. I don't think there can ever be a good faith attempt at stopping the oppression of weapons owners without some alternate form of compensation. Around here it's called a permit and the price of freedom has never been cheaper. I detest using this $ystem to protect myself from the rainbow of evil but I'm just not dumb enough to tempt them twice since my run-in makes yours look like a trip to Disneyland.

There's a tendency for people (cops or otherwise) to take the path of least resistance. Not that they are lazy but when it comes to police looking productive it is undeniably less risky on many levels to roust an honest non-violent person than it is to go after someone who is not. That's just a fact of human nature and it and will never go away with any amount of legislation.

 

[RealGun]

RG, whose this "we" you're refering to? Also, didn't the US Attorney General declare that the 2A meant individuals , as apposed Komrad Reno's interpretation that it meant only militias? - GeneC

Make of the "we" question what you will.

As I understand it, the AG's (John Ashcroft) pronouncement has very limited legal bearing. I would definitely give points to John Ashcroft and to the Bush administration for nudging in the "right" direction. On the other hand, I wish I could explain the State Department's sticking their nose in with the opposite effect. It's possible that both departments went beyond the scope of their respective authorities.

I really think you are giving the AG statement too much weight, simply because it reads the way you would like it to read and means what you would like it to mean. That's what "tendentious" means and is exactly the problem with making too much or too little of the 2A.

 

[GeneC]

Realgun said: "Make of the "we" question what you will."


Typical slippery answer. YOU said 'we', why'd I attempt to speculate who you meant, which is why I asked. Let me be more specific, when YOU said 'we', who did YOU mean when YOU said 'we'? I think maybe 'we' might be a minute group of anarchists.
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order


"On the other hand, I wish I could explain the State Department's sticking their nose in with the opposite effect. "


Care to cite a source?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I am sorry, Mr. GeneC, but I was

called away and have slid behind a page or so. I will probably never catch up.I said;

Read me off 2a again and show me where it excludes criminal."

then you said:

This is too ridiculous to respond to. I proved my point, you haven't proved yours. The 2A is not the entire Constitution, where it says that criminals lose certain rights. So I'm right, this is going to boil down to individual interpretation, which derails the whole thread.

I have read and reread the constitution many times. Not for a month or so, please refresh my recollection of

where it says that criminals lose certain rights

I think I remember were it says that a president that is convicted after impeachment cannot hold office, but that is not a right. It's a privilege.

Article 1, section 8 is real clear in what the federal govt has the power to legislate. among them are;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Unless your a resident of DC, or a fort or unless you're a pirate or a counterfeiter or are in the military or militia (when actually in service) or unless the govt. decides that we are in rebellion, it appears to me that they have no jurisdiction.

Of course clause 18 looks like a catch all, but ;
1) Article 1, section 8 is the only source of powers for the legislative body.
2) The sections you quoted were for the judicial, which can only rule on validity since it has no legislative authority (hard as it is to believe) and.
3) As further hard as it is to believe, the Executive branch is just that. Sure, we got Executive Orders but they are usually tied to some piece of legislation if they were legal at all, which I doubt and don't wanna talk about at this time.

And finally we got that long forgotten 10a. Even more corrupted than 2a.

I guess we would really be in worse shape if it wasn't for the constitution, which is mostly being ignored anyway.

Before we get sombody logging on with a WA reminder that the states should have some powers too, agreed. I was referencing the comments of Mr. GeneC.

This is a gun forum. I am interested in 2a. Yes, states can regulate the speed limit (even though it's not a crime). Yes, they can tell me how much tax I gotta pay for education. Yes, they can limit the number of wives I have, and yes they can regulate firearms. Just as long as the state law does not contradict 2a.

It's really pretty simple.

 

[RealGun]

Care to cite a source? - GeneC

I have spent too much time trying to find it, but not that long ago there was a document on the US State Dept. website which discussed RKBA, didn't read well, and was an unnecessary departure from State Department business. I am not sure if it was on this particular forum but it certainly was discussed at length. Searches here did not show anything. Perhaps others will recall. I don't remember the specifics except that gun rights advocates very much objected to what it had to say and there was question about why State would be involved. Perhaps complaints caused it to be removed.

