I'm sure this will have no impact whatsoever on the pending SCOTUS confirmation and POTUS elections...
A federal appeals court in California ruled today that local authorities have the right to require people to obtain permits before carrying concealed weapons in public.
In a 7-4 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not include carrying a concealed gun. The ruling upholds a California handgun permit law, one of the toughest in the country. The opinion is binding only in the Western states covered by the 9th Circuit.
The decision reverses a 2014 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit which found California's handgun control law unconstitutional.
Judge William Fletcher wrote for the full-court majority:
"The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment."
The case involves gun owners in two California counties – San Diego and Yolo – who were denied permits to carry concealed weapons. Under state law, applicants have to show good moral character, have a good cause and take a training course.
At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of "good cause."
AS NPR's Kirk Siegler reported for NPR's Newscast Unit:
"Basically applicants for a concealed-carry weapons permit in San Diego County had to demonstrate that they were in some sort of immediate danger — they were, say, carrying a large sum of money, or their life was clearly at risk. In other words, they couldn't just get a concealed-carry permit on the basis of self-defense alone."
Gun rights groups challenged California's handgun law as an infringement of the Second Amendment. Agreeing with them in a dissent was Judge Consuelo Callahan:
"The Second Amendment is not a 'second-class' constitutional guarantee .... the majority fails to recognize the real impact of the counties' policies on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."
Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.
Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.
Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
whembly wrote: Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.
Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.
Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.
As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.
I can't believe that a Circuit Court that has made no constitutional rulings is somehow still open. You think that the SCOTUS constantly over-ruling them on every single case would make somebody act on that kind of thing.
whembly wrote: Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.
Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.
Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.
As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.
Vermont and Alaska do not require permits for law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon where allowed by law.
The issue here isn't the constitutionality of the existence of concealed carry permits the issue is that some counties in CA have sherries that circumvent the process. CA state law says you can get a carry permit if you follow the application process with your county sheriffs. Plaintiffs in 2 CA counties filed suit because their sherrifs were denying permits on specious grounds and essentially negating the ability for county residents to get permits. State law doesn't define what constitutes "good cause" for applying for a carry permit so sherrifs are denying upstanding law abiding citizens from getting permits based on subjective arbitrary definitions of "good cause" which is bad practice. The CA legislature needs to clarify the law otherwise state residents will continue to see inconsistent enforcement of the law with residents getting permits in one county that wouldn't be granted permits on other counties. A state resident shouldn't lose his/her legally obtained permit just by moving to a different county with a sherrif who has a diametrically opposed interpretation of the same permit law that a resident's previous sherrif.
whembly wrote: Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.
Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.
Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.
As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.
Vermont and Alaska do not require permits for law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon where allowed by law.
Alaska is special since they don't require permits but still issue permits so that residents can get reciprocity with other states.
whembly wrote: A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason
I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.
Prestor Jon wrote:The issue here isn't the constitutionality of the existence of concealed carry permits the issue is that some counties in CA have sherries that circumvent the process. CA state law says you can get a carry permit if you follow the application process with your county sheriffs. Plaintiffs in 2 CA counties filed suit because their sherrifs were denying permits on specious grounds and essentially negating the ability for county residents to get permits. State law doesn't define what constitutes "good cause" for applying for a carry permit so sherrifs are denying upstanding law abiding citizens from getting permits based on subjective arbitrary definitions of "good cause" which is bad practice. The CA legislature needs to clarify the law otherwise state residents will continue to see inconsistent enforcement of the law with residents getting permits in one county that wouldn't be granted permits on other counties. A state resident shouldn't lose his/her legally obtained permit just by moving to a different county with a sherrif who has a diametrically opposed interpretation of the same permit law that a resident's previous sherrif.
whembly wrote: Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.
Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.
Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.
As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.
Vermont and Alaska do not require permits for law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon where allowed by law.
Alaska is special since they don't require permits but still issue permits so that residents can get reciprocity with other states.
The point was that Alaska doesn't REQUIRE residents to have a CCW to carry a concealed weapon. I'm aware of the reciprocity issue with Alaska, and the option to get a permit because of it.
And with California being a "needs based" State when it comes to CCW, this kind of crap is SOP.
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote: A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason
I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.
You must have missed the part about "Keep and BEAR ARMS".
Carrying a concealed weapon for personal defense is "Bearing Arms".
whembly wrote: A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason
I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's the “good cause” provision in that CA which effectively allows certain jurisdictions to get rid of CCW altogether.
Leaving aside the legal/political debate, am I the only one amused by the use of the phrase "concealed weapon in public"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms.
whembly wrote: A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason
I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's the “good cause” provision in that CA which effectively allows certain jurisdictions to get rid of CCW altogether.
Open carry of handguns is also illegal in most of CA*, and many of the counties, although technically "may issue," for CCW, are de facto "no issue" for the average law abiding citizen. If a law abiding citizen can't open carry and also can't concealed carry, how are they supposed to bear arms? I think it would be pretty difficult to seriously argue that someone who is not permitted to carry openly or concealed is not having their right to bear arms infringed.
*According to Wikipedia, it seems that "long guns may be carried in unincorporated rural areas where open carry is permitted by local ordinance. In a county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, a permit to carry a handgun 'loaded and exposed' may be issued by the county sheriff." So in the vast majority of cases, this isn't something that applies to the average law abiding CA citizen.
Hordini wrote: Open carry of handguns is also illegal in most of CA*, and many of the counties, although technically "may issue," for CCW, are de facto "no issue" for the average law abiding citizen. If a law abiding citizen can't open carry and also can't concealed carry, how are they supposed to bear arms? I think it would be pretty difficult to seriously argue that someone who is not permitted to carry openly or concealed is not having their right to bear arms infringed.
*According to Wikipedia, it seems that "long guns may be carried in unincorporated rural areas where open carry is permitted by local ordinance. In a county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, a permit to carry a handgun 'loaded and exposed' may be issued by the county sheriff." So in the vast majority of cases, this isn't something that applies to the average law abiding CA citizen.
One thing you missed about California....Celebrities, judges, sports figures, and politicians have no problem with getting a carry permit. Just ask Diane Feinstein, Steven Tyler, and Robert DeNiro (just to name a few),.
Hordini wrote: Open carry of handguns is also illegal in most of CA*, and many of the counties, although technically "may issue," for CCW, are de facto "no issue" for the average law abiding citizen. If a law abiding citizen can't open carry and also can't concealed carry, how are they supposed to bear arms? I think it would be pretty difficult to seriously argue that someone who is not permitted to carry openly or concealed is not having their right to bear arms infringed.
*According to Wikipedia, it seems that "long guns may be carried in unincorporated rural areas where open carry is permitted by local ordinance. In a county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, a permit to carry a handgun 'loaded and exposed' may be issued by the county sheriff." So in the vast majority of cases, this isn't something that applies to the average law abiding CA citizen.
One thing you missed about California....Celebrities, judges, sports figures, and politicians have no problem with getting a carry permit. Just ask Diane Feinstein, Steven Tyler, and Robert DeNiro (just to name a few),.
Yes. That's also a very problematic aspect of CA firearms laws.
Any SCOTUS ruling is, by the very definition, a constitutional ruling on the actual text of the Constitution and based on the actual meaning and intend of the Constitution.
SCOTUS is the legal version of the Bible. It's biblical because the Bible says so, and it's constitutional because SCOTUS says so.
Of course it's also only constitutional until SCOTUS changes their mind and makes a different ruling that is now constitutional.
whembly wrote: If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
I guess you're missing the fact that we do this all the time? There are all kinds of restrictions on exercising your second amendment rights, and somehow life goes on just fine. Everyone agrees that private ownership and use of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, even though they're "arms". Most people agree that concealed handgun permits are a good thing, and such laws are pretty clearly constitutional (including the state having the ability to set requirements for getting a permit). So there's no constitutional issue here, only a question of whether CA policy matches what the voters want it to be. If you don't like it then vote for people who will change that policy.
d-usa wrote: Any SCOTUS ruling is, by the very definition, a constitutional ruling on the actual text of the Constitution and based on the actual meaning and intend of the Constitution.
SCOTUS is the legal version of the Bible. It's biblical because the Bible says so, and it's constitutional because SCOTUS says so.
Of course it's also only constitutional until SCOTUS changes their mind and makes a different ruling that is now constitutional.
Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were still talking about the 9th Circuit Court but I see now you were referring to SCOTUS. You are correct sir!
d-usa wrote: Any SCOTUS ruling is, by the very definition, a constitutional ruling on the actual text of the Constitution and based on the actual meaning and intend of the Constitution.
SCOTUS is the legal version of the Bible. It's biblical because the Bible says so, and it's constitutional because SCOTUS says so.
Of course it's also only constitutional until SCOTUS changes their mind and makes a different ruling that is now constitutional.
Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were still talking about the 9th Circuit Court but I see now you were referring to SCOTUS. You are correct sir!
whembly wrote: If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.
I guess you're missing the fact that we do this all the time? There are all kinds of restrictions on exercising your second amendment rights, and somehow life goes on just fine. Everyone agrees that private ownership and use of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, even though they're "arms". Most people agree that concealed handgun permits are a good thing, and such laws are pretty clearly constitutional (including the state having the ability to set requirements for getting a permit). So there's no constitutional issue here, only a question of whether CA policy matches what the voters want it to be. If you don't like it then vote for people who will change that policy.
Nah... I get it.
Had the CA legislature actual defines what it meant by "good cause", meaning that there's a compelling public interest, then it'd be kosher imo.
However, if the local officials simply ignores the applicant's request? Dick move imo... dick move.
whembly wrote: A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason
I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.
To be fair, there's the part *bearing* arms, not just being allowed to have one. Given that open carry is illegal in CA (outside of a very tiny number of places where almost nobody lives), and concealed carry is effectively illegal for most people that live in CA (as the "may issue" is in most places effectively "no issue", Los Angeles County has a grand total of ~500 issued permits, San Francisco Country has...2 active permits) there very much is a case for there being infringement on the *bearing* aspect of the 2A. To put it in another perspective, CA's northern neighbor, Oregon, has 1/10th the population of CA, but has nearly triple the number of CC permits issued statewide that CA does as it is a "shall issue" state.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there's the part *bearing* arms, not just being allowed to have one.
It also doesn't say, to be fair, the right to hidden arms; bearing doesn't necessarily imply concealing.
Right, I'd agree, but if they're gonna ban open carry, and are gonna turn "may issue" into "no issue" for the most part, then there's effectively no "bearing" allowed, and that was the line of thinking with the Peruta and DC concealed carry cases.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.
This is tired old bit of conservative whinging. Its based on the 9th Circuit having the most cases overturned... but misses that the 9th reviews vastly more cases than any other. This is because the 9th is really big, it covers 60 million people or about 20% of the US population. Of course it's going to be the most active circuit court, and therefore have the most cases appealed to the SC. The SC, in turn, is wary of having its case load dominated by the 9th, so it selects a disproportionately lower portion of cases from the 9th. So it focuses on the ones that the SC feels the need to overturn.
One could just as easily note the SC declines to review the 9th more often than any other circuit court, implying the SC agrees with the 9th's interpretation more than any other court. That would be a long stretch as well, of course.
Anyhow, once that factoid about a high number of overturned decisions gets in to the hands of people who like to lie for political gain, they spread the story that the 9th is miles out of step with the rest of the country. And then people who like to be lied to will buy that line, and add on a heaping dose of crazy, and end up with something really amazing. Something like...
The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.
This is tired old bit of conservative whinging. Its based on the 9th Circuit having the most cases overturned... but misses that the 9th reviews vastly more cases than any other. This is because the 9th is really big, it covers 60 million people or about 20% of the US population. Of course it's going to be the most active circuit court, and therefore have the most cases appealed to the SC. The SC, in turn, is wary of having its case load dominated by the 9th, so it selects a disproportionately lower portion of cases from the 9th. So it focuses on the ones that the SC feels the need to overturn.
One could just as easily note the SC declines to review the 9th more often than any other circuit court, implying the SC agrees with the 9th's interpretation more than any other court. That would be a long stretch as well, of course.
Anyhow, once that factoid about a high number of overturned decisions gets in to the hands of people who like to lie for political gain, they spread the story that the 9th is miles out of step with the rest of the country. And then people who like to be lied to will buy that line, and add on a heaping dose of crazy, and end up with something really amazing. Something like...
The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.
Yep, there it is. Amazing, really.
It may be amazing and a tired bit of "conservative whining" to you, an Australian. But the 9th Circuit's track record and history more than speaks for itself.
As an American, I know my court system's track record, especially the more infamous ones, better than you do. So, don't presume to lecture me on the matter. And keep your snarky comments directed toward me to yourself
The fact that the Supreme Court declines to review the 9th's ruling doesn't mean jack gak. The Supreme Court doesn't have to agree or disagree to refuse to review a lower court's rulings. They can (and have) refuse for any number of reasons. Read up some more on another country's system before you act like you are better versed in it than one of it's own citizens, especially one who has worked for that same system for a number of years. Not to mention, embarrass your self with baseless assumptions.
If all you can do is repeat the same point that was already addressed while adding "I'm American and you are not", then you are not really doing anything to actually counter anything he said.
If you make more rulings than other courts, then more rulings are likely to end up at the SCOTUS, and more rulings are likely to end up getting reversed.
It's not rocket science, and as far as I know Australia still does the same kind of math that we do.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It may be amazing and a tired bit of "conservative whining" to you, an Australian. But the 9th Circuit's track record and history more than speaks for itself.
As an American, I know my court system's track record...
But you don't. That's the point. As an American you might, theoretically, have more information on court processes readily available to you, but you've also got more misinformation being supplied. You bought in to the misinformation, and then came here not only repeating that misinformation but turning it up to 11 by calling for the 9th to be abolished*.
And keep your snarky comments directed toward me to yourself
Why is it always the fault of the person who says an argument is terrible, and never the fault of the person who made the terrible argument?
The fact that the Supreme Court declines to review the 9th's ruling doesn't mean jack gak. The Supreme Court doesn't have to agree or disagree to refuse to review a lower court's rulings. They can (and have) refuse for any number of reasons.
Sure, they reject for many reasons. But to then wander along pretending that you can measure the performance of that court by only the cases that do get reviewed is stupid.
*There are calls to have the 9th split, but not because it's so gosh durned liberal or anything like that, but because it's stupidly huge.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Read up some more on another country's system before you act like you are better versed in it than one of it's own citizens, especially one who has worked for that same system for a number of years.
I'm not sure that an appeal to authority works when it's a retired LEO/prison guard opining on the workings of the second highest court in the land. No snark intended, but you're so far outside your wheelhouse you have no grounds to call anyone else on their distance - it's like a clerk at Target complaining a clerk at Walmart has no right to opine about the decisions made in the Target boardroom.
As a student of American history and politics, I've enjoyed reading about the history of the 2nd amendment, and one book I particularly enjoy is this:
The Second Amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. I would recommend to anybody with an interest in this subject.
To cut a long story short, Waldman makes the point that if modern Americans travelled back in time and asked the founders their rational for the 2nd, their answers would probably confuse the time travellers, and the questions would probably confuse the founders.
And I think this applies with this ruling. The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history and politics, I've enjoyed reading about the history of the 2nd amendment, and one book I particularly enjoy is this:
The Second Amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. I would recommend to anybody with an interest in this subject.
To cut a long story short, Waldman makes the point that if modern Americans travelled back in time and asked the founders their rational for the 2nd, their answers would probably confuse the time travellers, and the questions would probably confuse the founders.
And I think this applies with this ruling. The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.
Concealed carry would probably mystify them.
They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"
John Adams: "Wait, if I carry this pistol with one hand, it's OK, but if I put a second grip in the front, it's illegal?"
George Washington: "Why would anyone want to use a pistol with two hands anyway? It just halves your killing power. If I had a penny for every time I shot a redcoat with my right hand while choking the life out of another with my left, I could pay off Ben's hooker tab".
Ben Franklin "I invented this stock for pistols that's OK. I mean, it's obviously totally a stock, but we'll call it a brace, wink wink."
George Washingon: "A left hand on a firearm is a left hand not shoving a sword into an Englishman."
- a totally true exchange
Dreadclaw69 wrote: They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"
Or why we decided that the part about a well regulated militia wasn't what they meant, for that matter.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As a student of American history and politics, I've enjoyed reading about the history of the 2nd amendment, and one book I particularly enjoy is this:
The Second Amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. I would recommend to anybody with an interest in this subject.
To cut a long story short, Waldman makes the point that if modern Americans travelled back in time and asked the founders their rational for the 2nd, their answers would probably confuse the time travellers, and the questions would probably confuse the founders.
And I think this applies with this ruling. The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.
Concealed carry would probably mystify them.
They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"
They would be doubly mystified by certain groups in America deliberately omitting the militia bit for their own interests
John Adams: "Wait, if I carry this pistol with one hand, it's OK, but if I put a second grip in the front, it's illegal?"
George Washington: "Why would anyone want to use a pistol with two hands anyway? It just halves your killing power. If I had a penny for every time I shot a redcoat with my right hand while choking the life out of another with my left, I could pay off Ben's hooker tab".
