Jump to content
Mark, I know it drives you nuts, but the law has said that Jim Crow laws and poll taxes are not allowed. By the same token, the courts have consistently given the Government the ability to make common sense regulation about guns. You know that both of these things are true, so why the apples and oranges comparison?
"What happened in Philly in 1787 was a bloodless coup."
"The convention that produced the Constitution was a deception and conspiracy – a coup d'etat which undid much of what was accomplished in the War of Independence"
Fallback position for when the actual Constitution does not say what you want it to say? Good Luck with that.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. When even Justice Scalia says you are wrong about your assumed rights, it should make one reconsider.
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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. 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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
Ken, I am not arguing for a change in gun laws.
What I am saying is that a higher level of training for anyone that chooses to arm themselves in public places is required. Similar to a class 3 weapons permit.
Simply putting more weapons into public spaces will increase the number of public shootings. Those people that think they require that kind of power should be required to show a higher level of competence with their weapon. We demand that from those that drive larger commercial vehicles, why should it be any different with firearms?
A gun is one potential tool that might be used by an officer or an armed citizen during an active shooter scenario in a movie theater. But considering that conditions will be dark and often loud, once the shooting starts, so does the panic of the moviegoers. That dark, loud, chaotic scene is the tactical reality behind the shot some armed citizen or officer may be wishing to take.
It is not realistic to think that:
1. The bad guy can always be easily identified.
2. You will hit your intended target.
3. Your average concealed carry permit holder will know how to react when the shooting starts.
Much more there for your reading pleasure. What say you?
"You will be held accountable for every round you fire, and your intention to save lives will be irrelevant if an innocent third party gets killed."
Interesting timing from General Honore
"As a country we're in a state of denial because we've confused the right to bear arms with the right to carry arms all the time anywhere or anyplace you want," Honore told Gannett Louisiana on Monday. "We have to have a different kind of conversation in America and be prepared to speak about the politically unspeakable."
"The best place for weapons when you're not in the field is to be locked up in the garrison," Honore' said. "Our biggest problem before Desert Storm was (soldiers) accidentally firing their weapons, and they're trained."
"I've been around guns all my life, but when I was growing up they were locked in the cabinet unless you needed them for hunting."
As a citizen of Routt County, the City of Steamboat already gets plenty of my tax dollars in the form of their sales tax. Why would/should we pay more for city services that we have no voice in and no control over? If they want more money from the County then we want a vote on how they spend it. Like Nancy told us, "Just Say NO!"
Which is why there should be mandatory regular training for all holders of a CCW permit. That responsibility it not something to be taken lightly and it should not be granted to persons of questionable mental stability. The CCW permit should require more than a rubber stamp for those that apply.
PS. Good advice Mark. I hope someone/anyone is listening.
Last login: Monday, August 10, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.