Lacking a source, you are welcome to dismiss the point. It was not that relevant to what I was discussing anyway.

"We" was an expression of confidence how other gun rights advocates might feel. To any extent that I spoke for someone else, I apologize, while believing that I was on target based upon knowledge of thousands of posts. I think it would be picayune to dwell on that, but I would be interested in how I might have mis-characterized general sentiments.

 

[GeneC]

CCW said: "It's really pretty simple."


Yes it is, so why try to make it so difficult?


Of course you know( or maybe you don't ), the Constitution allows that the American society may pass laws to apply to any given era or time frame and as you know(maybe you don't ), Congress introduces laws, debate on them, vote on them and pass them and send them to the President, who either signs them into law or vetoes them. In 1968, they passed the Gun control Act of 1968 said that criminals cannot own guns. For 46 years now, you nor ANYONE has reversed the law or found it to be unconstitutional, so says the people of this land. Yeah, pretty simple.

So, are you saying that all laws made after 1789 are unconstitutional because they aren't 'physically' IN it, or are you saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for further laws to be made , other than what's in the Ammendments or are you saying that any law that is NOT entered as an Ammendment is unconstitutional? Or what?

You know, crop circles are a hoax too.

 

[Gary]

I don't find the desire to debate on forums but I do find them interesting and informative. I occasionally post to put forward news or information that might not otherwise be known, but today my post is to simply give support to CCW. He gets off the mark occasionally but his detractors sometimes don't even see the mark. When there are posts that complain about the application or misapplication of laws there is almost always the predictable shout of "cop hater" or that the person making the complaint is making unfair remarks that paints all LEO's. Of course, the complaint was not meant to paint all LEO's as bad actors any more than a complaint against the KKK would be a complaint against all white folks. As a result, the thread gets off track and the meat of the complaint is lost in unnecessary rhetoric. I have developed something of a solution to that problem that may or may not prove to be effective. The solution is to distinguish between Law Enforcement Officers and Peace Officers. I suggest that the officers who kept CCW detained at the airport were LEO's and were certain that there must be some crime that he had committed because only people with badges can have weapons and he was one of them as opposed to being one of us. A peace officers would have seen that he was not a threat and the incident would never have happened. Peace Officer = Andy Law Enforcement Officer = Barney

 

[sendec]

Great, now my role models are supposed to be Andy and Barney.........

All that time and money in college and grad school down the toilet, all I needed to do was watch TV Land. All you medics out there, Randolph Mantooth is the Father of Trauma Medicine!!!!

 

[PunkDave]

You're in denial. I would suggest trying to be objective about the whole controversy surrounding the 2A, both in its meaning and the scope of its authority. If the meaning and implications of the 2A were so clear cut, they wouldn't be so easily abused. We say that "the Constitution is ignored", but what really happens sometimes is that it is simply read differently than in a way that we would favor. We demonize law makers who think they are doing the right thing. What we need is a legal ruling to settle the question. The fault lies with a Federal Court system that has stonewalled the issue for 70 years. We also don't try hard enough collectively to present them with good cases. Again though, we wouldn't necessarily like the outcome. That's because it is not as black and white as we would prefer to believe.

I don't see how there is any ambiguity in 2A being an individual right. That is the only portion of 2A's meaning that I see as a black and white issue. I don't think it lends itself to any intellectual relativism. That old cliche of "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" resonates for me on that one! The mere presence of debate doesn't necessarily make it an "open" issue. I can start and perpetuate a debate on how the world is flat and make convincing arguments, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's round(ish).

I do agree that there is warranted debate on its scope and how society *manages* this right as with all other rights. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc etc. Some feel more restrictions are in order and others think the line should be pushed back to be less restrictive. I think as a society we'll always challenge that line.

Isn't that what this forum is about?

 

[JohnBT]

"Isn't that what this forum is about?"

Either that or it was designed to be a tinfoilhatmagnet.

John

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. PunkDave, you are correct,

there is no debate about 2a. The antis know it too.

