Chris Hadlock

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Brodie Farquhar: What's going on down under?

Sorry, but I will have to table this conversation until I return to Colorado. All my attention next week will be focused on breathing underwater and communing with the fishes.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Brodie Farquhar: What's going on down under?

Ken, my apologies if I stuck any words in your mouth, that was not intended. Those words have come at me from other contributors to this forum, and if I mistakenly applied them to you, that was wrong. I appreciate your intelligence and reasoned responses.

What would you consider to be "Reasonable Restrictions" in the environment of 2016? The previous assault weapons ban that was signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986 was challenged repeatedly but was held up as constitutional by multiple federal courts.

It seems to me that the same would hold true today.

Personally, I am more in favor of "Castle Doctrine" than in "Stand Your Ground" and would argue that the individuals 1st responsibility is to de-escalate when in the public sphere and not to stand your ground and open fire.

How far does the right to self-defense extend and how much firepower is necessary to fulfill the requirements of defense? These are serious questions that deserve serious discussion and solutions. Putting higher capacity weapons in the public arena is not a good option IMO, and I would argue that those kind of advanced tools should require a higher level of scrutiny and training.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Brodie Farquhar: What's going on down under?

Ken, I know you cite the Heller Vs. DC case frequently and that case did in fact uphold the 2nd amendment as applying to the individual. However, they justices (Scalia) also wrote:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Admittedly, the court’s follow-up firearms case, McDonald v. Chicago, did contain some dicta about a broader “right to self-defense.” But in no way did it extend Heller’s logic to guarantee a right to self-defense outside of the home."

How can you say your rights are unlimited when the court decision you most frequently cite manifestly disagrees with your opinion?

In addition, the previous assault rifle ban signed by Ronald Reagan was upheld multiple times in Federal Courts. How can you explain that if you have an unlimited right to any weapon you so desire? These decisions would seem to be in direct conflict with the older US v. Miller (1939) .

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Coloradans ponder Amendment 69's ColoradoCare

"Wow, this thing equates to another 10% in income taxes?"

I would gladly pay a 10% income tax if my health insurance premiums went away. How many of you out there can say that you are paying 10% or less of your annual income for health insurance?

In my family, that would take a combined income of about $140,000 annually for the two of us to maintain health insurance and keep the premiums at less that 10% of income. However, if you need any actual healthcare, they add another $10,000 deductible on top of those premiums leaving that income requirement closer to $250,000 annually.

That leaves my families annual healthcare costs somewhere north of $20,000 per year and neither one of us has any medical problems to speak of. Yes, I would say that 10% is the best deal going, where do I sign up!

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

Aw yes, the old drink your self silly while packing heat. I am sure that all bars and nightclubs would be safer if everyone was armed. It worked out so well in Dodge City after all. Ask Dr. Victory how that drinking and concealed carry worked out for her..

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

They had armed staff.

"An officer working extra duty in full uniform at the club responds. He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gun battle ensues."

The good guys with guns were simply out-gunned.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

Ken, I tend to agree with you on this post. Except for this:

Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Except that there are laws about the "FIRE in a crowded Theater", Local control of where even peaceful protests can take place, In addition, there are laws governing outright Liable or inflammatory public speech etc.. How can the provisions in Article 1 accept some regulation but not the provisions in Article 2?

In terms of Heller, I fully support the right to protect me and what is mine. However, it has already been determined that the individual gives up certain rights when that person puts themselves into a public space. Privacy being the one most prominent. Even current Colorado law puts the space in your vehicle as your personal space so having arms in the vehicle is not considered any different that having them in your home. I would contend that the same principle applies to however many acres of land the individual might own.

The point of contention specifically discussed in the Peruta v. San Diego decision is who should be walking around city streets, concerts, restaurants, bars and grocery stores with a concealed weapon. Is that considered a 2nd amendment right or can there be regulation in this area. The En Banc decision by the 9th circuit court says it can be regulated.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

This decision is not about the possession or class of the weapon. Heller was specifically about the type of weapon being banned and the court limited their decision to that question. What needs to be answered is does anyone and everyone have a right to arm themselves in public (ie. concealed carry) or is there a need to regulate that.

I have no problem with anyone out there choosing to protect themselves in public spaces, but the issue remains that not everyone out there should be allowed to engage in the responsibility that comes with that choice. It remains a fact that there are individuals n our society that cannot be trusted to make the right choices with the power embodied in that weapon.

Even a commercial driver faces a higher level of training and testing than a normal driver, and in my opinion the individual being armed in public should require a higher level of knowledge and training. Heck, we even have hunter safety training before you can get a hunting license but you can get a concealed carry permit in some states just by filling out the paperwork with no training required.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Jane Dougherty: Wear Orange to end gun violence

If you would read the actual text that I posted instead of just throwing out all the reasons the decision was wrong, you would learn that the 9th Circuit Court referenced both the Heller and the McDonald decisions.

"But this lawsuit was critically flawed from the start, because the Supreme Court’s watershed Second Amendment decision, D.C. v. Heller, confined its holding to the possession of firearms “in the home.” The Heller court also declared:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Admittedly, the court’s follow-up firearms case, McDonald v. Chicago, did contain some dicta about a broader “right to self-defense.” But in no way did it extend Heller’s logic to guarantee a right to self-defense outside of the home."

0