Ben Franklin "I invented this stock for pistols that's OK. I mean, it's obviously totally a stock, but we'll call it a brace, wink wink."
George Washingon: "A left hand on a firearm is a left hand not shoving a sword into an Englishman."
- a totally true exchange
Dreadclaw69 wrote: They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"
Or why we decided that the part about a well regulated militia wasn't what they meant, for that matter.
You're overlooking that famous anecdote about James Madison being a passionate believer in the militia, until the Maryland militia ran off, and allowed the British army to burn down Mr Madison's house. Needless to say, Mr Madison wasn't too keen on militias after that
The point is this Ouze: the founders attitudes and worldview were vastly different to ours. It would be hard to gauge their true intent when drafting up any of the amendments.
100 years ago in Britain, men thought nothing of going over the top in WW1 and dying for their country. 100 years later, people in Britain struggle to understand why they did that. We respect and honour their sacrifice, but are mystified by their worldview.
It would be no different for comparing modern America to revolutionary America, in many respects.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.
They also carried them in an age where private citizens were allowed and often encouraged by the government to own the most powerful weapons of naval warfare available.
The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Then I'm not sure what your point was. It seemed to be that the founders were OK with the most powerful weapons available in 1776 being held by civilians and therefore that civilians now should be able to hold weapons that are much more capable than the weapons of 1776.
Otherwise it would seem that your point about naval weapons is irrelevant to the topic which concerns the issuing of permits to carry concealed handguns.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Then I'm not sure what your point was. It seemed to be that the founders were OK with the most powerful weapons available in 1776 being held by civilians and therefore that civilians now should be able to hold weapons that are much more capable than the weapons of 1776.
No. I thought it was easy to understand, but evidently not.
The founders were okay with the most powerful weapons of the day being available to private citizens, so making the argument (as the post I replied to did; I'm sure you read it before jumping in) that they would somehow be against concealed pistols just because the average infantryman's primary weapon and sidearm were a musket and pistol, respectively, makes no sense. It's disingenuous to suggest they were only comfortable with relatively weak and inefficient single-shot firearms when they were, in fact, perfectly fine with Joe Citizen building himself a floating artillery battery.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.
They also carried them in an age where private citizens were allowed and often encouraged by the government to own the most powerful weapons of naval warfare available.
If we go by the spirit of the 2nd, then your average citizen should be able to keep nuclear weapons, as technically, these are 'arms.'
Of course, nobody objects about being denied the right to keep nuclear weapons in their back yard.
Cars are also potentially dangerous, but nobody objects to the requirement of a driving licence before operating a motor vehicle.
Nobody's rights are being infringed, if California passes a law saying you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It's a reasonable compromise that takes in the concerns of law enforcement agencies.
Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.
Nobody's rights are being infringed, if California passes a law saying you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It's a reasonable compromise that takes in the concerns of law enforcement agencies.
We'll see. I disagree, and this is why it's important to make sure we get even a faux-conservative nominating Supreme Court justices rather than someone in the Wise Latina fan club.
Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.
Could've said the same thing about Mississippi in the '60s, didn't mean they were right and constitutionally-observant.
Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.
Could've said the same thing about Mississippi in the '60s, didn't mean they were right and constitutionally-observant.
So gun owners in California are being intimidated from voting? There's organized campaigns of harassment and threats, if not kidnappings and murders against gun owners in California?
You really couldn't say the same thing about Mississippi in the 1960's, and stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Then I'm not sure what your point was. It seemed to be that the founders were OK with the most powerful weapons available in 1776 being held by civilians and therefore that civilians now should be able to hold weapons that are much more capable than the weapons of 1776.
No. I thought it was easy to understand, but evidently not.
The founders were okay with the most powerful weapons of the day being available to private citizens, so making the argument (as the post I replied to did; I'm sure you read it before jumping in) that they would somehow be against concealed pistols just because the average infantryman's primary weapon and sidearm were a musket and pistol, respectively, makes no sense. It's disingenuous to suggest they were only comfortable with relatively weak and inefficient single-shot firearms when they were, in fact, perfectly fine with Joe Citizen building himself a floating artillery battery.
That's a reasonable point, however it doesn't mean that they would definitely be okay with modern people owning and carrying modern weapons in an everyday civilian context.
Kanluwen wrote: So gun owners in California are being intimidated from voting? There's organized campaigns of harassment and threats, if not kidnappings and murders against gun owners in California?
There are certainly organized harassment campaigns against gun stores, sure. That's not news to anybody who's remotely conversant with the issue of guns in California.
Mississippi wasn't desegregated because voter harassment campaigns stopped, by the way. Mississippi was desegregated by federal order after segregation was declared unconstitutional. African-Americans were a minority who, even if they were unfettered, wouldn't have had the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would have been trampled even if the state had organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there were more people voting against them than otherwise. Gun owners in California are certainly a minority without the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would still be trampled even if the state organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there are more people voting against them than otherwise.
You really couldn't say the same thing about Mississippi in the 1960's, and stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry.
Nah, I think I'll keep doing it. The second amendment protects a civil right, too.
That's a reasonable point, however it doesn't mean that they would definitely be okay with modern people owning and carrying modern weapons in an everyday civilian context.
It doesn't mean they wouldn't, either. They've been dead for a long time, so it's pretty difficult to get their take on the matter.
If they were alive and didn't like it, though? They'd probably pat themselves on the back for putting in place a system to amend the Constitution.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Read up some more on another country's system before you act like you are better versed in it than one of it's own citizens, especially one who has worked for that same system for a number of years.
I'm not sure that an appeal to authority works when it's a retired LEO/prison guard opining on the workings of the second highest court in the land. No snark intended, but you're so far outside your wheelhouse you have no grounds to call anyone else on their distance - it's like a clerk at Target complaining a clerk at Walmart has no right to opine about the decisions made in the Target boardroom.
A retired LEO/Corrections Officer with a MS in Criminal Justice, a BS in Criminal Justice, and an Associates in Applied Science, Criminal Justice Technology.
And a big part of that is Constitutional Law, understanding the court system in the United States on all levels of government (from Magistrates all the the United States Supreme Court), court rulings, application of court decisions, legal traditions, etc, etc, etc.
In other words, I'm not just some jackleg off of the streets that decided to go through BLET and become a cop for a paycheck, or some factory worker that went to work as a "prison guard" because he/she got layed off.
So, no. It's not an "appeal to authority" or me being "outside my wheelhouse". I have both the background, experience, AND education to back up my BS.
Anyway, I just got dinged for the earlier heated post in response to what I perceived as a snarky comment (admittedly without evidence) from sebester. So, with that, I'm going to gracefully bow out of this thread.
Let's pretend to be Mr Spock for a minute and engage in some Vulcan Logic
We're all familiar with this:
A well regulated Militia
Logically, what does a well regulated militia mean?
Well, there'd be age requirements - you wouldn't let a 5 year old carry a gun around.
Health and fitness requirements - a man with no hands wouldn't be able to hold a gun, you would want people to be reasonably fit for fighting, and of course, mentally ill people with certain conditions, probably wouldn't get in the militia either.
Most people would think the above to be reasonable, so already we've compromised on what a well regulated militia is.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
California is saying you can have a gun, just not a concealed gun, unless you have a permit. A reasonable compromise that takes in law enforcement concerns, IMO.
So, to conclude, most people would be happy to compromise on what a well regulated militia is, so why not compromise on this issue of concealed weapons on a state by state basis? There's wiggle room here and people's fundamental right to carry a gun, is not being stopped...
Kanluwen wrote: So gun owners in California are being intimidated from voting? There's organized campaigns of harassment and threats, if not kidnappings and murders against gun owners in California?
There are certainly organized harassment campaigns against gun stores, sure. That's not news to anybody who's remotely conversant with the issue of guns in California.
Okay, and? Organized harassment campaigns against gun stores is not equivalent to crap like the Birmingham bombing.
Mississippi wasn't desegregated because voter harassment campaigns stopped, by the way. Mississippi was desegregated by federal order after segregation was declared unconstitutional. African-Americans were a minority who, even if they were unfettered, wouldn't have had the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would have been trampled even if the state had organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there were more people voting against them than otherwise. Gun owners in California are certainly a minority without the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would still be trampled even if the state organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there are more people voting against them than otherwise.
And a big part as to why there were more people voting against them than otherwise?
Organized voter suppression, organized harassment against African Americans who voted, organized harassment against whites who were against desegregating, etc.
So please. Get off the cross.
You really couldn't say the same thing about Mississippi in the 1960's, and stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry.
Nah, I think I'll keep doing it. The second amendment protects a civil right, too.
Never said the 2nd didn't protect a right.
I said stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry. You don't have anywhere near the case to make that comparison.
Kanluwen wrote: Okay, and? Organized harassment campaigns against gun stores is not equivalent to crap like the Birmingham bombing.
Which would be relevant if I had claimed that gun owners in California today have it as bad as African-Americans had it in Mississippi in the '60s. I instead compared the implication that because a majority of voters approved of something it must be both right and constitutional when it comes to California and guns with Mississippi and segregation, but you saw a strawman you couldn't resist building, and here we are.
And a big part as to why there were more people voting against them than otherwise?
Organized voter suppression, organized harassment against African Americans who voted, organized harassment against whites who were against desegregating, etc.
Sure.
The biggest part?
Demographics.
So please. Get off the cross.
But the facts and cogent arguments are up here.
Never said the 2nd didn't protect a right.
I said stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry. You don't have anywhere near the case to make that comparison.
And I, you might recall, said, "Nah." There's plenty of comparisons to be made.
Logically, what does a well regulated militia mean?
Well, there'd be age requirements - you wouldn't let a 5 year old carry a gun around.
Health and fitness requirements - a man with no hands wouldn't be able to hold a gun, you would want people to be reasonably fit for fighting, and of course, mentally ill people with certain conditions, probably wouldn't get in the militia either.
Most people would think the above to be reasonable, so already we've compromised on what a well regulated militia is.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
California is saying you can have a gun, just not a concealed gun, unless you have a permit. A reasonable compromise that takes in law enforcement concerns, IMO.
So, to conclude, most people would be happy to compromise on what a well regulated militia is, so why not compromise on this issue of concealed weapons on a state by state basis? There's wiggle room here and people's fundamental right to carry a gun, is not being stopped...
A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.
Owning firearms is a consitutionally protected right. Carry concealed pistols in public spaces is a regulated right but regulations that are used to effectively bar ownership or the use of firearms for self defense are unconsitutional per SCOTUS. That's already been decided.
Kilkrazy wrote: The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.
This is something of a moot example as they're also not something that a private citizen would have the means to produce and procure short of having the sum total resources of a Bill Gates turned to such an endeavor.
That said US citizens can and do own things like howitzers, anti-tank guns, tanks, mortars, even some chemical weapons (Israeli Tear Gas .308 ammunition for instance can be bought and used like any other ammunition, at least at a Federal level).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.
They also carried them in an age where private citizens were allowed and often encouraged by the government to own the most powerful weapons of naval warfare available.
If we go by the spirit of the 2nd, then your average citizen should be able to keep nuclear weapons, as technically, these are 'arms.'
Of course, nobody objects about being denied the right to keep nuclear weapons in their back yard.
Cars are also potentially dangerous, but nobody objects to the requirement of a driving licence before operating a motor vehicle.
Nobody's rights are being infringed, if California passes a law saying you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It's a reasonable compromise that takes in the concerns of law enforcement agencies.
The big issue is really that CA's "May Issue" laws on concealed carry permits are effectively "no issue" in most places. It's one thing to require a permit, it's another to require it and then refuse to issue them.
Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.
Having lived in CA most of my life, I can tell you it's not so much that we *liked* the people being elected year after year, but that the alternatives floated by opposition generally were even worse (and also that election districts really are very gerrymandered). For instance, I don't know anyone who likes Barbara Boxer, but then when given Fiorina as an alternative...
A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be stopped from exercising their 2nd amendment rights. I'm saying that:
No objects when 5 year olds are prevented from joining militias.
Nobody would object if a blind man or woman was prevented from joining a militia.
Nobody would object if somebody suffering from severe mental illness was prevented from joining a militia.
Nobody objects if citizens are not allowed to keep nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows it.
The meaning of what a well regulated militia is, has seen reasonable comprise and common sense agreed upon by society over the years.
So if people are happy to compromise on one aspect of the 2nd (well regulated militia) why is there a problem with compromising on other aspects of the 2nd, as long as the fundamental right is not violated?
Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.
If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.
Prestor Jon wrote: A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.
This is where going to have to disagree, then, because the only twisting and contorting I see is twisting exactly what you said - in order to have a militia - into the very recent idea that the actual meaning was an individual right to self defense.
I'm not a textualist. I'm fine with the fact that we have essentially extrapolated out a right to individual defense where there explicitly isn't. I'm also ok with the right to privacy that conservatives claim didn't exist until Row v Wade. However, I don't think you can honestly parse any difference between those decisions, in terms of "inventing rights".
Prestor Jon wrote: Owning firearms is a consitutionally protected right. Carry concealed pistols in public spaces is a regulated right but regulations that are used to effectively bar ownership or the use of firearms for self defense are unconsitutional per SCOTUS. That's already been decided.
No argument there, though. If the state bans open carry and also is may-issue, and refuses to so either directly or indirectly, I think it's a clear constitutional violation as they have left you no outlet to "bear" arms.
Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.
Unfortunately with respect to CA (the primary legal arena of the 9th), it's basically all give and no take with the 2nd.
If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.
This is how the court ruled previously on CA carry permits in the Peruta case, stating that since open carry was illegal, concealed carry then must be more freely allowed.
Prestor Jon wrote: A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.
This is where going to have to disagree, then, because the only twisting and contorting I see is twisting exactly what you said - in order to have a militia - into the very recent idea that the actual meaning was an individual right to self defense.
I'm not a textualist. I'm fine with the fact that we have essentially extrapolated out a right to individual defense where there explicitly isn't. I'm also ok with the right to privacy that conservatives claim didn't exist until Row v Wade. However, I don't think you can honestly parse any difference between those decisions, in terms of "inventing rights".
Prestor Jon wrote: Owning firearms is a consitutionally protected right. Carry concealed pistols in public spaces is a regulated right but regulations that are used to effectively bar ownership or the use of firearms for self defense are unconsitutional per SCOTUS. That's already been decided.
No argument there, though. If the state bans open carry and also is may-issue, and refuses to so either directly or indirectly, I think it's a clear constitutional violation as they have left you no outlet to "bear" arms.
The 2A doesn't address self defense just private ownership of firearms. The right to self defense is a natural right. Everybody has the right to protect himself/herself from being harmed from unwarranted aggression, regardless of whether or not firearms are involved. Since we have a constitutional right to bear arms and a natural right to self defense and firearms are very effective tools for self defense the two are often paired together but they are two different rights that exist independently from each other.
Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.
Unfortunately with respect to CA (the primary legal arena of the 9th), it's basically all give and no take with the 2nd.
If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.
This is how the court ruled previously on CA carry permits in the Peruta case, stating that since open carry was illegal, concealed carry then must be more freely allowed.
Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.
Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.
SCOTUS also set the precedent that the 1st amendment wasn't a blank cheque to say what you want, hence the whole shouting FIRE in a cinema ruling.
For more than 250 years, American society has compromised, tested, and adapted the bill of rights to meet the needs of society at that particular time.
Not long ago, people didn't mind when African-Americans were denied the right to vote or own firearms. Obviously that has changed.
Lincoln had to adapt to the extraordinary circumstances of the American Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus to stop Maryland from turning Confederate... and so on....
Tensions and forces exist in society that will always be pushing the limits of the constitution. That isn't to say we should throw it out the window, but compromise and common sense play a part.
When the 2nd was drafted, you had muskets firing 3 rounds a minute. Nowadays, we have guns that spit out hundreds of rounds per minute.
Things change, people change, attitudes change, society changes.
In that regard, the 2nd amendment is no different.
SCOTUS ruled one way on the Heller case. Who's to say that years from now, SCOTUS won't rule the other way on a similar case?
Constitutional Literalist 1 (aka Gun Hater): The Second Amendment is intended for maintaining militias- no militia, no firearm.
Constitutional Literalist 2 (aka Gun Nut): SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! We should be able to walk around with heavy artillery!
Rationalist: Every right is subject to limitation. Let's just look to see if a restriction is reasonable or if it is actually overbroad and an attempt to undermine the fundamental aspects of a constitutional right.
Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.
Unfortunately with respect to CA (the primary legal arena of the 9th), it's basically all give and no take with the 2nd.
If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.
This is how the court ruled previously on CA carry permits in the Peruta case, stating that since open carry was illegal, concealed carry then must be more freely allowed.
Then it's for the voters of California to sort this out at the ballot box.
Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.
SCOTUS also set the precedent that the 1st amendment wasn't a blank cheque to say what you want, hence the whole shouting FIRE in a cinema ruling.
For more than 250 years, American society has compromised, tested, and adapted the bill of rights to meet the needs of society at that particular time.
Not long ago, people didn't mind when African-Americans were denied the right to vote or own firearms. Obviously that has changed.