They drag out
the phrase jugglers,
meaning torturers,
word smiths,
dependent clausifiers,
interstate commerce regulators,
the times changers,
ok fer me, but not fer theesters,
arrest 'em all and let the courts sort them outifiers,
not needed for duck huntersters,
common sense gun safety lawyers,
reasonable regulators,
guns are sexual dysfunctionaries,
manditory trigger lockyears,
I gotta bodyguard, who needs 2asters,
only applies to the fed. govters,
states can do what they wantifiers,
righteous collectivists,
police will protect yousters,
It's fer the childreners,
"What me Worriers?",
militia is really the national guardians,
militia is really a bunch of leo wannabeesters,
militia is a bunch of militant kooksters,
supremes said it was OKsters,
not fer the criminalistas,
not fer the crazier than meesters,
not fer the minoritoriumsters
the founders were really a bunch of slavers,
the people means the statsters,
thats not what they really mentors
and on and on and on and try and try and try.

The only problem they have is that they just cannot change the meaning of 2a. Not until they change the meaning of the words "People, right, arms, keep and bear, shall not and be infringed" So far, they have just been unable to change the meaning of those words.

Then, in desperation, some resort to "the tinfoil hattiers"

The fact remains. They know what 2a means.
They swore an oath to follow the constitution.
2a is in the constitution.
There is just no way around it. They must face it.
They run in somebody for a "weapons violation",
They are violating their oath.

 

[JohnBT]

I believe you are ignoring the fact that employees havee to defend the Constitution as it is currently interpreted by the powers-that-be/Supreme Court/whoever.

We'd be in a heck of a mess if everyone acted according to their own interpretation.

John

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Hi, ho, there, Mr. BT

I think I covered your argument under the classification of

arrest 'em all and let the courts sort them outifiers,

It's like a stoplight, sort of only simpler. With the stoplight, some people start to see tinges of yellow in the red. They think it's really a reddish green. Like my grandson, they say, "WELL, if you were looking at it from a different angle, maybe it would be green." They think yellow is really green only in a time warp. They all have their own interpretations of what the colors are and yellow really messes up the "On / Off character of the stoplight.

We don't have that problem with 2a. It's more like a coin. Heads or tails. Now some out there will ask, "What happens if it lands on it's edge?"

That's a good question, except that we aren't flipping this coin. The Founders flipped it and it landed on only one side and it stayed there.

Heads. Arms (guns in this case). The only way to turn the coin over is with a constitutional amendment.

There is only one way to see it.

But the govt. needs the people to be unarmed. They call in the supremes. They get in their robes and do their skullduggery and one of them has a lightbulb go off and he says, "Ah, that Walking Liberty coin show hers butt! It's really a tail." Another chiimes in, "Hey, your right, and the Eagle on the other side has a head so, heads are really tails and tails are really heads." They all nod solumnly and write up a decision saying that heads are tails and tails are heads.

Now the statists all bend over, rub their hands together gleefully, make a big smile and shout, "YES, heads are tails, the founders really meant that the people were supposed to be locked up for 'Weapons Violations'. Let's have the leos run 'em all in."

There you have it. Green is Red. Heads are Tails. Grass is Blue, The sky is Green. The supremes have declared it.

Like I said previous, They all know what 2a says. We all know what it says.

Now I anticipate some WA response saying, "Aha, but the Washington quarter doesn't show his butt. Whaddya say about that?"

Don't ask me. Ask the supremes. I won't play their games. I know a head when I see it and so do the leos.

 

[The Real Mad Max]

CCW

Did you run out of meds?

 

[Zundfolge]

Hey! I'm a civilian. My badge was NOT issued by a military authority-- it was issued by a municipality, by the authority of the state. I operate under CIVIL authority when on duty.

God bless ya Matt ... now if only more of your brother officers would look at it that way and stop thinking of us non-LEO's "just civilians" then maybe we could get past this stupid "us vs them" thing and realize we're on the same damn side

 

[Penforhire]

To the LEO's who would say "the law is not a buffet" I would say bull! You don't go around enforcing every code violation you see, or are your eyes closed, or do you not know the draconian list of minor offenses available?

