What would you do?

[bigfatdave]

The current supreme court? I'd imagine it would become political in a silly way followed by a toothless ruling including the phrase "reasonable restrictions"
But how about the people who wrangled and debated about the wording of the Constitution?

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed

Notice the wording.
The people have a specific recognized right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia, not government employees, not congress's appointed representative ... the people
The right regards arms, not muskets, not single-shot pistols, not the armaments of the current army/militia. This was an era where cannons and artillery were privately owned and loaned out to the fledgeling government for purposes of revolution. Privateers were personally-owned armed ships. Militia was expected to show up with normal weapons, they weren't always supplied with federally-owned standardized muskets.

So, yes, I consider "arms" to be a pretty broad category, because I'm a libertarian and believe strongly that a responsible citizen is no danger to the public regardless of the tools at his disposal. If you want to own an armored assualt vehicle, I don't really care, so long as you don't rip up the road with it and don't assault stuff I care about.
The militia is the subset of the people nice enough to show up when the government asks for help.
Arms are whatever they feel like bringing along.

 

[bigfatdave]

I've actually never considered this. Would you say that any fighting tool would be considered an "arm," including a knife or sword? What about other types of weapons, like a dagger, garrote, or flail?

and to specifically address this ... I wouldn't even restrict it to designed weapons. The problem is not the tools, it is the violent predators among us.

Is it armed robbery if the scumbag uses a:
gun?
telescoping baton?
knife?
sword?
baseball bat?
broken-off table leg?
busted bottle?

Limiting tools doesn't stop violence, in fact it just makes all you little people more of a soft target. (I'm 6'3" and still retain a lot of my pre-Navy and Navy muscle, there was a time when I bench-pressed 150% of my weight, I'm down to 100% now, oddly the weight on the bar is about the same)

 

[robMaine]

@bigfatdave and others, I wasn't suggesting whether or not to carry or that I can predict the future. What I was getting at is that in Portland, ME I would have been uneasy about someone revealing a baton like that, just because it is not somewhere you would expect someone to be that on edge.

 

[bigfatdave]

in Portland, ME I would have been uneasy about someone revealing a baton like that, just because it is not somewhere you would expect someone to be that on edge

Do you get all puckery about open carry as well?
Mere presence of a baton isn't a threat, why not extend the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a preventative planned revelation or that it was just uncomfortable in that pocket and needed to be moved.

 

[robMaine]

Do you get all puckery about open carry as well?
Mere presence of a baton isn't a threat, why not extend the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a preventative planned revelation or that it was just uncomfortable in that pocket and needed to be moved.

Open carry doesn't bug me in the least, to me a baton has more of a shady feel to it, like if he picked up and broke a bottle. That is just me, I understand police carry them and many citizens do for self defense, just a weird quirk of mine I guess.

 

[ultradoc]

let it be

 

[Loosedhorse]

wouldn't the bonkin' stick have been crashing down on the OP's skull before he got passed?

I guess that's what I would do if I were a murderous robber. If I was an intimidation robber, I might decide to show the stick, rather than club the guy.

And I've already judged him an incompetent defender. Nothing prevents him from being an incompetent robber.

 

[DM~]

I was in Portland (ME) for a meeting, and had to catch the bus. As I was walking up the sidewalk, I had to stop for a second to light a smoke. There was a guy right behind me, so I moved over to let him by. I was carrying my lunch bag in my hand at the time. As he passed me, he reached into his back pocket and slid a baton out of his pocket, and slid the rest out from under his jacket. There were only the two of us around at the time, and although we never made eye contact, it was kind of obvious that he thought I had let him pass so I could mug him.
I had to continue in the same direction to catch my bus, and had to speed up a little to make the street crossing while he was still ahead of me.
Nothing came of this, and he replaced the baton by sliding it back under his jacket, with the handle in his rear pocket. No big deal except batons are illegal to carry in Maine.
Would you have called the cops,and missed your bus, or, like I did, assume that sooner or later this clown will get busted on his own?

What would "I" do"

I'd quit smokeing and VERY soon i'd have enough money to buy better transportation... lol

DM

 

[Ryanxia]

I've lived in Maine most my life and I never knew you couldn't carry a baton, you sure on that point?

Also, Portland, ME is a sorry place to be for armed citizens, they stop open carry people all the time and hassle them and disarm them while they search them, etc. The rest of Maine is generally pretty good though.

 

[JRH6856]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states but has only selectively applied this doctrine to certain amendments such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th, but, as yet, not the 2nd. Until that happens, the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states and state governments are free to "infringe" as much as the state constitutions allow.

 

[Ryanxia]

Micro - I should have clarified, there is no state/town ordiance against open carry or even concealed, they just harass on multiple occasions.

 

[JRH6856]

...they just harass on multiple occasions.

In that case, unreasonable search and seizure is prohibited by the 4th Amendment... at least in theory. But There are those who consider it reasonable to carry a weapon for self defense and those who consider it unreasonable. The latter often includes the police who then consider it reasonable to stop and search (harass) those who carry for any reason.