Lincoln had to adapt to the extraordinary circumstances of the American Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus to stop Maryland from turning Confederate... and so on....
Tensions and forces exist in society that will always be pushing the limits of the constitution. That isn't to say we should throw it out the window, but compromise and common sense play a part.
When the 2nd was drafted, you had muskets firing 3 rounds a minute. Nowadays, we have guns that spit out hundreds of rounds per minute.
Things change, people change, attitudes change, society changes.
In that regard, the 2nd amendment is no different.
SCOTUS ruled one way on the Heller case. Who's to say that years from now, SCOTUS won't rule the other way on a similar case?
The 2A doesn't change just because society changes, it changes when the people pressure their representatives to change it by amending the constitution. That's what the amendment process is for. The Heller and McDonald cases are recent and clear in regards to how states/municipalities can regulate gun ownership. They stand as precedent until such time as they are overturned, if that ever happens. Laws don't just change by themselves, they stay the same until they are changed by new legislation or court rulings.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?
I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?
Compromises don't just happen. What you're talking about occurs over time as new laws, regulations and court rulings are made. Something like changing social attitudes or technological advancement don't have the ability to rewrite laws. If people want more regulations or compromise they can vote for representatives who promise to pass such legislation or vote on pertinent ballot initiateves etc. Personal or public opinions don't change what laws mean.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?
I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?
Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.
The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.
My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.
If California passed laws that said you could only own red handguns, or you were allowed to bear arms, but only if they were English Longbows, I would see their point, but I see nothing wrong with changing societies compromising, and using common sense to agree on things.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?
I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?
Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.
The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.
My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.
If California passed laws that said you could only own red handguns, or you were allowed to bear arms, but only if they were English Longbows, I would see their point, but I see nothing wrong with changing societies compromising, and using common sense to agree on things.
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
Again, the nuclear weapon thing is kinda off base. Such weapons are beyond the ability of private citizens to produce and procure, the expense, danger, and knowledgebase required for these weapons inherently makes them weapons of the state, not the citizen.
Likewise, as far as I can tell there is no explicit law forbidding the ownership of a nuclear weapon, rather, the materials used are highly controlled because even aside from making nuclear bombs they typically are extremely dangerous simply to be even near, and their production so resource intensive that the only sources of them would be either governmental or government funded labs.
Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?
Mines and missiles use explosives, BATFE already regulate the use and ownership of explosives.
If people are going to try to turn this thread into another generic gun ownership thread instead of a thread about the recent 9th circuit ruling it's probably going to get locked by the mods.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.
The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.
My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.
I think it's very rare to find a reasonable person who thinks any our our rights are, or should be, wholly unfettered. A first amendment that covered fighting words, death threats, and fraud isn't conducive to a workable society any more than a wholly unfettered second amendment.
Also, as a technical note, a nuclear weapon would not be covered by the second amendment because it's not a "bearable arm" in the conventional sense. You have no right whatsoever to own bombs, explosives, MANPADS, and suchlike under the 2nd amendment, and the National Firearms Act (among others) lawfully preclude private ownership of those devices.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?
Mines and missiles use explosives, BATFE already regulate the use and ownership of explosives.
If people are going to try to turn this thread into another generic gun ownership thread instead of a thread about the recent 9th circuit ruling it's probably going to get locked by the mods.
So if the firing mechanisms of firearms, but not the gun itself, we're to become restricted that wouldn't be an infringement of the right to bear arms? Explosives or no, it's clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Further, the comparison is on-topic since it illustrates the fact that there already are a bunch of regulations in place on what type of weapon you are and aren't allowed to own and what you're allowed to do with it. The argument that "it's unconstitutional!" hinges one one particular reading of the constitution while refusing to entertain the notion that both sides have a point.
EDIT: Isn't the "MANP" in MANPADS short for man-portable? How is that not a bearable weapon?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?
Such weapons are legal, provided you go through the requisite ATF channels. Explosives have their own sets of laws that I'm not entirely familiar with, however it is perfectly legal to own things like howitzers or anti tank guns. There's a fully functional and privately owned PAK40 in Utah, and right now on Gunbroker there is a 37mm anti tank gun for sale if you have 55k burning a hole in your pocket and your ok with the $200 NFA transfer tax and probably 6 month wait period for them to issue the tax stamp.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.
The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.
My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.
I think it's very rare to find a reasonable person who thinks any our our rights are, or should be, wholly unfettered. A first amendment that covered fighting words, death threats, and fraud isn't conducive to a workable society any more than a wholly unfettered second amendment.
Also, as a technical note, a nuclear weapon would not be covered by the second amendment because it's not a "bearable arm" in the conventional sense. You have no right whatsoever to own bombs, explosives, MANPADS, and suchlike under the 2nd amendment, and the National Firearms Act (among others) lawfully preclude private ownership of those devices.
Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
Could it be that common sense and compromise have taken root over the years?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So if the firing mechanisms of firearms, but not the gun itself, we're to become restricted that wouldn't be an infringement of the right to bear arms? Explosives or no, it's clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.
It's not the firing mechanism that makes it covered by the second amendment, because there was a ruling that it covered protect stun guns, tasers, and pepper spray. The modern (current, recent) interpretation is that it has to be a "bearable arm" that isn't "dangerous per se at common law and unusual”.
Vaktathi wrote: Again, the nuclear weapon thing is kinda off base. Such weapons are beyond the ability of private citizens to produce and procure, the expense, danger, and knowledgebase required for these weapons inherently makes them weapons of the state, not the citizen.
Likewise, as far as I can tell there is no explicit law forbidding the ownership of a nuclear weapon, rather, the materials used are highly controlled because even aside from making nuclear bombs they typically are extremely dangerous simply to be even near, and their production so resource intensive that the only sources of them would be either governmental or government funded labs.
Let's dial down the nuclear weapons talk. Ouze mentioned the NFA, which kinda supports what I'm saying: gun controls are an evolving thing in America, and this California ruling is no different.
So all we have to do is redefine what "the right to bear arms" means and then make sure it isn't being infringed upon, and it'll still be constitutional? Yay!
Mdlbuildr wrote: Delays by the Authorities to attain a permit to purchase a hand gun in NJ are both unlawful and unConstitutional.
I'd love to get that changed, but people have been working on that for years. Getting a CCW is virtually impossible in this State.
I think NJ is a really good example, along with NYC, of venues that have infringed on the right to the point of unconstitutionality. I think it's a matter of time before they are forced to lighten their restrictions, and I mean years, not decades.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.
What's necessary and proper in 1816 will be completely different from what's necessary and proper in 1916, and of course 2016.
Point is this: gun control is a balance between giving and taking. Both sides will obviously have different ideas on the level of giving and taking, and that will evolve as the years pass. IMO, this California ruling is part of that giving and taking that has been going on since 1776.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.
What's necessary and proper in 1816 will be completely different from what's necessary and proper in 1916, and of course 2016.
Point is this: gun control is a balance between giving and taking. Both sides will obviously have different ideas on the level of giving and taking, and that will evolve as the years pass. IMO, this California ruling is part of that giving and taking that has been going on since 1776.
No, I agree, The second amendment is absolutely not without limit, and the NFA is a good example of that. I mean, it's a pretty stupid law in a lot of ways, but I think it's wholly constitutional. I hope it's updated at some point but I accept that it's wholly acceptable from a constitutional perspective.
I think we spent quite a bit of time in this thread dancing around agreeing with each other.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?
Mines and missiles use explosives, BATFE already regulate the use and ownership of explosives.
If people are going to try to turn this thread into another generic gun ownership thread instead of a thread about the recent 9th circuit ruling it's probably going to get locked by the mods.
So if the firing mechanisms of firearms, but not the gun itself, we're to become restricted that wouldn't be an infringement of the right to bear arms? Explosives or no, it's clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Further, the comparison is on-topic since it illustrates the fact that there already are a bunch of regulations in place on what type of weapon you are and aren't allowed to own and what you're allowed to do with it. The argument that "it's unconstitutional!" hinges one one particular reading of the constitution while refusing to entertain the notion that both sides have a point.
EDIT: Isn't the "MANP" in MANPADS short for man-portable? How is that not a bearable weapon?
Again, we already have federal and state laws and regulations and a federal agency that regulates explosives. Some explosives are legal for commercial/industrial ownership and use and some explosives are legal for private ownership and use and others are not. Some types of artillery are legal and others are not. Those laws and regulations are already existing and have already been modified by additional legisation and court rulings over the years.
How do you think our current regulations on explosives relates to the county sherrifs in CA that aren't allowing law abiding citizens who have followed the proper legal requirements for obtaining concealed carry permits based upon those sherrifs' personal interpretation of ambiguous language in the pertinent CA law that is inconsistent with other CA county sherrifs?
The 9th Circuit has ruled that since concealed carry isn't explicitly included under the 2A then states can have concealed carry restrictions that effectively make it impossible to legally carry a firearm at all. That ruling seems inconsistent with the SCOTUS Heller ruling that prohibited DC from enforcing restrictions on gun ownership that made it impossible for legally owned guns to be used for self defense purposes.
The thread topic has nothing to do with land mines.
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.
What's necessary and proper in 1816 will be completely different from what's necessary and proper in 1916, and of course 2016.
Point is this: gun control is a balance between giving and taking. Both sides will obviously have different ideas on the level of giving and taking, and that will evolve as the years pass. IMO, this California ruling is part of that giving and taking that has been going on since 1776.
It's not a CA ruling it's a 9th Circuit ruling so it applies to every state in the 9th circuit. That covers about 20% of the population of the US and for all those people the 9th Circuit has ruled that states can make concealed carry permits be as restrictive as they want even up to the point that it makes legal concealed carry impossible to do. For states in the 9th Circuit, like CA, that ban open carry, this ruling means that states can outlaw the ability of US citizens to "bear arms" which seemingly contradicts the 2A. That's not a compromise on regulation that's judicial approval for a state to negate a constitutional right.
So far as the "landmines are offtopic" idea - I dunno, I mean, discussion "what the scope of what the second amendment should entail" seems to be a natural part of any discussion about to "a decision about the 9th circuit picking a position on the scope of the 2nd amendment".
I mean, obviously, this thread is going to turn into an open sewer, and probably soon, because it always does. However I don't think what we're talking about right now is really off-topic to the OP. Just my 2 cents.
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
No, California penal code PC 25850 makes it pretty clear:
PC 25850 reads: “A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory."
Then in 2012 California passed PC 26350, an additional law that essentially made it illegal to open carry an unloaded firearm too.
Spoiler:
PENAL CODE
SECTION 26350
26350. (a) (1) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded
handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an exposed
and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or on any of the
following:
(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or
city and county.
(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area
of a county or city and county.
(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and
county.
(2) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when
that person carries an exposed and unloaded handgun inside or on a
vehicle, whether or not on his or her person, while in or on any of
the following:
(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or
city and county.
(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area
of a county or city and county.
(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and
county.
(b) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a violation of this
section is a misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if both of the
following conditions exist:
(A) The handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being
discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that
person.
(B) The person is not in lawful possession of that handgun.
(c) (1) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 29900) of Division 9, Section 8100 or 8103 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, or any other law with a penalty
greater than is set forth in this section.
(2) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be
construed as restricting the application of any other law. However,
an act or omission punishable in different ways by different
provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one
provision.
(d) Notwithstanding the fact that the term "an unloaded handgun"
is used in this section, each handgun shall constitute a distinct and
separate offense under this section.
The only way to legally carry or "bear" a firearm in CA is if you get a concealed carry permit from your county sherrif. The ambiguous "good cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit allows county sherrifs to prohibit residents from bearing arms in an oppressive and arbitrary manner. Since such action appears to contradict the 2A a suit was filed in protest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: So far as the "landmines are offtopic" idea - I dunno, I mean, discussion "what the scope of what the second amendment should entail" seems to be a natural part of any discussion about to "a decision about the 9th circuit picking a position on the scope of the 2nd amendment".
I mean, obviously, this thread is going to turn into an open sewer, and probably soon, because it always does. However I don't think what we're talking about right now is really off-topic to the OP. Just my 2 cents.
I just don't see how it relates to the 9th Circuit decision because the decision have nothing to do with what firearms can be legally owned because it only addresses the ability to legally carry firearms. CA already has extremely restrictive (and downright silly) laws about what firearms residents can own. The consitutional challenge is that CA laws, coupled with county sherrif's discretion can prohibit CA residents from their ability to bear arms.
Of course I'm not a mod so my opinion on it doesn't matter and this thread is likely to get locked eventually anyway.
Consealed weapons should be allowed everywhere, whats the point in having a weapon if people can see it?
Also I seen how some muslims and minorities get abused in the world, they should be allowed to carry in secret. Any poor muslim should be allowed to carry any weapon in public places with out having to show it and cause alarm.
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
As a shameless anti-gun nut, even I can see that a ban on open carry and a practical ban on CCW does infringe on the "bear arms" part of your constitution.
it doesn't bother me, but I can see the point that pro-gun nuts are making.
Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.
SCOTUS also set the precedent that the 1st amendment wasn't a blank cheque to say what you want, hence the whole shouting FIRE in a cinema ruling.
Can you please not make this argument.
You *can* say FIRE in a cinema WHEN THERE'S AN ACTUAL FIRE!
What you CANNOT do, is yell FIRE with the express purpose of creating CHAOS where people can get hurt. That never had the 1st Amendment protection.
So, that's a weak argument for curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?
I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?
Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.
Here's a general response addressed to Whembly and others regarding the 2nd.
I'm telling you stuff that you already know but:
The founders were against standing armies, but we live in an age where the USA has the most powerful military in the world.
James Madison passionately believed in the militias, then the British army payed him a visit.
George Washington believed that the USA shouldn't entangle itself in foreign affairs. Trade with all nations, alliance with none. The USA is allied with many nations as a result of NATO.
Many founding fathers were slaves owners, the USA fought a civil war and abolished slavery years later.
Lincoln and FDR strecthed executive power to the limit during their respective terms
And a court ruled that the 1st amendment didn't give you a blank cheque to shout FIRE in a cinema. You know what context I was referring too.
America has changed. Technology has changed. American society has changed, and events around the world changed America. The 2nd can not and should not be immune to change. That isn't to say that it should be scrapped or that people's right to bear arms should be violated, not unless the 2/3 clause gets invoked, but the 2nd is not this law that is set in stone for evermore.
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
Except open carry is illegal in CA.
Well, I've made a mistake there, and I put my hand up and admit that mistake.
I honestly thought that people could open carry in CA, hence my earlier view that permits for concealed carry shouldn't be a big deal.
If you can't open carry, and you can't conceal carry, then that is a clear violation of a citizen's 2nd amendment rights.
Ouze wrote: I don't think there is a constitutional right to concealed carry, but I think the argument could be made that there is one for open carry.
That's sort of my view on it. Although, I still think that government/private facilitates do have the authority to say "no guns on our property". Bringing your rifle into a chipotle is not protected by the constitution.
So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
Henry wrote: So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
Nope. That Crossfire show got cancelled. Best thing Jon Stewart ever did.
Henry wrote: So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest. The current enforcement of the law in some places is arguably unreasonable, but the law itself is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So, that's a weak argument for curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
No, it's actually a quite strong argument because it illustrates the fact that constitutional rights are not absolute. The state can and does limit your rights for the good of society as a whole. This is why nuclear weapons can't be legally owned (despite being "arms"), and there's a fairly good argument that the state has a legitimate interest in controlling who is allowed to carry a loaded gun in public where their use of that gun would put innocent bystanders at risk.
'State interest' has feth all to do with the rights protected by the constitution. The constitution was put in place to limit Gov't, not limit the people.
Henry wrote: So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest. The current enforcement of the law in some places is arguably unreasonable, but the law itself is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So, that's a weak argument for curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
No, it's actually a quite strong argument because it illustrates the fact that constitutional rights are not absolute. The state can and does limit your rights for the good of society as a whole. This is why nuclear weapons can't be legally owned (despite being "arms"), and there's a fairly good argument that the state has a legitimate interest in controlling who is allowed to carry a loaded gun in public where their use of that gun would put innocent bystanders at risk.
I think very few of us have much of an issue with having to get a CCW license in order to concealed carry. Some people might prefer if it wasn't a requirement or support Constitutional carry, but for the most part CCW licenses are a compromise many gun owners are willing to accept. The problem is in states like California, the average citizen in the vast majority of cases can't actually get one. That's a problem, and when you can neither concealed carry nor open carry, I don't think anyone could honestly claim that the right to bear arms is not being infringed and unreasonably restricted.
Peregrine wrote: The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest.
That's weird. You said "difference" when you meant "exact similarity."
Honestly, I've always wanted to talk to someone who feels the bs incremenalism of the anti-abortion movement is intolerable, but that the bs incrementalism of the anti-gun movement is perfectly acceptable. They use the exact same tactics - attempting to legislate bans in all but name, putting forth hilariously, seemingly deliberately ill-informed spokespeople to make bizarre arguments that have no basis in reality, virulently attacking the lobbying groups fighting to protect the constitutionally-protected right, etc.