So you are employing discretion. You don't cite everyone for everything. You're looking for "significant" violations. By applying a weapons charge with no other circumstances you are selecting to enforce that section of the code. Once y'all admit that we can move on to your reasons why. I'm sure you won't get much agreement in this room for disarming citizens but at least the smoke screen would be cleared.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The good news is that humanity has survived and even prospered under tyranny for tens of thousands of years.

~G. Fink

 

[WYO]

They all know what 2a says. We all know what it says.

Knowing what something says is not the same as knowing what it means. The Bill of Rights is a broad statement of principle that constrains the legislature but does not purport to address in every detail every situation for all time. No right is absolute. If someone believes in a religion that involves human sacrifice, can they just grab someone off the street and sacrifice ‘em? The Second Amendment is no different. We all know what the 2A says, but the meaning is not crystal clear. Does the right to bear arms mean that you can have ammo for them? Does the right to bear arms mean that you can use the ammo and shoot them? Does it mean that no law can prevent you from shooting them in the air like they do in foreign countries and various American cities? Does it mean that you can shoot them at people walking down the street? That would be a constraint on the right to bear arms, right? Once you say the first “but†and make a distinction, you are interpreting the Constitution. It’s all shades of gray from that point forward. (BTW, I do think that the historical record supports the individual rights theory.)

While it may be flattering to think that a few people believe that individual police officers should be functioning as mini-Supreme Courts, deciding what laws are constitutional and which ones are not, and disregarding judicial precedent, I suspect that the vast majority of people wouldn’t go along with that for obvious reasons. In that sense, the law is not a buffet.

Discretion in police work means the ability to enforce or not enforce laws where the enforcement is not mandatory under law or policy. By definition it cannot be a violation of the officer’s oath to act or not act in a matter that is subject to discretion. The use of discretion should be made using common sense and community values for the accomplishment of a good purpose. I would not expect a New York City police officer to exercise discretion in the same manner as a rural western police officer. Further, if a gun law upheld as constitutional can be used to put away a “bad person,†I don’t have a problem with using it and society is benefited. Sometimes the gun charge is better than a wrist slap charge. Does that mean that every technical violation results in enforcement action? No.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Can't you leo types see that the ruling elite types are making you look like fools?

Can't you see that they are treating you like robots? Enforcing machines?

Mr. WYO, I HAVE to assume that you are a decent honorable principled person. You know what 2a says. You can't figure out what it means?

Please answer me this. Lets say I am walking into a convience store and you see a weapon print through my wind breaker. You don't know me.

1) Do you ask to see my cc permit?
2) If I don't have one, do you run me in?

Now's your chance to show some discretion.

 

[GeneC]

CCW said:"There is only one way to see it."


Says who? Don't you see you're just as bad as 'the supremes' (whoever that is)? You're dictating that there's only ONE way to see it and everyone who disagrees is with 'THEM'. The 2a says the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but it was explained by the FF that that meant 'the people' were all freemen(and excluded criminals and slaves) and the rest of the Constitution says that laws can be passed to protect Society. Fact is , there's MORE than one way to see it and you are ignoring history and logic. History has shown that criminals kill people with guns, so they should NOT be allowed to just walk into any gun store and buy them. Sure they're gonna steal them, but it's not the same. You must not have any children or you'd know, you can make rules about not cussing or smoking pot or having sex, but you can't do a damn thing about stopping them if they really wanna do it (short of being the 'supreme' dictator you seem to despise). The distinction is that you're not just freely letting them do whatever they want, you let them know you don't condone it. Same with this Govt, NO law is infringing on 2A, if you are not a felon, you can 'keep and bear' just about any 'arm' you want.



CCW also said:"Please answer me this. Lets say I am walking into a convience store and you see a weapon print through my wind breaker. You don't know me.

1) Do you ask to see my cc permit?
2) If I don't have one, do you run me in?"


