They Carry Guns ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


FirmhandKY -> They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 9:08:18 PM)


They Carry Guns

By Rosa Jurjevics | Published Wednesday, July 15, 2009

quote:

First, I am given instructions on what to do if approached by the police. I brace myself as Nate explains.

“What’s going to happen is, they’re going to want to do a 12031(e) unloaded check,” he begins. “They’ll say they want to check your weapon. You say, ‘Are you requesting or demanding?’ If they say, ‘Demanding,’ you say, ‘I don’t consent to any warrantless searches. But I’m not going to resist.’ And then you stick your hands out, they check your weapon, and it’s done.”

Sounds easy enough, I figure. I’ve got my tape recorder ready, as open carriers are urged, via websites like OpenCarry.org, to keep recording devices on them while carrying to capture any interactions with police (and civilians) they might have in case their rights are infringed upon.

“You don’t have to answer any other questions. You don’t have to give them your ID,” Sam instructs. “It’s technically an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says you have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If there’s a woman pushing a baby stroller down the boardwalk, that does not give the police the right to check if the kid is kidnapped. So if you’re in full compliance with the law, minding your own business, they technically don’t have the right to stop you to check if your weapon is unloaded or loaded.”

...


As we walk and talk, a man in a red shirt passes us, his eyes obstructed by wraparound shades. He turns around to face us.

“You walking around with live ammo in those?” he asks, walking backward.

“Not with live ammo in them,” Sean replies amicably.

“Do you have a permit for that?” the man asks.

“You don’t need one,” says Sean.

“I’ll find out down here for you, ’kay?” the man asks, somewhat rhetorically, as he hightails it down the boardwalk.

“It’s not Mexico, guys, you can’t pull that shit off,” he shouts, over his shoulder.

“Do you really think that guy is going to go to the cops?” I ask, once I’m sure he’s out of earshot.

“Probably,” says Sam. “And the cops will say, ‘It’s legal. You don’t have to like it, but it’s legal.’ ”

...

At the Mexican restaurant, lunch proceeds normally, save for a few stares, until I notice a large white-and-black SUV pull up in front of us. “Uh-oh,” I think. “Here we go.”

A male cop emerges, a tall man with a salt-and-pepper crew cut. He smiles at us.

“Howdy, folks. How’re you all doing today?” he asks.

“Fine,” everybody responds.

“I’m going to have to do a 12031(e) inspection on you and get out of your hair,” the cop says.

“Are you requesting or demanding?” Nate asks.

“I’m sorry?” asks the cop.

“Are you requesting or demanding?” Nate repeats.

The cop looks at him.

“Well, I’ll start with a request, but then I’ll demand,” he replies.

“As long as you’re demanding,” says Nate.

The cop starts with Sean.

He has him face the opposite direction and goes around behind him, removing Sean’s gun. He checks for ammunition and, finding none, places the gun back in its holster.

The cop makes his way around the table. Each of the trio stands and, when asked to be checked, pipes up with “Requesting or demanding?”

...

“Okay,” the cop says. “I appreciate your cooperation.”

Before he leaves, Sean asks if someone sent him over.

“Actually, we had a radio call. I guess you were out on the boardwalk,” the cop replies.

“I think I know the guy…” Sean says wryly.

“I talked to one person that had called. He said you were headed south,” the cop says. “So we were looking for you. We appreciate your cooperation. Have a good day.”

I glance around me and notice several cruisers are parked along the edge of the Mexican restaurant’s lot, plus the SUV.

...



Very interesting article, although long for some.

Brings up a lot of issues for discussion.

Firm




philosophy -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 9:24:13 PM)

......pulled the following from the various responses after the article.....

"As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting."

......i have to say, i'm having problems seeing how that author is wrong.




FirmhandKY -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 9:26:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

......pulled the following from the various responses after the article.....

"As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting."

......i have to say, i'm having problems seeing how that author is wrong.

There are several responses to that particular comment.