They run the exact same goddamn playbook. How do you justify intense loathing for one yet total acceptance for the other?
CptJake wrote: 'State interest' has feth all to do with the rights protected by the constitution. The constitution was put in place to limit Gov't, not limit the people.
And yet the state is indisputably permitted to limit your constitutional rights when it has a compelling interest.
With these regulations in place, how on earth are you supposed to transport your weapons from your home to the range for an afternoon of shooting; or from your home to your hunting camp?
This is a real hamstring and an absolute infringement on the people's right to bear arms, even if bearing them is just getting from one place to another.
This makes even the mere possession of a weapon in public a crime, concealed, open, or otherwise.
Peregrine wrote: The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest.
That's weird. You said "difference" when you meant "exact similarity."
Honestly, I've always wanted to talk to someone who feels the bs incremenalism of the anti-abortion movement is intolerable, but that the bs incrementalism of the anti-gun movement is perfectly acceptable. They use the exact same tactics - attempting to legislate bans in all but name, putting forth hilariously, seemingly deliberately ill-informed spokespeople to make bizarre arguments that have no basis in reality, virulently attacking the lobbying groups fighting to protect the constitutionally-protected right, etc.
They run the exact same goddamn playbook. How do you justify intense loathing for one yet total acceptance for the other?
Maybe because they are different things and that makes all the difference. A woman's right to bodily autonomy is much different that wanting to carry around something who's sole purpose is to kill...
Hordini wrote: The problem is in states like California, the average citizen in the vast majority of cases can't actually get one.
But they can, according to the law. The law says "must have a good reason" not "may not be issued". If CA had the exact same law but the permits were frequently issued then it would be hard to argue that there's anything unconstitutional about it. So IMO that makes a strong argument for the CA law going in the "bad policy but constitutional" category.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: With these regulations in place, how on earth are you supposed to transport your weapons from your home to the range for an afternoon of shooting; or from your home to your hunting camp?
Unloaded, locked in a box. Transport is not an issue here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Honestly, I've always wanted to talk to someone who feels the bs incremenalism of the anti-abortion movement is intolerable, but that the bs incrementalism of the anti-gun movement is perfectly acceptable.
Then you're talking to the wrong person. I don't support everything the anti-gun movement does. Many of the laws they support are bans in all but name with no compelling state interest to justify their existence. I just don't think that the CA law is necessarily unconstitutional.
skyth wrote: Maybe because they are different things and that makes all the difference. A woman's right to bodily autonomy is much different that wanting to carry around something who's sole purpose is to kill...
Well, points for being honest, at least. "I'm in favor of disingenuous bs as long as it furthers my political agenda," isn't exactly noble, though.
It's not a political agenda. It's a moral sense of right and wrong. I accept restrictions on carrying guns (being trained, not being an idiot, etc). I find any attempt to violate someone's bodily autonomy troubling though.
In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.
You shouldn't have to have a good reason to exercise your right. Why do I want to carry a .50 cal handgun under my coat? Because it's my right to defend myself.
The problem in NJ is that those charged with giving out permits to purchase firearms are not following the Law. And no one is doing anything about it.
They are asking for paperwork that is illegal and are indefinitely prolonging the time it takes to process the application. Legally, it should take no longer than 30 days. Many who wait longer than 90 days resort to filling a complaint with the State, and even then, the process takes forever. Legislators in NJ are not protecting the 2nd Amendment at all.
As far as why have open carry. My view is that if people see others actually bearing arms, the criminals will be less likely to engage. Criminals are cowards. If they see that they can be met with deadly force right off the bat, it may give them pause. If it doesn't, they better be a faster draw. Yes, I'm making a parallel with the Wild West because now, it's worse than that.
As far as why have open carry. My view is that if people see others actually bearing arms, the criminals will be less likely to engage. Criminals are cowards. If they see that they can be met with deadly force right off the bat, it may give them pause. If it doesn't, they better be a faster draw. Yes, I'm making a parallel with the Wild West because now, it's worse than that.
This.
If people are hiding a weapon, it's not to defend themselves. It's to kill someone else with a surprise attack.
Those saying they have the right to hide their weapons to "defend themselves" are huge hypocrits, to me. If they show they are armed, most people would be cautious and not trying to provoke them. That would be the most effective defense; deterrence. If you hide it, this is not possible.
Why would you hide your weapon, anyway? What is the true reason, other than making sure the others people don't know you have it and thus are unaware you can kill/hurt them at any time?
As far as why have open carry. My view is that if people see others actually bearing arms, the criminals will be less likely to engage. Criminals are cowards. If they see that they can be met with deadly force right off the bat, it may give them pause. If it doesn't, they better be a faster draw. Yes, I'm making a parallel with the Wild West because now, it's worse than that.
This.
If people are hiding a weapon, it's not to defend themselves. It's to kill someone else with a surprise attack.
Those saying they have the right to hide their weapons to "defend themselves" are huge hypocrits, to me. If they show they are armed, most people would be cautious and not trying to provoke them. That would be the most effective defense; deterrence. If you hide it, this is not possible.
Why would you hide your weapon, anyway? What is the true reason, other than making sure the others people don't know you have it and thus are unaware you can kill/hurt them at any time?
What a crock of doodoo. You conceal for many reasons, and I doubt you'll find folks who legally conceal carry list 'So I can kill someone else in a surprise attack' as one of them. There may be a very few people who believe that, but most of them are folks like you who don't carry.
A major reason to conceal is because it aids in de-escalation of a situation. You have options you can take that are not available once it is known you have a gun. The gun is the last resort.
There are a large number of people who for whatever reason are uncomfortable around guns (unless the guy with the gun also has a badge visible). Concealing allows these people to 'feel' better and unthreatened. Open carry tends to be seen as making a statement, not everyone wants to be making statements, some want to just have good tool to defend themselves and others. Drawing attention to yourself is generally not a good thing. Cops tend to gravitate towards folks who open carry, even where it is perfectly legal (sometimes because some busy body calls them because Guy With Gun!). I for one don't need a cop asking silly questions and wasting my time.
In the very rare case where a violent crime takes place, being unaware of what is going on (crime about to happen) but having an open carried gun makes you an initial target, automatically escalating a situation (again, de-escalation is always the goal). Weapon retention is also a factor. Having a gun visible is having a gun that can be grabbed. Yeah, you can get holsters which mitigate against this, but why bother when you can conceal and avoid the issue?
So, no, 'wanting to kill someone in a surprise attack' does not factor into the decision to conceal for the very vast majority of folks who do so.
Personally I don't want to live in a society where the gov't has taken away the choice to carry or not carry from the individual.
Oh, but you already have a choice; follow the law or not follow the law.
It's just that you will have to live with the consequences of being a dangerous man for others people who don't have weapons.
I do have the choice to follow the law or not. And currently laws are not supposed to infringe on my constitutionally protected right under the 2nd Amendment.
I have ZERO issues living with the fact folks like you may consider me a 'dangerous man' because they choose to be unarmed and I don't. The very vast majority of legal gun owners never seek to threaten another person.
skyth wrote: Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.
Personally I don't want to live in a society where the gov't has taken away the choice to carry or not carry from the individual.
Concealed carry you can have it both ways. Open carry makes me not want to disagree with someone. It stiffles free speech. Especially since all the bullies that carry guns openly to make a scene.
If I don't know you have a gun...I'll treat you the same as anyone else.
skyth wrote: Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.
Personally I don't want to live in a society where the gov't has taken away the choice to carry or not carry from the individual.
Concealed carry you can have it both ways. Open carry makes me not want to disagree with someone. It stiffles free speech. Especially since all the bullies that carry guns openly to make a scene.
If I don't know you have a gun...I'll treat you the same as anyone else.
CptJake wrote: A major reason to conceal is because it aids in de-escalation of a situation. You have options you can take that are not available once it is known you have a gun. In the very rare case where a violent crime takes place, being unaware of what is going on (crime about to happen) but having an open carried gun makes you an initial target, automatically escalating a situation (again, de-escalation is always the goal). Weapon retention is also a factor. Having a gun visible is having a gun that can be grabbed.
These are very good points for concealed carry IMO. It's pretty much the same reason I generally never strap on a huge equipment belt with gas, handcuffs, nightstick and various pouches for my crappy security job. Otherwise reasonable people might get funny ideas and escalate a perfectly calm situation if they see all that stuff. Besides, guns are worth money. Thieves that snatch purses, cameras and phones right out of your hands might decide to snatch a gun too. I'd actually call it irresponsible to walk about with a visible gun in some places.
In a society where guns are usually legal and readily available concealed carry seems like the best compromise. The gun owner has his last resort hidden and it doesn't disturb or tempt others.
I lived in a liberal city, Seattle, and open carry was just an invitation for leftists to harass you by walking over to you and lecturing you on whichever anti-gun topic they choose at that moment. Carry concealed and those idiots never know. Not having to deal with that stress is worth the price of a permit.
Captjake nailed it. I conceal carry because I don't want people knowing I have a gun. For the reasons already mentioned. His comment shows he has no trianing/experience.
I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
The Second doesn't specify the manner of bearing arms one way or the other. We shouldn't have to justify open or concealed carry, either should be an option for the individual to decide for themselves.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
In this topic, we're discussing how since CA bars open carry, when they also put an effective bar to concealed carry it seems to infringe on exercising the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. No carry, concealed or open, does seem to indicate in CA the right to bear arms is being infringed upon. We'll see if this gets appealed and what SCOTUS does with it. The ruling seems pretty narrow which is both good and bad.
I guess when it comes down to it, I honestly don't see how or why I choose to carry should make a difference. If I can legally own a handgun I personally feel I should be able to carry it as I see fit. In my case, that would mean concealed for the reasons I've given.
skyth wrote: Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.
Personally I don't want to live in a society where the gov't has taken away the choice to carry or not carry from the individual.
Concealed carry you can have it both ways. Open carry makes me not want to disagree with someone. It stiffles free speech. Especially since all the bullies that carry guns openly to make a scene.
If I don't know you have a gun...I'll treat you the same as anyone else.
Open carry does not act as a stifle to free speech. That is just silly. You self stifle out of some weird fear that a gun owner legally carrying would murder you over a disagreement, which frankly is a ridiculous fear. Unless you are implying you like to physically assault someone as a way to exercise your 1st Amendment rights and are scared to do so if your victim is armed. Somehow I doubt that is the case. People open carrying are not necessarily bullies and don't necessarily 'make a scene'. It is just as likely (as others have mentioned) that others approaching the guy legally openly carrying act the bully and make a scene.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
Assuming that the gun is being used in a proper lawful fashion what does it matter if it's concealed or not? If the owner isn't shooting anyone or engaging in other criminal acts it is there any significant reason why they shouldn't be able to be carry it concealed?
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
The Second doesn't specify the manner of bearing arms one way or the other. We shouldn't have to justify open or concealed carry, either should be an option for the individual to decide for themselves.
That doesn't really answer the question of whether it is Constitutional though, it just says that one feels it doesn't say anything about it. It could go either way really as it not saying anything could just as easily mean that there is no right to concealed.
stanman wrote:Assuming that the gun is being used in a proper lawful fashion what does it matter if it's concealed or not? If the owner isn't shooting anyone or engaging in other criminal acts it is there any significant reason why they shouldn't be able to be carry it concealed?
Why should they? There is nothing saying there is a right to hide a weapon on your person in the Constitution.
@CptJake: If it people kept it about CA then I might agree with you but much of what has been said seems parenthetical, if we are being generous. I don't have an issue with firearms I just haven't seen much of an argument that the Second Amendment covers concealed carry. Obliviously there is a problem when a state won't allow either open or concealed carry as there isn't really any kind of other option for carrying. At that point it is a Constitutional problem.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
In this topic, we're discussing how since CA bars open carry, when they also put an effective bar to concealed carry it seems to infringe on exercising the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. No carry, concealed or open, does seem to indicate in CA the right to bear arms is being infringed upon. We'll see if this gets appealed and what SCOTUS does with it. The ruling seems pretty narrow which is both good and bad.
I guess when it comes down to it, I honestly don't see how or why I choose to carry should make a difference. If I can legally own a handgun I personally feel I should be able to carry it as I see fit. In my case, that would mean concealed for the reasons I've given.
skyth wrote: Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.
Personally I don't want to live in a society where the gov't has taken away the choice to carry or not carry from the individual.
Concealed carry you can have it both ways. Open carry makes me not want to disagree with someone. It stiffles free speech. Especially since all the bullies that carry guns openly to make a scene.
If I don't know you have a gun...I'll treat you the same as anyone else.
Open carry does not act as a stifle to free speech. That is just silly. You self stifle out of some weird fear that a gun owner legally carrying would murder you over a disagreement, which frankly is a ridiculous fear. Unless you are implying you like to physically assault someone as a way to exercise your 1st Amendment rights and are scared to do so if your victim is armed. Somehow I doubt that is the case. People open carrying are not necessarily bullies and don't necessarily 'make a scene'. It is just as likely (as others have mentioned) that others approaching the guy legally openly carrying act the bully and make a scene.
Self stiffling due to fear is still stiffling free speech.
When I was talking about bullies I was talking about the ones making a scene about open carrying. I know not all gun owners are like that but you can't act like they don't exist.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
The Second doesn't specify the manner of bearing arms one way or the other. We shouldn't have to justify open or concealed carry, either should be an option for the individual to decide for themselves.
That doesn't really answer the question of whether it is Constitutional though, it just says that one feels it doesn't say anything about it. It could go either way really as it not saying anything could just as easily mean that there is no right to concealed.
The BoR tells the federal government what it cannot do. In this case, it is infringe on the right to bear arms. By not specifying the manner of bearing arms or making exceptions, it is allowing the individual to decide for themselves.
Self stiffling due to fear is still stiffling free speech.
When I was talking about bullies I was talking about the ones making a scene about open carrying. I know not all gun owners are like that but you can't act like they don't exist.
Your choice to self stifle is on you, not on anyone else. Your inability to treat people 'as anyone else' or however you phrased it is not reason to infringe on the rights of 'anyone else'.
And you're right, I have seen folks make a scene about open carry, they were not the ones carrying though. They were folks who felt they should be able to inflict their will on others.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
The Second doesn't specify the manner of bearing arms one way or the other. We shouldn't have to justify open or concealed carry, either should be an option for the individual to decide for themselves.
Nostromodamus wrote: The BoR tells the federal government what it cannot do. In this case, it is infringe on the right to bear arms. By not specifying the manner of bearing arms or making exceptions, it is allowing the individual to decide for themselves.
Except saying "the BoR says you can't infringe on the right to bear arms" is saying nothing. In the real world the government can and does infringe on that right. You can't carry concealed nuclear weapons, you can't carry a gun of any kind if you're a convicted felon, you can't carry a fully automatic weapon without the appropriate federal permit (and the state can deny it entirely), etc. The carrying of weapons in public is indisputably something that the government can regulate, the only question here is what regulations are appropriate.
Just trying to explain to Ahtman why some of us believe it to be constitutionally protected. Of course the government can do what it wants regardless, and has been for decades.
Nostromodamus wrote: Just trying to explain to Ahtman why some of us believe it to be constitutionally protected. Of course the government can do what it wants regardless, and has been for decades.
But at some point your belief that it is "constitutionally protected" ceases to match reality. The supreme court, the people who decide if something is constitutional or not, has only overturned a small number of the most extreme gun control laws, and has had no problem with letting states restrict concealed handguns.
Mdlbuildr wrote: As far as why have open carry. My view is that if people see others actually bearing arms, the criminals will be less likely to engage. Criminals are cowards. If they see that they can be met with deadly force right off the bat, it may give them pause.
Alternately, if you open carry, then someone planning a crime is going to give it to you first. Then they score whatever they wanted, as well as a firearm.
Open carry is legal in my state, and I'm glad it is, but I would never do it. I carry concealed.
Ahtman wrote: I'm seeing why some people want concealed carry but I'm not seeing much that convincingly argues that peoples desire for hidden weapons makes it a Constitutional right to hide them.
I don't there is one. I don't believe there is a second amendment right to concealed carry.
Ouze wrote: Open carry is legal in my state, and I'm glad it is, but I would never do it. I carry concealed.
Washington State is both open carry and "shall issue". We're certainly doing just fine with this policy. I really don't understand what NJ is trying to achieve by being asshats about their (lack of) permitting.
skyth wrote: Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.
I suspect no-one does.
I'm happy enough to not require a firearm where I live.
Consider though that a single Luger, Glock, Browning or Thirty-eight could have saved 100 lives from injury and death this weekend.
I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.
A major reason to conceal is because it aids in de-escalation of a situation. You have options you can take that are not available once it is known you have a gun. The gun is the last resort.
When you talk about "having more options to use when you have a gun concealed", please have in mind the one with evil intentions will do exactly the same than what you are suggesting here. Just, you know, for evil intentions. And the true difficulty is that it's damn hard to know what is in the mind of another man you don't know (hell, even if you know him you can never be sure) while he still has a concealed weapon...until the time he shows it and it's too late.