I'm not even a LEO, but I don't you from Joe Schmuck and you could have just killed your family and are going on a killing spree. If I see you carrying, I might ask for your CCW, or else we might have a problem. I might draw on you and demand it and if you refuse, we'll wait for the police to do it, if you move towards your gun, I'll ventilate you to the floor. Hey, it's the times and my right to protect myself and my family, see? If an LEO sees you printing, I EXPECT him to question you and check you out, just as I would if they saw me printing, but I have NO problem producing my CCW. I consider it a 'badge' of honor and the penalty for being stupid enough to allow it to print in the first place.

 

[WYO]

I will not respond to a purely hypothetical situation where I know but two out of potentially dozens of relevant facts, and I generally will not predict exactly what I would do in a future situation, because I don’t know in advance. But, I definitely have cut people breaks in matters involving illegal concealed carry, and I know a lot of others who have as well. BTW, I’m not talking about Mayberry here, I’m talking about a large high-crime city.

I read a lot of cases and I have more than a passing interest in the Second Amendment. I have some general opinions, but I cannot tell you exactly how it squares with each and every law. I do not have the time and/or I am not that smart, but I don’t have to take the time or be that smart, because I don’t substitute my personal interpretation for that of the courts. If that makes me a fool, I can live with that. I get called a lot worse on a regular basis, although that stuff isn’t true.

 

[Telperion]

GeneC you're cracking me up

I'm not even a LEO, but I don't [know] you from Joe Schmuck and you could have just killed your family and are going on a killing spree.

Why, that's the first thing I think of whenever I see somebody in the store.

If I see you carrying, I might ask for your CCW, or else we might have a problem. I might draw on you and demand it

Am I understanding you correctly? You, as a private citizen, are going to draw down on somebody in the Quik-e-mart because he tells you to MYOB?

 

[GeneC]

pipsqueak(?) said:"Am I understanding you correctly? You, as a private citizen, are going to draw down on somebody in the Quik-e-mart because he tells you to MYOB? "


You're understanding what you want to , but I see right away you're attempting to take it out of context and I'm gonna guess YOU don't have your CCW. This jerk has walked in and shown he's carrying without descretion. I know NOTHING about him, like I said, if I see it, I'm gonna say something. Now, any NORMAL CCW will say something to the effect of," OH, sorry, thanks for pointing it out ." and will immediately conceal his weapon, then I'll go on my way, while still keeping an eye on him('cause he was stupid enough to allow his weapon to 'print' in the first place, he's not all there anyway), but, if he say's MYOB, I'm gonna walk past and turn around a draw on him and DEMAND to see his CCW and warn him if he even twitches towards his gun, I'll put him down, 'cause there's 50/50 chance he's a BG or deranged and I'll take my chances. At that point any CCW , even with a lapse of reason'll put his hands up and in his most sarcastic voice , say, "Hold it, I have my CCW, blah, blah, blah, don't shoot." , but at least he ain't wounded. If he actually reaches for his gun, then it becomes self defense, sorta, but I'm willing to let a jury of my peers decide. We can do it the easy way or the hard way, it don't matter to me. The next step is the police, plain and simple. How much easier it'd be if children would learn to play by the rules.

 

[R.H. Lee]

if he say's MYOB, I'm gonna walk past and turn around a draw on him and DEMAND to see his CCW and warn him if he even twitches towards his gun, I'll put him down, 'cause there's 50/50 chance he's a BG or deranged and I'll take my chances.

.....which don't look good 'cause I think you just committed at least one, maybe two, felonies in any state in this union.

 

[LawDog]

You know what 2a says. You can't figure out what it means?

There is, in my jail right now, a man who is charged -- not yet convicted -- only charged, with a violent felony.

His indictment is for murder. Capital murder, to be exact, of an elderly man by way of a ball-peen hammer for the princely sum of $28.00 and change.

I know what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- Amendment II, Constitution of the United States of America.

I know that there are no exemptions there. No exceptions. No caveats. No mention of criminals at all.

You know what? He will neither keep, nor bear arms while he's in my facility. Period. Full stop.

Do I know what the Second Amendment means? Hmm.

I bloody well know that it doesn't mean that a sociopath with a criminal history of violent felonies longer than you are tall gets to keep an M4A1 and 460 rounds of ammo under his bunk while he's being held in my jail.

LawDog