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.

...

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Where is the wording ambiguous?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?"