So, I can see your point really. It's just that it doesn't justify at all the dangerosity of the situation. You may know that you will not do that yourself, sure...but how the other people who don't know you will? And what happens if they also have concealed weapons, take your reaction as a threat and overreact with their own gun? I believe it's something important to think about it.
There are a large number of people who for whatever reason are uncomfortable around guns (unless the guy with the gun also has a badge visible).
Of course they are. It's a natural reaction. When I see someone that has a knife ready to be used, I'm also cautious because I know the possibility is here and real.
Thing is, people using guns "as a mean to defend themselves" usually think they can't be safe without a gun on themselves "just in case".
And that's something the carriers would never understand when non-carriers tell them than in reality, you also have options to solve a potential conflictual situation. You just don't use the gun at all as an excuse.
Honestly, I know most people having guns don't want to willingly kill people. There is also the possibility to own them in my country, but it's severily restricted. Mind you, it didn't go to full chaos.
Also, having weapons don't stop from crimes from happening. If a terrorist decides to make himself explode next to you, I doubt you will have the time to react just at the right second when you didn't expect it to happen at first. That's the same if you have a gun or not on yourself.
After all, the criminal is the first one to use concealed weapons for obvious reasons. I thus can understand why the gouvernment would try to do something to have less possibilities of a potential terrorist to happen. It's way easier to hide when everyone can do the same with their own weapons, after all.
I have ZERO issues living with the fact folks like you may consider me a 'dangerous man' because they choose to be unarmed and I don't. The very vast majority of legal gun owners never seek to threaten another person.
If you carry something that is obviously meant to kill (that's the main purpose of guns, after all, they weren't made to grow flowers), of course you become a potential danger.
It's the same thinking that makes you carry a gun for your own safety; that the others people you may encounter could be threatening your life or your family/friends/loved ones/people just around you.
Most of the time, these people are like the majority of gun carriers, though; they do not really want to make trouble/endanger another life if they can avoid it. That's what life taught me so far. Sure, there are criminals and really bad humans out there - but if they were the huge majority, Earth would be a lifeless orb where humanity went extinct. Might still happen because of a bunch of really stupid people, but so far we're still there.
What I don't understand is that you can't see this as anything else as a threat to your right to own a weapon. I can totally see the reason for obvious national/even local security management. The other option is to put a drone in your brain to make sure you're not a criminal/bad human trying to harm your fellow humans.
And that would be a much more invasive threat of your own privacy, IMHO.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.
This is always a weird argument, to me. "It's more important for me to die without adding to confusion than it is for me to be afforded a chance to protect myself." There are people who had time to text that they were being located by the shooter, rounded up, and knew they were going to be shot. If you genuinely believe passive non-resistance is the way all humans should meet their deaths by homicide, fine, I can't disabuse you of that notion, but it seems a gakky thing to deny other people the right to fight for their lives.
I don't think anybody's saying that all mass shootings would be prevented or terminated early with more concealed carry. I'm certainly not. There was a cop on-scene when this one started, and he and the shooter exchanged ineffectual fire around the time it started. That was probably the best chance of nipping this in the bud, and it didn't happen. That doesn't mean failure to stop it will always be the case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I for one am not comfortable telling people that when faced with a situation like this, I'm more comfortable with them dying than I am with them trying to defend themselves.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.
This is always a weird argument, to me. "It's more important for me to die without adding to confusion than it is for me to be afforded a chance to protect myself." There are people who had time to text that they were being located by the shooter, rounded up, and knew they were going to be shot. If you genuinely believe passive non-resistance is the way all humans should meet their deaths by homicide, fine, I can't disabuse you of that notion, but it seems a gakky thing to deny other people the right to fight for their lives.
I don't think anybody's saying that all mass shootings would be prevented or terminated early with more concealed carry. I'm certainly not. There was a cop on-scene when this one started, and he and the shooter exchanged ineffectual fire around the time it started. That was probably the best chance of nipping this in the bud, and it didn't happen. That doesn't mean failure to stop it will always be the case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I for one am not comfortable telling people that when faced with a situation like this, I'm more comfortable with them dying than I am with them trying to defend themselves.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.
This is always a weird argument, to me. "It's more important for me to die without adding to confusion than it is for me to be afforded a chance to protect myself." There are people who had time to text that they were being located by the shooter, rounded up, and knew they were going to be shot. If you genuinely believe passive non-resistance is the way all humans should meet their deaths by homicide, fine, I can't disabuse you of that notion, but it seems a gakky thing to deny other people the right to fight for their lives.
I don't think anybody's saying that all mass shootings would be prevented or terminated early with more concealed carry. I'm certainly not. There was a cop on-scene when this one started, and he and the shooter exchanged ineffectual fire around the time it started. That was probably the best chance of nipping this in the bud, and it didn't happen. That doesn't mean failure to stop it will always be the case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I for one am not comfortable telling people that when faced with a situation like this, I'm more comfortable with them dying than I am with them trying to defend themselves.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The only reason the shooter didn't hurt more people or escape was because Orlando PD arrived at the nightclub and shot him dead, in the nightclub, with poor lighting. The amount of range time I get recreational and the classes I take probably exceeds the annual requirment for most police departments. Plus, if the guys working the door to the club were carrying, concealed or open, that could have been enough of a deterrent stop the shooting from happening or at least have made it start outside the club which might have prevented the shooter from getting inside or at least given more people in the club time to flee.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
Edit: wrong thread. Going to keep discussion of that to the other thread.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
No, it does not. Because by the time the good guys with guns showed up, people had already made their way out of the night club and fled. The ones left were hiding or already shot and on the ground.
If somebody had been concealed carry at the start of it, they would have been returning fire while people were running and confused. Possibly making things worse by hitting people they did not intend to hit in a dark night club.
However when the police arrived, the night club had already been evacuated and no additional people had been shot by a person with a CC permit trying to be a hero. Sorry for blowing holes in your flimsy argument.
And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.
skyth wrote: And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.
Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.
So only the criminals should only be the ones armed?
?
Keep in mind that CDC did a study post Sandy Hook... which was deep-sixed because it didn't fit the Obama Administration's preferred narrative: http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
Case in point:
Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
Additionally, and the point I want to drive home:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
skyth wrote: And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.
Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.
Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!
skyth wrote: And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.
Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.
Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!
The NRA endorses 3 basic rules for firearm safety:
1.ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2.ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3.ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of gun safety are also widely endorsed and very similar:
1.All guns are always loaded.
2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4.Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Project Appleseed also uses 4 rules for gun safety in their marksmenship classes
1.Always keep the muzzle in a safe direction.
2.Do not load until given the load command.
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target.
4.Make sure those around you follow the safety rules.
skyth wrote: And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.
Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.
Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!
skyth wrote: And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.
Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.
Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!
wow, just wow.
I know, right! It gets confusing when there are so many different Number 1 Rules!
yellowfever wrote: Only when you intentionally avoid trying to learn them.
Poster gets confused on number one. Do you need us to provide visual aids for you? Here, I have a New Yorker here who can help provide that needed visual aid. Now carefully watch his hand...
yellowfever wrote: Only when you intentionally avoid trying to learn them.
Poster gets confused on number one. Do you need us to provide visual aids for you? Here, I have a New Yorker here who can help provide that needed visual aid. Now carefully watch his hand...
I prefer to think of it as a handy visual aid. SWMBO also does and uses it often to help clarify a discussion point we are having. Sometimes its followed by the "feth you" dance. I especially like the twirl finger kick twirl finger kick ending she does.
I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)
1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it
Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.
yellowfever wrote: I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)
1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it
Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.
So wait wait wait, are you telling me the Number 1 Rule you were taught is completely different from the other Number 1 Rules provided!
It is almost as if there is no cohesive list of important gun safety things and instead people teach what they believe to be the Number 1 Rule according to the list they agree with the most.
(Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)
Dreadwinter wrote: (Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)
Most are run by NRA-certified instructors, and they're pretty consistent. (If the instructor isn't NRA-certified, you probably shouldn't be paying them.)
Dreadwinter wrote: (Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)
Most are run by NRA-certified instructors, and they're pretty consistent. (If the instructor isn't NRA-certified, you probably shouldn't be paying them.)
Why? Why is the NRA Special here? Are there not others that can do the same thing they do?
Dreadwinter wrote: (Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)
Most are run by NRA-certified instructors, and they're pretty consistent. (If the instructor isn't NRA-certified, you probably shouldn't be paying them.)
Why? Why is the NRA Special here? Are there not others that can do the same thing they do?
Because they provide consistent training and have a damned good certification program which ensures you don't have some nimrod teaching you bad habits.
There are other good instructors/classes, but you need to do your research.
Actually they are. Have you noticed that the rules posted are basically the same. I was taught that their is no "number one rule". All three to four rules are important.
When I was in the military the fourth rule was actually to keep your weapon on safe till your ready to fire. But all military weapons have a manual safety (well they used too). That's not the case with civilian weapons. So the government agencies I worked with had the fourth rule like I stated previously. Once again none of the rules are more important than the others. They are all necessary.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.
See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?
If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
And your point being?
That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
And your point being?
That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.
Wasn't clear to me... but, the fact that the NRA lobbies just like any other issues group is irrelevant to NRA's gun safety programs imo.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.
See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?
If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.
Note the text of the rules and it will become clear why there is not a separate rule for 'treat gun as loaded'.
Then go here: http://training.nra.org/instructors.aspx to start looking at what is required of their instructors. From there go to what the counselors and coaches do.
It shouldn't be hard to grasp that the biggest gun lobby/gun safety organization is going to have well set up standards and training.
And as already mentioned, if you're not satisfied with the NRA certified courses, there are others. Make sure you do your research on them.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.
See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?
If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.
Note the text of the rules and it will become clear why there is not a separate rule for 'treat gun as loaded'.
Then go here: http://training.nra.org/instructors.aspx to start looking at what is required of their instructors. From there go to what the counselors and coaches do.
It shouldn't be hard to grasp that the biggest gun lobby/gun safety organization is going to have well set up standards and training.
And as already mentioned, if you're not satisfied with the NRA certified courses, there are others. Make sure you do your research on them.
Well actually I may as well direct you here: http://thecmp.org/safety/ so you don't miss the fact they have a safety section.
Ahh, ye old passive aggressive "let me google that for you" post. Classy!
Also, the full rules for the NRA were never covered, so not ALL of this has been covered. Just like the NRA Certified Instructors were not covered. Which is why I asked if they are certified by a government agency. (They are not, according to the page)
Anyways, why are there 3 Fundamental Rules, then an additional 9 rules to follow underneath? The 9 rules underneath are all very vital rules. Why not call it the 12 Fundamental Rules? This fits in to what I am saying, their system for setting up rules to follow is absurd. Why have the 3 Fundamental rules when the 12 Fundamental Rules would be much better? If all of the rules are equally important, why are only 3 of them on the Fundamental Rules list?
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
And your point being?
That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.
The fact that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members and it's still just a tiny fraction of the total number of gun owners in the US gives them more power than their money. There are tens of millions of eligible registered voters that own guns and politicians from the states those gun owners reside in don't want to puss them off. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control bills in the senate and it's not because he's paid off by the NRA it's because he represents Vermont the state with the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's just easier for some people to blame lobbyists than to come to grips with the fact that gun ownership is very important to a large portion of our citizenry.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
Honest answer to your honest question? Makes no difference because you really don't give a gak. Your position seems clear and folks have already pointed you towards good sources of gun safety info.
See, here is where you are wrong. I do give a gak. I wouldn't have asked if I did not. Also, where are the links to these good sources of gun safety info I have been provided that answer the question I just asked?
If you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. Pretty simple.
Note the text of the rules and it will become clear why there is not a separate rule for 'treat gun as loaded'.
Then go here: http://training.nra.org/instructors.aspx to start looking at what is required of their instructors. From there go to what the counselors and coaches do.
It shouldn't be hard to grasp that the biggest gun lobby/gun safety organization is going to have well set up standards and training.
And as already mentioned, if you're not satisfied with the NRA certified courses, there are others. Make sure you do your research on them.
Well actually I may as well direct you here: http://thecmp.org/safety/ so you don't miss the fact they have a safety section.
Ahh, ye old passive aggressive "let me google that for you" post. Classy!
Also, the full rules for the NRA were never covered, so not ALL of this has been covered. Just like the NRA Certified Instructors were not covered. Which is why I asked if they are certified by a government agency. (They are not, according to the page)
Anyways, why are there 3 Fundamental Rules, then an additional 9 rules to follow underneath? The 9 rules underneath are all very vital rules. Why not call it the 12 Fundamental Rules? This fits in to what I am saying, their system for setting up rules to follow is absurd. Why have the 3 Fundamental rules when the 12 Fundamental Rules would be much better? If all of the rules are equally important, why are only 3 of them on the Fundamental Rules list?
The 3 Fundamental rules cover the fundamentals of firearm safety and if followed diligently will greatly reduce the possibility of accidents like negligent discharges. There are additional rules to cover more specificity than the 3 Fundamental rules. 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 and as has been posted the 3 rules cover the most common mistakes.
The rules are in a list, it's just a list, nobody said it was a ranking of importance. The order in which the rules are listed is irrelevant, all are equally important.
The NRA rules cover everything in Jeff Coopers rules the two sets of rules just have different wording. The NRA rules say to make sure the muzzle is always pointing in a safe direction that covers making sure you have a safe backstop behind the target. If there is something doe range that you don't want to shoot, behind the intended target or just in proximity to the target then point the muzzle in that direction wouldn't be safe. Same meaning but different wording from different authors.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
And your point being?
That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.
The fact that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members and it's still just a tiny fraction of the total number of gun owners in the US gives them more power than their money. There are tens of millions of eligible registered voters that own guns and politicians from the states those gun owners reside in don't want to puss them off. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control bills in the senate and it's not because he's paid off by the NRA it's because he represents Vermont the state with the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's just easier for some people to blame lobbyists than to come to grips with the fact that gun ownership is very important to a large portion of our citizenry.
I'll thank you to keep your baseless and unfounded opinions of me to yourself. I made no accusations of blame. When people move beyond misinterpreting my words to willfully misrepresenting them, that is, quite frankly, insulting (and beneath you). I'm done here.
Nostromodamus wrote: The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.
The NRA, the one that I am told to trust the most, only has 3 rules. They are also not consistent. The NRA does not have a basic rule telling you to assume the gun is always loaded. While the Jeff Cooper rules posted have that as number 1. The Jeff Cooper rules also state you should be aware of your target and what is beyond it, I am assuming in case you miss. This is not present int he NRA rules provided.
There are a lot of inconsistencies that should be cleared up. I am told the NRA is the one I should trust as they are the most qualified, but why are they the most qualified? Has the government given them some sort of certification for their exemplary training? (Honest question, I do not know)
It's more the other way around. They're the ones that have given the government the most money in the form of lobbying the congress critters.
And your point being?
That money talks in politics? I figured that was obvious enough, sorry I didn't spell it out clearer. Unless you were intentionally trying to misinterpret or misrepresent my words? It's a fairly simple and straightforward point, as he asked if the government has given the NRA anything, when it's the other way around.
The fact that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members and it's still just a tiny fraction of the total number of gun owners in the US gives them more power than their money. There are tens of millions of eligible registered voters that own guns and politicians from the states those gun owners reside in don't want to puss them off. Bernie Sanders votes against gun control bills in the senate and it's not because he's paid off by the NRA it's because he represents Vermont the state with the most permissive gun laws in the country. It's just easier for some people to blame lobbyists than to come to grips with the fact that gun ownership is very important to a large portion of our citizenry.
I'll thank you to keep your baseless and unfounded opinions of me to yourself. I made no accusations of blame. When people move beyond misinterpreting my words to willfully misrepresenting them, that is, quite frankly, insulting (and beneath you). I'm done here.
That wasn't directed at you personally that was directed at the narrative that gets espoused by media and pundits that the biggest impediment to new restrictive gun laws is the NRA's money which deliberately ignores the importance placed on gun rights by the people that live in high gun ownership states. If I had intended to direct you at you personally I would have done so clearly and directly instead of using the phrase "some people." I quoted your post because you brought up the NRA's lobbying which was the topic I was addressing. Interpret my post however you want it's a free country but that was the reasoning behind it.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
No, it does not. Because by the time the good guys with guns showed up, people had already made their way out of the night club and fled. The ones left were hiding or already shot and on the ground.
If somebody had been concealed carry at the start of it, they would have been returning fire while people were running and confused. Possibly making things worse by hitting people they did not intend to hit in a dark night club.
However when the police arrived, the night club had already been evacuated and no additional people had been shot by a person with a CC permit trying to be a hero. Sorry for blowing holes in your flimsy argument.
Your opinion on coulda woulda shoulda doesn't really change the fact that this terrorist was, in fact, stopped by good guys with guns. My post was a statement of fact, not an argument.
yellowfever wrote: I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)
1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it
Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.
Deadwinter is what you would call...a troll.
I learned four rules myself when a lad.
1. Do unto others before they do unto you.
2. Never leave a bridge behind you. You don't know who's following.
3. Always have a slower friend with you at all times. The hyenas will go after them first.
4. Bourbon. Its not just for breakfast any more.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
I'm not saying that a person with a concealed gun couldn't stop a bad guy in this type of situation. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be easy, even for a trained marksman.