Firm




DomKen -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 9:36:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

......pulled the following from the various responses after the article.....

"As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting."

......i have to say, i'm having problems seeing how that author is wrong.

That was the way it worked for more than 200 years until GWB stacked the bench with crazies. Now the 2nd amendment has basically had everything about militia deleted, by the strict constructionists who claim to consider the words of the document sancrosanct.

Luckily the ruling is internally self contradictory and will be revisited soon.




Arpig -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 9:51:13 PM)

quote:

"As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting."

......i have to say, i'm having problems seeing how that author is wrong.

I used to think the same way, but if one reads the amendment, it says no such thing. It says since a militia is essential the right of the people to have guns can't be infringed on. It says nothing about the right being restricted to those in the militia or any other limiting factor. Personally I am against gun ownership, but the amendment says what it says, and from the wording it seems pretty clear to me that the right to bear arms is not in any way limited to a militia.




slvemike4u -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 10:00:10 PM)

Arpig "pretty clear" is definitly not the words I would use to describe the 2nd.....not by a long shot.




Arpig -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 10:05:02 PM)

Where is the wording ambiguous?




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 10:19:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Where is the wording ambiguous?


To me, that "A well-regulated militia being essential..." part is the fly in the ointment. The interpretation of the entire amendment is dependent upon the meaning of that phrase, and that's the kicker. What is a "well-regulated militia", in this context? No other sentence in the Constitution has been the subject of so much debate, and almost certainly no other sentence has been interpreted in such different ways and been so widely disagreed upon. Get everyone on both sides of the argument to agree on the meaning of that phrase, and the argument is probably over, because once that phrase becomes clear the meaning of the entire amendment becomes clear.




TheHeretic -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 10:43:21 PM)

Going out, looking to create a confrontational situation with law enforcement...  Great sport, until the day a rookie gets panicked, or the boardwalk criminals figure out it takes three or four units to back-up that check, and time their work accordingly.

I see counterproductive written all over this.




Arpig -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 10:55:52 PM)

To my eye, the meaning of the phrase is irrelevant. The right to have weapons is not dependant on the militia.




GrizzlyBear -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 11:18:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

......pulled the following from the various responses after the article.....

"As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting."

......i have to say, i'm having problems seeing how that author is wrong.


The author of this statement is wrong, as are you.  Those who study history with an open mind will agree, as did the Supreme Court

When the Constitution was ratified, "the Militia" had a well known meaning.  It was all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms.  However, in Federal Laws relating to what portion of the Militia could be called into service in time of war or emergency, this was limited to able-bodied males between 18 and 45 years of age. Thus the Militia was separated into the Organized Militia, and the Un-oganized Militia.  But still everyone capable of bearing arms was the Militia.

Until 1862, the Organized Militia was limited to whites.  Laws were passed starting in 1792 requiring all such persons to equip themselves with military-grade weapons and a supply of ammunition.  Those laws stayed in effect until 1903. 

There was no such thing as the National Guard until 1903, when Congress passed a law creating it and providing for it to be equipped at public expense, as the Nation's reserve force.  However creating the National Guard did not eliminate the existence of the Militia.  It just eliminated the requirement in law that they all be able to show up with weapons on demand.

That the National Guard are not the Militia but are in fact a branch of the Federal Armed Forces, was decided in 1990 by the Supreme Court, in Perpich v. US

The following are not my words but from an essay by Benedict D. LaRosa

"The collective-rights interpretation also ignores history. George Mason, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention commented, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the earlier Annapolis convention, wrote:
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves.... 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.... 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Noah Webster, compiler of the famous dictionary, remarked:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.


When SCOTUS looked into it, by golly, they agreed.  It's an individual right.  Has nothing to do with the National Guard, or the ability of States to organize their own Militias.  It means what it was intended to mean, not what the antigun crowd wishes it meant.  "The Right of the People", as it does in the other Amendments, means the People, not the National Guard.  D.C. v. Heller

Or is it the "shall not be infringed," that you don't understand?