 

[Ryanxia]

One particular case I remember a year or two ago, a guy was open carrying (legal), they searched him, found a large pocket knife or something and it was in the paper that 'police stopped a man with a gun and charged him with carrying a concealed weapon' or something to that affect. Last I heard he was fighting it.

 

[JRH6856]

a guy was open carrying (legal), they searched him, found a large pocket knife or something and it was in the paper that 'police stopped a man with a gun and charged him with carrying a concealed weapon' or something to that affect.

A good example of an accurate statement that is susceptible to inaccurate interpretation, which may even have been the editorial intent. Unfortunately, it is so common hardly anyone notices.

 

[Bobson]

In that case, unreasonable search and seizure is prohibited by the 4th Amendment... at least in theory. But There are those who consider it reasonable to carry a weapon for self defense and those who consider it unreasonable. The latter often includes the police who then consider it reasonable to stop and search (harass) those who carry for any reason.

...pretty dumb comment.

You don't happen to be black, hispanic, white, asian, indian, religious, unreligious, blonde, brunette, or redhead, do you? I have some equally unfair and inaccurate generalizations I could make.

Hate-mongering needn't be part of your point.

 

[JRH6856]

Sometimes, even dumb comments are true. Sorry you took offense.

 

[Bobson]

I wasn't trying to be over-sensitive. Just that I know far more people who hate cops, than those who are indifferent - much less people who actually believe most LEOs are good people.

It's a dangerous trend for everyone, even civilians. But especially for cops. And not fair at all to the LEOs who genuinely care about helping others.

 

[Ryanxia]

It's a fact Bobson that the police are the ones in power in every day life and their actions/attitudes are definitely a factor. The statement that some/many of them consider it 'unreasonable' to carry a firearm for self defense and may give you a hard time is absolutely accurate whether some would take it as a generalization or not.

 

[Bobson]

The statement that some/many of them consider it 'unreasonable' to carry a firearm for self defense and may give you a hard time is absolutely accurate

Yes, but it's also incredibly vague, and therefore, shouldn't be said, because it's going to spur anger onto a large group of people - many of whom don't deserve the disrespect and violence they'll receive because of it.

 

[JRH6856]

Just that I know far more people who hate cops, than those who are indifferent - much less people who actually believe most LEOs are good people.

I understand. I don't hate cops. My uncle was a Texas DPS Trooper and a cousin was Houston PD. Another cousin was a Texas game warden. I managed a private security operation for several years. I have and have had many good friends who were/are cops. I know most LEOs are good people who genuinely care about helping others. I also know that many of them would rather civilians not carry, openly or concealed. I think it is somewhat reasonable for them to feel this way because it makes them feel safer and it is easier to handle a situation involving an armed citizen when only they and outlaws have guns. Not all LEOs feel this way, but enough do that it matters when discussing police response to an armed citizen.

 

[outdoorsman1]

robMaine
Said…(Snip)...

robMaine
Said… I have very rarely felt unsafe in Portland, there are some "rougher areas" but nothing horrible. I am also 5'11, close to 200# and been boxing and fighting MMA for years, so that helps me feel at ease, but still not a horribly rough town.

Boxing and MMA will do you no good in a encounter with a BG armed with a firearm....

gym said... (Snip)

Either you carry or you don't. We have sidetracked into these conversations before. You have absolutelly no way of knowing where and when you will encounter a serial killer, rapist, crime of oppertunity, and on and on. To have a permit and think that you are a barometer for deciding when you are, and are not in danger is a very pious attitude.
I just hope that your luck continues keeping you safe in your decisions of where and when one should carry their weapon. I am sure there are a lot of people that could have used your mastery of the art of predicting the future, who have passed on due to their inability to gauge this unique talent.
There is no part time carry, either you do or you don't.There are no people who left the house and knew that they would end up being killed that day, for the lack of leaving their firearm at home because they would not need it.

This ...^^^^^ ..... + 1

Outdoorsman1

 

[Averageman]

Sometimes you will run in to a like minded person.
That guy; like you, was wanting to protect himself the best way he could at the time. That baton may be illegal; but sadly it may be his only current choice for self protection. So he had a choice and took it.
I can't say I blame him.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks,

This is ST&T, not law school. Let's leave off the lawbook quotes, please.

 

[Owen Sparks]

No big deal except batons are illegal to carry in Maine.

This is why I carry a heavy "walking stick" if I have to go into a bad part of town. They are legal everywhere. Visit the non-firearms forum to learn more.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Boxing and MMA will do you no good in a encounter with a BG armed with a firearm....

I am aware that this is off topic to the thread but I have to disagree with this absolute statement. I have studied various martial arts and have practiced disarming techniques over the course of my life and while I can’t say that they will always work you can’t say that they will never work either.

It’s not the technique that you use or the fighting style that you’re trained in but your willingness to fight back. Many times that alone is enough to throw your attacker off balance enough for you to at least get away if not defeat your opponent .

As to the topic at hand, I’m not a police officer. It’s not my business to enforce the laws of Maine. The man isn’t threatening me or anyone that I am aware of. It’s none of my business