Tons of panicked people blocking line of fire + dark nightclub + marksman being bumped into by fleeing people = difficult shot for the good guy.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
I'm not saying that a person with a concealed gun couldn't stop a bad guy in this type of situation. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be easy, even for a trained marksman.
Tons of panicked people blocking line of fire + dark nightclub + marksman being bumped into by fleeing people = difficult shot for the good guy.
I agree with you 100%. In fact, a concealed carry guy has a couple options. Use the gun to cover his exfil and that of those around him as they attempt to get the heck out (probably smartest course of action for most people). This allows him to fire IF necessary and hope any bullet going towards bad guy buys a few seconds for he and his buddies to un-ass the AO.
Other option is to try to maneuver on bad guy and take him down. Not a lot of folks are built the way you need to be to choose this option, but some are. In this option you are still going after a guy better armed an likely with more ammo, it may be a sacrifice option. But even if not 100% successful while you are engaging the bag guy, others are escaping. If you wound the bad guy you may be saving even more folks. If you do manage to kill him you've likely saved a bunch. But honestly unless a former military or LEO it is not the likely option even among gun owners, and even if former military/LEO not all would take that option.
But I do genuinely believe if ANYONE takes the bad guy under fire, the seconds to minutes gained save lives, even if the 'good guy with gun' ends up dead.
TLDR: Just getting into this little charade but lets start with this
1: the 9th circuit court is infamous for ruling based on liberal/left leaning policy and less on what the constitution says. Do they think they are following the constitution? No, and I know that for a fact.
2: How do I know for a fact that they are not following the constitution? Simple, just read the constitution and it quickly becomes apparent that the court is making up laws that are directly in violation of the US Constitution.
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I would say that telling someone they aren't allowed to have a side arm is infringing upon that right to bear arms.
This has always been the most ridiculous debates between the left and the right, the 2nd amendment spells out that US citizens have a right to keep and bear arms and yet they somehow find a way to limit our ability to keep and bear arms. Some rules make a lot of sense in regards to gun control and I fully support them. For instance, letting a teenager walk around in Highschool with a gun strapped to his waist is a very bad idea, on a college campus though? not so much. I agree with the highschool idea because kids are over emotional and don't realize the consequences of their actions until it is to late, college kids on the other hand are no longer children, at least under US Law, at 18 they should have every right as an adult, up to and including bearing arms wherever they deem it necessary to do so.
Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?
skyth wrote: Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?
Understand the powah of the Commas!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
skyth wrote: Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?
I am not trying to be insulting in the slightest but I don't think you understand what the 2nd amendment says, especially in regards to punctuation.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, (Introductory Comma) being necessary to the security of a free state, (Independent Clause Comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (a comma near the end of a sentence to separate contrasted coordinate elements or to indicate a distinct pause or shift.) shall not be infringed. (Period end of sentence)
This has sadly become less of a constitutional interpretation and has quickly become a demonstration in why our lawyers and judges need to retake English I-IV.
skyth wrote: Well...the 9th is the court with the most confirmed rulings. And they did follow the Constitution or did you miss the part that mentioned 'Well Regulated'?
I don't think that the 9th Circuit Court's ruling is unconsitutional in the strictest sense but that it is deliberately narrow in a case that is actually much more broad of scope in nature.
The 2nd Amendment codifies the right of US citizens to "keep and bear arms" which means we get to own and carry arms. California state law forbids the open carry of loaded firearms and the open carry of unloaded firearms. California state law also puts county sherrifs in charge of issuing concealed carry permits and requires applicants to show "good cause" to obtain a concealed carry permit. Some CA county sherrifs are denying applicants because of an extremely narrow definition of good cause which is prevening law abiding citizens with clean records from legally obtaining their concealed carry permits. California state law is therefore effectively barring CA residents from exercising their full 2A rights because while they can keep arms they cannot bear them.
While the 2A doesn't specify that concealed carry itself is guaranteed right for citizens the right to bear arms is still constitutionally protected and if CA is going to outlaw any form of open carry then they need to allow citizens to concealed carry. CA can't just revoke citizens right to bear arms completely which is what is happening in some counties.
The 2A doesn't require that every state become a shall issue state for concealed carry but it does guarantee the right to bear arms and that must be respected by the states.
To my mind this case is similar to the Heller case where SCOTUS ruled that DC couldn't allow residents to legally own firearms but then require them to be stored in such a way as to make them unusable. CA is outlawing open carry and making concealed carry impossible for virtually every law abiding qualified resident which is violating their constitutional right.
Frazzled wrote: Some of us have studied their rulings and actually know something about the court.
To settle the "most rulings overturned" nonsense:
Rulings per Circuit Court in 2015|SCOTUS reversals per circuit 2014 (just because that's the latest I could find and didn't feel like redoing the math for the 2015 caseloads) | Rough estimate of reversal rate
So, as has been mentioned before, if you make more rulings, then more rulings are going to end up at the SCOTUS, and more rulings end up getting overturned. That's simple math, and it means that "they have more cases overturned than any other circuit" is a meaningless argument.
I'm sure there will be complaints about the years not matching, and if someone wants to pull up the actual numbers for the actual years then be my guest.
Frazzled wrote: Some of us have studied their rulings and actually know something about the court.
To settle the "most rulings overturned" nonsense:
Rulings per Circuit Court in 2015|SCOTUS reversals per circuit 2014 (just because that's the latest I could find and didn't feel like redoing the math for the 2015 caseloads) | Rough estimate of reversal rate
So, as has been mentioned before, if you make more rulings, then more rulings are going to end up at the SCOTUS, and more rulings end up getting overturned. That's simple math, and it means that "they have more cases overturned than any other circuit" is a meaningless argument.
I'm sure there will be complaints about the years not matching, and if someone wants to pull up the actual numbers for the actual years then be my guest.
So your arguing semantics instead of just yielding the incontrovertible point that they have had the MOST cases overturned. Nobody said they had the biggest percentage, just the most.
d-usa wrote: Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.
Stop making bad arguments.
I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.
The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.
So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.
d-usa wrote: Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.
Stop making bad arguments.
Most means most. Evidently this is a problem for you.
- ignorance of the actual caseloads and rulings of each circuit court
- dishonesty in the argument someone is making
What it doesn't mean is that they are worse at making constitutional rulings than other circuit courts, since they have the same reversal rate as other circuit courts.
d-usa wrote: Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.
Stop making bad arguments.
I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.
The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.
So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.
Can I give you an award for most nonsensical posts?
d-usa wrote: Okay, it could possibly mean two things:
- ignorance of the actual caseloads and rulings of each circuit court
- dishonesty in the argument someone is making
What it doesn't mean is that they are worse at making constitutional rulings than other circuit courts, since they have the same reversal rate as other circuit courts.
d-usa wrote: Because "most" means nothing, it's a pointless argument if you refuse to actually show what "most" means in relationship to all the other courts.
Stop making bad arguments.
I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.
The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.
So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.
Can I give you an award for most nonsensical posts?
You sure can, but coming from you it would be worse then one of those participation awards they give out at little league games.
The fact that you have to argue the meaning of the word "Most" shows the weakness of your argument.
Feel free to explain the purpose of pointing out that the 9th has the most reversals, and then let people decide it knowledge about the relevance of the actual number of cases and reversals is significant.
If you have no reason to hide behind the "most" argument, then you should be able to make a well reasoned and comprehensive post about why the raw number is more important than the meaning of said number and why the fine people of Dakka should ignore the fact that the 9th has the most reversals, while also having the most rulings, and the most affirmations.
d-usa wrote: Feel free to explain the purpose of pointing out that the 9th has the most reversals, and then let people decide it knowledge about the relevance of the actual number of cases and reversals is significant.
If you have no reason to hide behind the "most" argument, then you should be able to make a well reasoned and comprehensive post about why the raw number is more important than the meaning of said number and why the fine people of Dakka should ignore the fact that the 9th has the most reversals, while also having the most rulings, and the most affirmations.
To summarize, the American Bar Association ranked every Circuit court and guess what? the 9th got the worst grade. Does that help you at all, or are you going to find another way to get around actual facts?
I thought Dakka at least understood why absolute numbers make for completely bollocks arguments, and that relative numbers are a much better indicator of reality.
DakkaDakka OT: the gift that keeps on disappointing.
Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.
Fact: the article ignored the same principle that you did: looking at the number of rulings reversed means nothing if you don't look at the total number of rulings made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I thought Dakka at least understood why absolute numbers make for completely bollocks arguments, and that relative numbers are a much better indicator of reality.
DakkaDakka OT: the gift that keeps on disappointing.
To quote the article: "figures dong lie, but liars figure".
"Most rulings overturned" is a figure and it doesn't lie, but people will try to make that figure mean something that it doesn't.
d-usa wrote: Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.
Fact: the article ignored the same principle that you did: looking at the number of rulings reversed means nothing if you don't look at the total number of rulings made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I thought Dakka at least understood why absolute numbers make for completely bollocks arguments, and that relative numbers are a much better indicator of reality.
DakkaDakka OT: the gift that keeps on disappointing.
To quote the article: "figures dong lie, but liars figure".
"Most rulings overturned" is a figure and it doesn't lie, but people will try to make that figure mean something that it doesn't.
Fact, you just ignored the opinions of the valid experts on the field in question.
Fact, the 2nd Amendment has just been violated and if we ever get another SCOTUS Justice in place it should be overturned immediately.
Fact: I ignored the opinion of one man who was using the reversal rates of circuit courts cases reviewed by the the SCOTUS to make a point about patent law, while ignoring the reversal rates of all cases in the process.
The next SCOTUS ruling may well declare that the constitution limits the 2nd to the militias in the form of the national guard, who knows. In the long term, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The ruling of the 9th is constitutional for now, it will stop being constitutional when, and if, SCOTUS reverses it. And if SCOTUS affirms it it will remain constitutional, until they change their mind. The constitution means whatever the courts say it means.
We have covered most these arguments earlier in this thread though, you just have missed most of these posts when you made most of your own arguments that included most of the misunderstandings of what is and isn't significant about the word "most".
You seem pretty hostile there d-usa. Maybe the Oklahoma heat and platelike flatness are getting to you. I suggest a quick vacation to the Appalachians to cool your brow. Plus...barbeque!
d-usa wrote: Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.
No, that isn't what the article said at all. It looked at % reversed, % vacated and % affirmed by circuit. Some circuits, according to the article, had a larger % of the cases SCOTUS reviewed reversed or vacated than others did. The 9th had large percentages of their cases reversed or vacated (80% according to Table 3). Total number of cases each sent to the court does not effect the % of the cases reversed or vacated.
That is a lot different from what you seem to think the article said (in the quote I took from you). Most Reversals as a raw number is NOT what the article looked at. They looked at % reversed, and there IS a difference.
Second Amendment The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold:
regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)
So... had California defined what it really meant by "for good reason", then it'd likely be kosher.
yellowfever wrote: I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)
1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it
Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.
Deadwinter is what you would call...a troll.
I learned four rules myself when a lad.
1. Do unto others before they do unto you.
2. Never leave a bridge behind you. You don't know who's following.
3. Always have a slower friend with you at all times. The hyenas will go after them first.
4. Bourbon. Its not just for breakfast any more.
Oh wow, a troll for asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies? That is high praise there Fraz. Also, I thought there was a rule stopping people from coming out and whining "Troll!" when somebody disagreed with them.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.
Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.
The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.
No, it does not. Because by the time the good guys with guns showed up, people had already made their way out of the night club and fled. The ones left were hiding or already shot and on the ground.
If somebody had been concealed carry at the start of it, they would have been returning fire while people were running and confused. Possibly making things worse by hitting people they did not intend to hit in a dark night club.
However when the police arrived, the night club had already been evacuated and no additional people had been shot by a person with a CC permit trying to be a hero. Sorry for blowing holes in your flimsy argument.
Your opinion on coulda woulda shoulda doesn't really change the fact that this terrorist was, in fact, stopped by good guys with guns. My post was a statement of fact, not an argument.
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
d-usa wrote: Fact: the article repeated the same argument that you made: having the most reversals means something.
No, that isn't what the article said at all. It looked at % reversed, % vacated and % affirmed by circuit. Some circuits, according to the article, had a larger % of the cases SCOTUS reviewed reversed or vacated than others did. The 9th had large percentages of their cases reversed or vacated (80% according to Table 3). Total number of cases each sent to the court does not effect the % of the cases reversed or vacated.
That is a lot different from what you seem to think the article said (in the quote I took from you). Most Reversals as a raw number is NOT what the article looked at. They looked at % reversed, and there IS a difference.
% reversed of the 175 cases that the Court reviewed, as the article makes clear.
The article also makes it clear that the 9th sees many more cases and makes many more rulings than any of the other circuit courts.
And when you look at the total number of rulings made by the circuit court, and the number of cases that get reversed by the SCOTUS, then you find very quickly that the 9th does not do worse than other courts.
If people want to argue that the 9th has the worst track record of any circuit court when it comes to making rulings that are reversed by the SCOTUS, then they are simply wrong. If people want to narrow the argument down and argue that of the tiny fraction of cases that get picked for review by the SCOTUS the 9th Circuit Court has a higher percentage of cases overturned than the other court in most years (I think the 6th has overtaken them in recent years), then they would be correct. But when they then attempt to imply that that this statistic means that any ruling by the 9th is automatically bad they are simply wrong, because the actual track record for reversals based on every ruling made is in line with most, and better than some, of the other circuits.
D-USA I guess you didn't bother to read the article? Eitherway, yes they see more cases then any other court, but that is because they are responsible for a larger population, and to help with that case load, they also have almost twice as many judges as any other circuit court, only 1 is actually close, with 15 judges, to the 9th's 29.
Frazzled wrote: Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.
And my four rules are better.
When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.
Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?
SemperMortis wrote: D-USA I guess you didn't bother to read the article? Eitherway, yes they see more cases then any other court, but that is because they are responsible for a larger population, and to help with that case load, they also have almost twice as many judges as any other circuit court, only 1 is actually close, with 15 judges, to the 9th's 29.
I read the article, a couple of times actually.
That's how I was able to figure out that it was a single author, and not authors like you seemed to think. It's also how I was able to figure out that they didn't look at total number of rulings per circuit, but only total number of cases reviewed by SCOTUS.
And man, you totally shocked me with that little nugget about the size of the 9th. Who would have though that the court with the most rulings out of all the circuits is also responsible for the largest percentage of the population and has the largest number of judges and is responsible for the largest number of states. Of course we already addressed the size of the court in this thread, and how having the largest percentage of the population leads to having the most cases, making the most rulings, having the most cases appealed to SCOTUS, and having the most cases overturned. Man, it's almost like you discovered the very core of the actual argument I am making regarding the size of the court and how it impacts the meaning of "most".
If you keep this up, you might just learn something today
Frazzled wrote: Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.
And my four rules are better.
When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.
Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?
Your subjective opinion and semantic games are objective proof of nothing. My statement remains true pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates the first rule of firearm safety, the NRA's rule that is listed first is to point the muzzle in a safe direction if you don't know what you're pointing at then it's not a safe direction. Your quest to find the singular most important gun safety rule claimed to be such by some form of governing body or bodies is one of your own making and has no relevance to the discussion at hand or at all. Those rules are going to be taught and followed and they will help prevent accidents. Your questions about what the rules mean have been answered do you require further clarification as to what they mean?
Edit: and just to clarify my point: maybe it's just me, but I don't find (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings accepted for review) to be very indicative of the overall performance of the individual courts and I think that (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings made) to be a much better measure for the performance of the individual circuits.
d-usa wrote: Edit: and just to clarify my point: maybe it's just me, but I don't find (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings accepted for review) to be very indicative of the overall performance of the individual courts and I think that (# of rulings overturned)/(# of rulings made) to be a much better measure for the performance of the individual circuits.
Neither does that article, which is why it looked at % and not #. The article (as you know) based their grades on % reversed + % Vacated. The higher your combined % the worse your grade. 'More' or # doesn't enter into it, just % of the number, which is why it is a 'fairer' way of looking at it compared to raw numbers.
(# of cases overturned)/(number of cases reviewed)=% of cases overturned after review.
And again, it doesn't look at the number of rulings actually made, nor the percentage of rulings actually overturned.
It just states that out of all the cases reviewed, the 9th did bad. It doesn't address the fact that out of all the rulings actually made, the 9th did the same as most other courts and better than some.
Frazzled wrote: Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.
And my four rules are better.
When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.
Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?
Your subjective opinion and semantic games are objective proof of nothing. My statement remains true pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates the first rule of firearm safety, the NRA's rule that is listed first is to point the muzzle in a safe direction if you don't know what you're pointing at then it's not a safe direction. Your quest to find the singular most important gun safety rule claimed to be such by some form of governing body or bodies is one of your own making and has no relevance to the discussion at hand or at all. Those rules are going to be taught and followed and they will help prevent accidents. Your questions about what the rules mean have been answered do you require further clarification as to what they mean?