Not convinced?  Sorry if it messes with your worldview, but it might help you to understand the Second Amendment if you understood,  "For whom was it written?"




FirmhandKY -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/19/2009 11:49:54 PM)


Excellent post, Grizzley.

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 12:09:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Going out, looking to create a confrontational situation with law enforcement...  Great sport, until the day a rookie gets panicked, or the boardwalk criminals figure out it takes three or four units to back-up that check, and time their work accordingly.

I see counterproductive written all over this.

It certainly has that possibility,

Personally, at my age and experience, I'd not likely seek to do this.

But their point is - it is a right.  Sometimes, we may lose rights if we are afraid to exercise them.

They seem to be scrupulous in adhering to all the laws and restrictions  If they help "the system" come to terms with how to handle free citizens exercising their rights in a responsible manner - whats so bad about that?

Firm




DomKen -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 7:02:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrizzlyBear
[/font][/blockquote][align=left]When SCOTUS looked into it, by golly, they agreed.  It's an individual right.  Has nothing to do with the National Guard, or the ability of States to organize their own Militias.  It means what it was intended to mean, not what the antigun crowd wishes it meant.  "The Right of the People", as it does in the other Amendments, means the People, not the National Guard.  D.C. v. Heller

Have you read the Heller opinion? What individual right can be permanently lost by a civil court judgement? According to Scalia et al the answer is all of them. Heller cannot be allowed to stand.




DomImus -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 7:59:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Going out, looking to create a confrontational situation with law enforcement...  Great sport, until the day a rookie gets panicked, or the boardwalk criminals figure out it takes three or four units to back-up that check, and time their work accordingly.

I see counterproductive written all over this.


There wasn't anything even remotely confrontational about the behavior of the subjects in the article. The police officer they encountered in the restaurant recognized their right to carry and thanked them for their cooperation afterward. Rosa Parks was more confrontational... but even she understood that if you do not exercise your rights you have none.






kdsub -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 10:40:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

......pulled the following from the various responses after the article.....

"As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting."

......i have to say, i'm having problems seeing how that author is wrong.


The Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as....."The “militia” comprised ALL males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

and

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

So for now it is the law of the land.

Butch




Loki45 -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 10:46:00 AM)

I read a news article from....I want to say Illinois or one of the Virginias were a woman felt ostracized for excercising her open-carry right.

Personally, I'd prefer to carry concealed. But open carry could have its uses, especially in preventing 'weird' arrests when your jacket opens accidentally and the weapon is seen by a cop who considers that 'in the open,' as it was told to me by someone I spoke with who almost got arrested for such a thing.




philosophy -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 11:00:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrizzlyBear

That the National Guard are not the Militia but are in fact a branch of the Federal Armed Forces, was decided in 1990 by the Supreme Court, in Perpich v. US


....fair enough, i had an honest question and you've answered it comprehensively.....

quote:

Not convinced?  Sorry if it messes with your worldview, but it might help you to understand the Second Amendment if you understood,  "For whom was it written?"


......lose the 'tude. You're just perpetuating the stereotype that those who zealously defend the 2nd amendment are unable to carry a debate without personal attacks. That isn't helpful.

My worldview is that there are a lot of things i don;t understand.....i asked for clarification. i got it. No need for you to get snarky.




Crush -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/20/2009 7:21:48 PM)

+2 Griz. 

For further reading, on this and other related issues, and for those interested:  http://www.guncite.com/  

or the summary version:  http://www.gunfacts.info/









ienigma777 -> RE: They Carry Guns ... (7/22/2009 10:18:12 AM)

True, informative post. Let me ask you...is there a National Guard now? I mean, the states National Guard system, seems to have been disarmed...where I could see a base, with vehicles, tanks, heavy armour, trucks, there is a youth center. The physical force has venished from the landscape. How do you account for this? Is the National Guard now only the actual bodies of men, who have served in the standing army? Wasn't the National Guard under the rule of the Govenor of a State...being the State's army? as it were.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875