I agree with your statement that pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates a rule of firearm safety. I would also say it is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do in a situation like that. My quest was not to find the single most important gun safety rule, it seems you still have not picked up on what I have been saying. I have been saying that there are inconsistencies with training, whether you guys want to admit it or not. Even with the NRA. Everyone claims all of the rules of the NRA are the most important rules, but only 3 are put on their list of "Fundamental Rules." The reasoning I was given is that 3 is easier to remember than 12. Which is absurd, as I have already pointed out. Maybe we need to raise the standard of our gun training. If all the rules are important, they should all be known and memorized. If you only want people to remember the 3 rules, that means the rest of the 9 are not as important as the 3 being hammered in to peoples minds.
Need me to further clarify or answer any questions for you?
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
ta-da!
I learned that the first rule can be confusing for some people. Thats why I have 237. 199 of them involve food and illumination on the evil that is Cats.
Frazzled wrote: Calling troll because you're seriously dicking around "so many first rules ohs" get real.
And my four rules are better.
When somebody says "The 1st Rule" of something it is an indication of the most important rule. This has been shown to be false because "all rules are equally important." Which is also false because the NRA has a list of 3 Fundamental rules and then a side list of 9 additional rules. As soon as you do not make the 3 Fundamental Rules in to the 12 Fundamental Rules, you have downplayed the importance of the additional 9 rules. This is a very large inconsistency with training. The argument that 3 rules are easier to remember than 12 rules is just absurd. Because we should not be going for easier to remember in gun training. If you cannot remember the 12 Fundamental Rules, you should not be running around with a gun. That is a safety issue. Remembering 12 Rules is not hard.
Or maybe Moses should have shortened those commandments down to 3. 10 is a lot of commandments and really, who is going to remember all of them?
Your subjective opinion and semantic games are objective proof of nothing. My statement remains true pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates the first rule of firearm safety, the NRA's rule that is listed first is to point the muzzle in a safe direction if you don't know what you're pointing at then it's not a safe direction. Your quest to find the singular most important gun safety rule claimed to be such by some form of governing body or bodies is one of your own making and has no relevance to the discussion at hand or at all. Those rules are going to be taught and followed and they will help prevent accidents. Your questions about what the rules mean have been answered do you require further clarification as to what they mean?
I agree with your statement that pointing a gun in a dark confined space full of people violates a rule of firearm safety. I would also say it is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do in a situation like that. My quest was not to find the single most important gun safety rule, it seems you still have not picked up on what I have been saying. I have been saying that there are inconsistencies with training, whether you guys want to admit it or not. Even with the NRA. Everyone claims all of the rules of the NRA are the most important rules, but only 3 are put on their list of "Fundamental Rules." The reasoning I was given is that 3 is easier to remember than 12. Which is absurd, as I have already pointed out. Maybe we need to raise the standard of our gun training. If all the rules are important, they should all be known and memorized. If you only want people to remember the 3 rules, that means the rest of the 9 are not as important as the 3 being hammered in to peoples minds.
Need me to further clarify or answer any questions for you?
There aren't inconsistencies in training. 3 things are easier to remember than 12 things, that's objectively true. You can hold the opinion that that statement is absurd but it doesn't change it's objective truth. The 3 fundamental rules are broad rules that should be and can be applied to any instance in which you handle a firearm. The 9 additional rules are more specific rules dealing with more specific circumstances in which you could be handling a firearm. The broad rules always apply, therefore they take prominence over the additional 9. This is just like my explanation to your question about Cooper having 4 rules and the NRA having 3. Cooper takes one of the NRA rules and splits it into two rules with greater specificity but the one broad NRA rule still covers both Cooper rules. Since the 3 NRA rules apply to any situation wherein you handle firearms and will always help reduce accidents and negligence they should always be remembered. Knowing the fundamental 3 rules makes knowing the additional 9 rules unnecessary but still helpful.
Here's an analogy to help clear things up further. Murder is against the law. As long as you recognize that murder is illegal that should remind you not to do it. We also break down murder into 3 separate degrees of murder with more specificity and certain circumstances dictate which degree of murder you would get charged with by the DA. You don't need to know the 3 degrees of murder and the circumstances that dictate them to know that murder is illegal and you shouldn't do it. It would help to know the additional specificity but it's not neccessary but knowing the murder is illegal tells you not to commit any kind of murder.
There is no governmental agency or body that oversees all firearm training/safety standards. Different states have different training requirements or no training requirements to own and carry firearms. The federal agency that oversees firearms is the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. They enforce federal firearm laws and provide people with copies of the laws but they don't do safety training although some laws do cover things like safe storage and transport. The Civilian Marksmanship Program is a government program that does offer training, sells firearms and ammunition to the public and holds competitive shooting matches. The CMP offers safety training and instruction but there is no federal requirement to undergo any of it. The NRA offers safety and training classes and instruction but it is not a government agency and taking NRA safety classes isn't required at the state or federal level.
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
ta-da!
No because the first has a 2% failure rate and the second a .4% failure rate, which is how the article linked judged. 2% is a higher failure than .4%, correct?
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
ta-da!
No because the first has a 2% failure rate and the second a .4% failure rate, which is how the article linked judged. 2% is a higher failure than .4%, correct?
If you think this is how the article judged, then I understand the confusion.
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
ta-da!
No because the first has a 2% failure rate and the second a .4% failure rate, which is how the article linked judged. 2% is a higher failure than .4%, correct?
These are bad arguments Jake!
SemperMortis wrote:So your arguing semantics instead of just yielding the incontrovertible point that they have had the MOST cases overturned. Nobody said they had the biggest percentage, just the most.
SemperMortis wrote:I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.
The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.
So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.
Stop making this a semantics argument! 4 burgers is twice as many as 2.
Frazzled and Dreadwinter, you're both toeing a couple of lines. The rest of the thread is as well now and then. If you all can't behave I'm going to take your gun thread away from you.
Just a few thoughts I've been mulling over the past couple days now on the 2nd Amendment, and the state we're in.
Now, I've spent my whole life being in support of 2A, and that hasn't changed.
What has changed though, is that I believe something needs to be done regarding the acquisition of firearms on multiple levels.
I guess that when it gets boiled down, the way I see it is this: we can do something now, like tightening NICS and background checks, OR, we can continue to do nothing until things reach a literal boiling point, and the "only" option is a full repeal of 2A.
I know that many republican politicians love to couch their arguments in "slippery slopes" and that ANY law changes or additions are an "assault on our rights!" etc. etc. etc. but I really do see us reaching a point where there's no slippery slope, there's just a precipitous drop.
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like it 1st Amendment rights were treated by our government in the same way the 2nd is...
Full background check + fingerprinting, $107 in licensing fees, must be renewed with an additional $35 in licensing fees every five years, furthermore you revoke your 4th amendment rights in the process - and after all that, you may finally vote.
Add the state not having to issue the permit to vote if it doesn't want to, and it gets very interesting.
My voting analogy aside and addressing the appeals court's decision directly; Yes it completely violates the constitution. I still find it hard to believe how many of California's gun laws have survived any constitutional court. I hope that the decision can be reversed.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just a few thoughts I've been mulling over the past couple days now on the 2nd Amendment, and the state we're in.
Now, I've spent my whole life being in support of 2A, and that hasn't changed.
What has changed though, is that I believe something needs to be done regarding the acquisition of firearms on multiple levels.
I guess that when it gets boiled down, the way I see it is this: we can do something now, like tightening NICS and background checks, OR, we can continue to do nothing until things reach a literal boiling point, and the "only" option is a full repeal of 2A.
I know that many republican politicians love to couch their arguments in "slippery slopes" and that ANY law changes or additions are an "assault on our rights!" etc. etc. etc. but I really do see us reaching a point where there's no slippery slope, there's just a precipitous drop.
How would increased/tightened background checks have prevented Orlando or other recent incidents?
Doing SOMETHING! for the sake of doing something, when you don't actually come even close to fixing the perceived problem ought to be fought against.
Lets not forget, regardless of big incidents like this, gun violence is at a low in the US and the trend seems to be continuing. And in localities where it is not low, it is generally not due to lax gun laws.
I say go for full repeal. See how it works out.
The following makes light of the issue, but it does point out how difficult that will be.
whembly wrote: Would you care on elaborating what you meant by "tightening NICS and background checks"?
I believe most gun owners wouldn't mind... but, then again, the devil is in the details.
The Orlando shooter, according to many early reports, had a history of domestic violence/abuse. Obviously no charges were brought up, because he still bought his stuff legally.
The Louisiana movie theater shooter bought his gun in Alabama, and if you recall the early reports indicated that he passed, using his legal name, a background check in LA. IIRC, that pawn shop apparently did not run his actual name, or perhaps didn't run any kind of background check (which, I know is already against the law).
So many of the recent mass shootings, it seems that the media is fairly quickly able to find out that there's a long history of mental issues, or a history of violence or other factors that, if there were reporting criteria for those things in the NICS checks, could have prevented some of these tragedies.
Those dakka users in Washington State will probably be familiar with our recent "background check" law that was recently passed. IMO, it is a terribly written piece of legislation, because the language is a bit too broad. One of the unintended consequences of the new law, was that many military museums in the state are being forced to return firearms to the owners, because a museum isn't a person, and therefore cannot have an NICS run for the "transfer" of firearms. Let's say whembly and I are at a range here in WA. Let's say for this example that one of us has a cool firearm that the other one is interested in buying, but wants to shoot one prior to going out and dropping that kind of cash on one. Under this law, even that "transfer" is illegal.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just a few thoughts I've been mulling over the past couple days now on the 2nd Amendment, and the state we're in.
Now, I've spent my whole life being in support of 2A, and that hasn't changed.
What has changed though, is that I believe something needs to be done regarding the acquisition of firearms on multiple levels.
I guess that when it gets boiled down, the way I see it is this: we can do something now, like tightening NICS and background checks, OR, we can continue to do nothing until things reach a literal boiling point, and the "only" option is a full repeal of 2A.
I know that many republican politicians love to couch their arguments in "slippery slopes" and that ANY law changes or additions are an "assault on our rights!" etc. etc. etc. but I really do see us reaching a point where there's no slippery slope, there's just a precipitous drop.
What would be done that would have prevented any recent tragedy, short of banning firearms entirely? I mean, looking at the Florida case, the guy was a licensed armed security guard, with certified training and background checks/vetting up the wazoo, who had not been convicted of any crime nor was he under suspicion of anything at the time of the shooting. Looking at Sandy Hook, the guy murdered the legal owner of the firearms and stole them to commit a terrible act, not something background checks or anything like that would have covered. Likewise the suspect arrested in LA this weekend, according to the ADA the weapons found were purchased by the dude's father, and so no background check would have found that, and the weapons were already illegal as configured in CA. The Roseburg shooter of last year had learning disabilities, but no criminal record that would have barred him from owning firearms and no mental health issues that would have precluded him from owning any unless we're going to deny people rights based on learning disabilities.
At least as far as I can tell, the people committing newsworthy acts with firearms aren't obtaining these weapons in ways that enhanced screening and background checks would not prevent, at least in the relatively recent cases I looked at.
There's something else going on. When it was legal to mail order machineguns and have them delivered by the USPS straight to your door, when the entire concept of a background check was incomprehensible and the carrying of firearms by children into schools was a daily routine thing, we didn't have these mass shootings. Something fundamentally has changed as a society where people can feel so disconnected and aloof that such acts are not only something that would occur to them to carry out, but that feel justifiable, particularly through the infamy and recognition they achieve. Meanwhile however, murder rates and firearms murders/assaults as a whole are at historic lows and declining every year, you have a smaller chance of being murdered by a firearm now than at just about any point in US history that we have comparable records for. Background checks can only go so far, and I think they've gone as far as they can in terms of effectiveness, they can't stop everything.
The 2nd Amendment shouldn't be infringed upon at all. If I want to buy a howitzer, I should be allowed to. As far as I'm concerned, any regulation upon my right to bear arms is the government trying to take away my rights. The Orlando shooter was attacked a zone where guns weren't allowed. A place he knew was undefended. There's no reason that there shouldn't have been at least a pistol under the bar in the event something like that happens.
The first page of result in my search for the Louisiana movie theater shooting all seem to say he bought the gun legally.
"When Houser tried to buy his gun on Feb. 26, 2014, the system only briefly delayed his purchase, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The seller was advised the following day that the sale could proceed."
There's something else going on. When it was legal to mail order machineguns and have them delivered by the USPS straight to your door, when the entire concept of a background check was incomprehensible and the carrying of firearms by children into schools was a daily routine thing, we didn't have these mass shootings. Something fundamentally has changed as a society where people can feel so disconnected and aloof that such acts are not only something that would occur to them to carry out, but that feel justifiable, particularly through the infamy and recognition they achieve. Meanwhile however, murder rates and firearms murders/assaults as a whole are at historic lows and declining every year, you have a smaller chance of being murdered by a firearm now than at just about any point in US history that we have comparable records for. Background checks can only go so far, and I think they've gone as far as they can in terms of effectiveness, they can't stop everything.
Well, one thing I know we can all agree on, is media coverage of the "major" events. I recall one of the major cable news networks having a much vaunted psychologist type expert on their show, and he flat out said, "putting up their faces, the number of casualties, etc. directly contribute to copycats." Of course, that cable news network has completely ignored that guy, and continues the practice of gory detailed reports of major shooting events. But, I guess that just comes with the territory of having literally everything for sale, and everything must be profitable. And of course, mass casualty events are very good for the news business.
@CptJake, personally, I don't think that I'm going for a "we must do something for the sake of doing something." Rather, I think, rightly or wrongly, that there's some writing on the wall where we're just gonna reach a stage in which discussing the merits of altering existing laws to function better as technology progresses, or getting rid of out-dated ones, etc.
@CptJake, personally, I don't think that I'm going for a "we must do something for the sake of doing something." Rather, I think, rightly or wrongly, that there's some writing on the wall where we're just gonna reach a stage in which discussing the merits of altering existing laws to function better as technology progresses, or getting rid of out-dated ones, etc.
Nah... I don't think it'll come to that in our lifetime.
This is, quite frankly, one of the only issue in the US where private individual gun ownership is consider a cherished right.
To me, Colorado is essentially a microcosm of the US.... if the recent gun control couldn't stick there... not much chance it'll stick in other states.
Aye, media coverage I think is a big part of the problem, but then you run into 1st amendment issues trying to stifle that. It's not an easy questions to solve sadly.
@CptJake, personally, I don't think that I'm going for a "we must do something for the sake of doing something." Rather, I think, rightly or wrongly, that there's some writing on the wall where we're just gonna reach a stage in which discussing the merits of altering existing laws to function better as technology progresses, or getting rid of out-dated ones, etc.
You may not be, but others are. And almost none of the offered solutions would have prevented any of the killings. And if implemented they won't do much to prevent future killings, but they will make life harder for me and those like me. And frankly, I'm against that. I'm a selfish SOB.
I'm for getting rid of outdated laws. I'm not for replacing them with more restrictive laws.
Take Orlando. Guy investigated twice and cleared twice. Not on any watch list at the time (was pulled off the list after one of the investigations did not pan out). And I see several folks wondering how 'Someone investigated twice can buy a gun!" (Including some lady on Fox who interviewed Dr, Carson yesterday). Guess what, LOTS of people are investigated and cleared. That s the way the law and due process work. The LEAs have to gather enough evidence to charge and prosecute or at least enough to justify continued investigations and get the needed warrants. If they don't you can't decide to strip the cleared individual of constitutionally protected rights.
The solutions being offered are bad. They just are. And I refuse to accept Doing Something! to appease the crap bags calling for those types of solutions, and hope there are enough other voting citizens who refuse as well.
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
Well... to me "good guy with a gun stops..." means defensive stop.
Right?
According to that CDC 2013 study here:
• Estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
• “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
• One “body of research” (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found “estimated annual gun use for self-defense” to be “up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”
• “There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
yeah well I love it when security salesmen come knocking asking if I want a security system and I tell them you do realize our own police chief said that the police will not be responding to security alarms going off. but on the other hand if you have a shooting the cops will race there.
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Don't see any issues that...
There is a huge glaring issue in that statemnt. Terror watchlists and No Fly Lists shouldn't even exist, they violate the foundation of our legal system, the presumption of innocence, as well as deprive people of due process. The govt should never, ever be allowed to place citizens on arbitrary lists without their knowledge or due process and then use being on that arbitrary secret list as a reason to revoke citizens' rights. If the govt has evidence that somebody is a danger or a terrorist then they should act on that evidence and file charges. If the govt doesn't have enough evidence to file charges then the govt should leave that citizen alone. Secret lists that nobody knows about but are used to oppress people and take their liberty away are an inexcusable evil and should not be tolerated.The NRA knows better, they've always opposed a national firearms registry with good reason and they should stand on principle with consistency and oppose watch lists and no fly lists too.
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Don't see any issues that...
There is a huge glaring issue in that statemnt. Terror watchlists and No Fly Lists shouldn't even exist, they violate the foundation of our legal system, the presumption of innocence, as well as deprive people of due process. The govt should never, ever be allowed to place citizens on arbitrary lists without their knowledge or due process and then use being on that arbitrary secret list as a reason to revoke citizens' rights. If the govt has evidence that somebody is a danger or a terrorist then they should act on that evidence and file charges. If the govt doesn't have enough evidence to file charges then the govt should leave that citizen alone. Secret lists that nobody knows about but are used to oppress people and take their liberty away are an inexcusable evil and should not be tolerated.The NRA knows better, they've always opposed a national firearms registry with good reason and they should stand on principle with consistency and oppose watch lists and no fly lists too.
If there's rigid & nimble due process, it techically shouldn't be a problem.
However, every iteration of gun control plans from Congress I've seen is really lacking any 'Due Process' provision.
Also, Howard Stern offers this daily dose of truth:
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
The problem for your side of the debate is that the above is still a more realistic proposal than, "Ban black rifles, and suddenly more than 300 million guns in America won't be a problem!"
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
The problem for your side of the debate is that the above is still a more realistic proposal than, "Ban black rifles, and suddenly more than 300 million guns in America won't be a problem!"
My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
There is nothing wrong with having good guys with guns anywhere. They're good guys so they're not a threat and it makes no difference if they're armed or what they're carrying. Why would anyone be afraid of good people?
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore
Oh gak, I didn't know! Should I be more, uh, stately or something?
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
There is nothing wrong with having good guys with guns anywhere. They're good guys so they're not a threat and it makes no difference if they're armed or what they're carrying. Why would anyone be afraid of good people?
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore
Oh gak, I didn't know! Should I be more, uh, stately or something?
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
There is nothing wrong with having good guys with guns anywhere. They're good guys so they're not a threat and it makes no difference if they're armed or what they're carrying. Why would anyone be afraid of good people?
You trust every stranger with a gun?
Everyone that can lawfully own a gun, yes. What's the difference between them and me? To virtually everyone else in this state I'm a stranger with a gun and I'm a great guy. So are all my friends, relatives, neighbors and coworkers who are also gun owners. I'm not afraid of strangers, the vast majority of them are good people. Where do you live that you think strangers are out to get you?
Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
I'm sorry, you claimed sincerity earlier. Is this a Schrodinger's Troll sort of thing? Sincere when called a troll, trolling when treated as though being sincere?
Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.
Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?
Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.
Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?
No you don't have to be paranoid or afraid of anything to own a gun. It's a right, you don't need a reason to exercise it. That's like saying you can only use your 1A right to free speech if you have something really important to say. If you are a law abiding US citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms, why you might choose to do so is irrelevant to the existence of the right. There are many reasons why law abiding citizens might want to own a gun, any one of them is valid because any reason is valid because you don't ever have to justify exercising a right to anyone.
Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.
Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?
No you don't have to be paranoid or afraid of anything to own a gun. It's a right, you don't need a reason to exercise it. That's like saying you can only use your 1A right to free speech if you have something really important to say. If you are a law abiding US citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms, why you might choose to do so is irrelevant to the existence of the right. There are many reasons why law abiding citizens might want to own a gun, any one of them is valid because any reason is valid because you don't ever have to justify exercising a right to anyone.
But this isn't talking about just owning a gun. This is talking about mass proliferation of concealed guns to protect against "bad guys (who presumably also have guns)". Which I think it incredibly paranoid. So I was saying that you calling him paranoid was incredibly hypocritcal. Thus, "[Paranoid] enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the 'good people with guns' actually being bad people[.]"
I certainly don't think that just owning a gun is paranoid. Although considering the amount of rednecks I know, my perception does corralate the two a bit .
Co'tor Shas wrote: This is talking about mass proliferation of concealed guns to protect against "bad guys (who presumably also have guns)".
Why, though? That's simply never going to be a thing. In states with lax or non-existent concealed carry regulations, it's a minority of people who own guns, and a minority of gun owners who concealed carry. Mass proliferation is never going to happen. Carrying should be an option for people who want to do it, but the overwhelming majority don't. I think that's more of a problem than some hypothetical sudden carrying craze if California got itself a concealed carry law (that's actually functional and not bs).
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
I'm sorry, you claimed sincerity earlier. Is this a Schrodinger's Troll sort of thing? Sincere when called a troll, trolling when treated as though being sincere?
Um, you could not try to put words in my mouth. Never said to ban guns at all.
Just because I want more strict gun control and think gun free zones are a smart idea like say a dark nightclub where more weapons fire could cause much more damage, does not mean I want to ban all guns. That is just a silly.
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
I'm sorry, you claimed sincerity earlier. Is this a Schrodinger's Troll sort of thing? Sincere when called a troll, trolling when treated as though being sincere?
Um, you could not try to put words in my mouth. Never said to ban guns at all.
Just because I want more strict gun control and think gun free zones are a smart idea like say a dark nightclub where more weapons fire could cause much more damage, does not mean I want to ban all guns. That is just a silly.
actually the Orlando night club was not a "dark" night club evident by pictures taken there before the attacks and such, it looked decently lit, in fact some nightclubs are going the lit route to prevent issues and such which occur in darkened nightclubs.
so yes anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a firearm could have taken out the shooter probably before he fired a handful of shots.
You know, you might just be right. Random CC person might just be a good enough marksmen to fire in to a crowd and take down his target before accidentally wounding or killing another person. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Lets take that risk.
Just curious, how many of our Military/LEO guys on here would have been willing to take the shot in the night club? How many would feel comfortable with a civilian taking the shot?
Dreadwinter wrote: You know, you might just be right. Random CC person might just be a good enough marksmen to fire in to a crowd and take down his target before accidentally wounding or killing another person. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Lets take that risk.
well considering once the shooter started shooting odds are most people dropped to the ground while others spread away from him so yes a clear target would have been present.
Asterios wrote: actually the Orlando night club was not a "dark" night club evident by pictures taken there before the attacks and such, it looked decently lit, in fact some nightclubs are going the lit route to prevent issues and such which occur in darkened nightclubs.
so yes anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a firearm could have taken out the shooter probably before he fired a handful of shots.
Except someone (a uniformed police officer) did try to take him out and failed at which point he took hostages. Also, multiple survivors described the scene being mass confusion due the combination of loud music and darkness.
Asterios wrote: actually the Orlando night club was not a "dark" night club evident by pictures taken there before the attacks and such, it looked decently lit, in fact some nightclubs are going the lit route to prevent issues and such which occur in darkened nightclubs.
so yes anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a firearm could have taken out the shooter probably before he fired a handful of shots.
Except someone (a uniformed police officer) did try to take him out and failed at which point he took hostages. Also, multiple survivors described the scene being mass confusion due the combination of loud music and darkness.
the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in. most of the reports I heard were about him shooting the people on the ground and making sure they were dead.
Asterios wrote: the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in.
He started shooting outside of the club where he was engaged by a uniformed police officer. He failed to stop him, at which point the shooter entered the club and began firing at the patrons. The officer that initially engaged him entered the club with more officers, at which point he retreated to the rear of the club and took hostages.
So no, it isn't that easy for someone, even with "reasonable knowledge" of a firearm, to stop something like what occurred in Orlando. This tough guy hero fantasy really needs to stop.
Asterios wrote: the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in.
He started shooting outside of the club where he was engaged by a uniformed police officer. He failed to stop him, at which point the shooter entered the club and began firing at the patrons. The officer that initially engaged him entered the club with more officers, at which point he retreated to the rear of the club and took hostages.
So no, it isn't that easy for someone, even with "reasonable knowledge" of a firearm, to stop something like what occurred in Orlando. This tough guy hero fantasy really needs to stop.
curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.
Dreadwinter wrote: Just curious, how many of our Military/LEO guys on here would have been willing to take the shot in the night club? How many would feel comfortable with a civilian taking the shot?
I'd be fine with it, but then, I'm aware of just how basic and/or gakky firearm training (especially pistol training) is in the military and law enforcement, so "LOL only law enforcement!"-type appeals don't really work for me. NYPD had a 4.8% intended target hit rate in 2013. 95.2% of the shots they fired that year either missed what they were aiming at or hit something (or someone) they weren't aiming at. In fact, with 4.2% of their shots hitting bystanders, it was only slightly more dangerous to be the target of the NYPD in 2013 than a bystander.
The overwhelming majority of cops do not have the training or practice to be any good with a pistol in situations like what was presented in Orlando. Neither do the overwhelming majority of military personnel.
Asterios wrote: the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in.
He started shooting outside of the club where he was engaged by a uniformed police officer. He failed to stop him, at which point the shooter entered the club and began firing at the patrons. The officer that initially engaged him entered the club with more officers, at which point he retreated to the rear of the club and took hostages.
So no, it isn't that easy for someone, even with "reasonable knowledge" of a firearm, to stop something like what occurred in Orlando. This tough guy hero fantasy really needs to stop.
curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.
He linked it to you once. He was engaged by an off duty officer at the entrance of the club.
Dreadwinter wrote: Just curious, how many of our Military/LEO guys on here would have been willing to take the shot in the night club? How many would feel comfortable with a civilian taking the shot?
I'd be fine with it, but then, I'm aware of just how basic and/or gakky firearm training (especially pistol training) is in the military and law enforcement, so "LOL only law enforcement!"-type appeals don't really work for me. NYPD had a 4.8% intended target hit rate in 2013. 95.2% of the shots they fired that year either missed what they were aiming at or hit something (or someone) they weren't aiming at. In fact, with 4.2% of their shots hitting bystanders, it was only slightly more dangerous to be the target of the NYPD in 2013 than a bystander.
The overwhelming majority of cops do not have the training or practice to be any good with a pistol in situations like what was presented in Orlando. Neither do the overwhelming majority of military personnel.
Exactly. Firearm training is pretty awful. I am assuming that it only gets better with civilians in very rare cases. Your normal CC person is not going to be a crackshot capable of taking down a person in this type of scenario. I would say it would be even harder, especially in this scenario, given the tension and environment. The vast majority of CC permit holders are not going to be ready or prepared for a high stress situation where there is little visibility and loud music. Assuming they can and would be able to handle this without causing far more issues is baffling to me.
Asterios wrote: curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.
You could try the story I linked a couple of posts ago or any other story that explains what happened, since they all mention it:
Dreadwinter wrote: Exactly. Firearm training is pretty awful. I am assuming that it only gets better with civilians in very rare cases.
I don't know about "very rare." I've been to quite a few good classes, and they're always well-attended. Guys like Haley/Vickers/Falla/Defoor have no trouble filling them.
Your normal CC person is not going to be a crackshot capable of taking down a person in this type of scenario.
Which makes them no different from your normal cop.
Assuming they can and would be able to handle this without causing far more issues is baffling to me.
I'm not assuming they would be able to handle it. I'm assuming a 1% chance of them being able to handle it is better than a 100% chance of no one being able to handle it and having no Plan B aside from dying if the Plan A of running and hiding doesn't work out..
Your argument is essentially that the hypothetical, heretofore never seen possibility of a bunch of CCW holders contributing to a massacre by unintentionally gunning down bystanders is a real enough threat that we should continue to just tell everyone that their only options are to run and, if that doesn't or can't work, die.
Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.
Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?
No you don't have to be paranoid or afraid of anything to own a gun. It's a right, you don't need a reason to exercise it. That's like saying you can only use your 1A right to free speech if you have something really important to say. If you are a law abiding US citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms, why you might choose to do so is irrelevant to the existence of the right. There are many reasons why law abiding citizens might want to own a gun, any one of them is valid because any reason is valid because you don't ever have to justify exercising a right to anyone.
But this isn't talking about just owning a gun. This is talking about mass proliferation of concealed guns to protect against "bad guys (who presumably also have guns)". Which I think it incredibly paranoid. So I was saying that you calling him paranoid was incredibly hypocritcal. Thus, "[Paranoid] enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the 'good people with guns' actually being bad people[.]"
I certainly don't think that just owning a gun is paranoid. Although considering the amount of rednecks I know, my perception does corralate the two a bit .
In what way is " mass proliferation" of concealed carry paranoid? Mass proliferation is already the reality in Florida and every other shall issue state and reasonable may issue state. Every single Florida resident with a clean criminal record can get a concealed carry permit all they have to do is ask for one, that's it. If you want one you get one.
I want to retain my 2A rights and I'm a proponent of concealed carry so I have no problem with other law abiding citizens owning and carrying whether I know them or not. Crime is low, people are good, Liberty is awesome there's no paranoia needed. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car, a fire extinguisher in your home, life preservers by a pool, etc? Anywhere you live in America the likelihood of you needing to shoot somebody in self defense is very low but that has nothing to do with your right to own guns and the respective ease in which you can concealed carry. Being prepared is a good thing.
Dreadwinter wrote: You know, you might just be right. Random CC person might just be a good enough marksmen to fire in to a crowd and take down his target before accidentally wounding or killing another person. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Lets take that risk.
well considering once the shooter started shooting odds are most people dropped to the ground while others spread away from him so yes a clear target would have been present.
Exactly, if somebody thinks they have a shot at stopping a homicidal maniac at the start or in the midst of a mass murder spree I absolutely want that person to take that shot. The alternative is to do nothing and let the maniac keep murdering people unimpeded. How is letting the shooter continue to shoot people with impunity better than trying to stop him and save lives? Even if somebody shoots back and doesn't hit or kill the murderer at least the shots will distract the murderer and draw his attention away from murdering more people.
Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...
Prestor Jon wrote: Exactly, if somebody thinks they have a shot at stopping a homicidal maniac at the start or in the midst of a mass murder spree I absolutely want that person to take that shot. The alternative is to do nothing and let the maniac keep murdering people unimpeded. How is letting the shooter continue to shoot people with impunity better than trying to stop him and save lives? Even if somebody shoots back and doesn't hit or kill the murderer at least the shots will distract the murderer and draw his attention away from murdering more people.
Trying to get away will always be your best option.
Most people involved in an active shooter situation will survive the encounter. Drawing attention to yourself by trying to approach the shooter with your weapon will not increase your odds of surviving that encounter, doing the opposite will. That's before you even factor in the fact that instead of one person shooting, there are now multiple people shooting which makes the scene even more chaotic for the first responders involved (look at Umpqua Community College as an example of the right thing to do). In the Orlando case especially, multiple shooters would have most likely made the situation worse given that uniformed officers confronted the attacker immediately. Instead of one person shooting, there are no multiple people shooting with no clear indication of who is who.
Between 2000 and 2013 the FBI found there were 160 active shooter situation. They found that the shooter was stopped by an armed, non-LEO individual exchanging fire with them only 3.1% of the time, compared to unarmed non-LEO individuals ending an active shooter situation by successfully physically restraining the shooter 13.1% of the time. Of course someone will say, "Yeah, well this one time this guy stopped an active shooter!" Of course, it has happened... and the reason why we hear about it is because it's a rare occurrence that happened during another rare occurrence.
Dreadwinter wrote: Exactly. Firearm training is pretty awful. I am assuming that it only gets better with civilians in very rare cases.
I don't know about "very rare." I've been to quite a few good classes, and they're always well-attended. Guys like Haley/Vickers/Falla/Defoor have no trouble filling them.
Your normal CC person is not going to be a crackshot capable of taking down a person in this type of scenario.
Which makes them no different from your normal cop.
Assuming they can and would be able to handle this without causing far more issues is baffling to me.
I'm not assuming they would be able to handle it. I'm assuming a 1% chance of them being able to handle it is better than a 100% chance of no one being able to handle it and having no Plan B aside from dying if the Plan A of running and hiding doesn't work out..
Your argument is essentially that the hypothetical, heretofore never seen possibility of a bunch of CCW holders contributing to a massacre by unintentionally gunning down bystanders is a real enough threat that we should continue to just tell everyone that their only options are to run and, if that doesn't or can't work, die.
So 1% of the time it is worth the risk. Even though 100% of the time you are going to make yourself a target and on top of that, add to the confusion and possibly harm more people. Seems legit.
Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...
Of course it does, which is why your average police department or military unit can't afford it.
Dreadwinter wrote: So 1% of the time it is worth the risk. Even though 100% of the time you are going to make yourself a target and on top of that, add to the confusion and possibly harm more people. Seems legit.
Nah, it's worth the risk 100% of the time. Because a 99% failure rate is better than a 100% failure rate, the latter of which being what you're advocating for. And that's before we even get to the blatant disregard for the right to defend oneself.
skyth wrote: The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...
The majority of the time you'll probably not be in a position with a vantage point that lets you see events unfold clearly and know what's going on. You'll probably hear shots fired and see people panicking and running for the exits and in that scenario it's best to get away and help others flee than to run around trying to figure out what's going on. However, if the situation arises wherein you do see the attacker(s) and you have the opportunity to take a shot then you should. If you can see them they can see you and you're as much of a target as anyone else in the area. I don't want to get shot and I don't want any other people to get murdered either. If the chance presents itself I would do whatever I could to help increase my odds of survival along with everyone else's, whether that's getting people away or trying to take down the shooter. Whatever you can do to reduce casualties is good and the two best ways to do that is to remove people from danger and put down the attacker. If you have the opportunity to stop a mass murderer why wouldn't you take it?
