2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on October 23, 2014, 06:04:39 AM
-
The civilian disarmament movement urges firearm owners to "compromise" on "common sense gun safety regulations", as if we haven't thrown out the baby with the bath water already. Could it be worse? Yeah, but look at 1. Where we've come from, and 2. How unconstitutional the current laws are. I'm asking Senator Slom to introduce a "Constitutional Carry" bill next session (and the end of "registration" (aka confiscation list)), let THEM "compromise" from there.
(http://hsgca.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/compromise_v21.png)
-
NICE :thumbsup:
-
There is a compromise level that I am comfortable with. I realize that there will be differing opinions on where that line should be drawn. Having said that I have always considered that you ask for more than you want so that way when/if you do end up compromising you actually end up at the point you were really hoping to settle. I guess this is basic bargaining tactics but I have considered that it should be a tactic used in the firearms debate.
-
Compromise is more of a political strategy to make the other side look bad. For instance dems want argue repubs don't want to compromise on gun control. However Dems don't want to compromise on Obamacare.
You could start out that you want to compromise on gun control, and start off saying you want to be able to own a nuclear bomb
-
Compromise is more of a political strategy to make the other side look bad. For instance dems want argue repubs don't want to compromise on gun control. However Dems don't want to compromise on Obamacare.
You could start out that you want to compromise on gun control, and start off saying you want to be able to own a nuclear bomb
Heh, I would avoid the nuclear bomb starting point, that just leaves one sounding a little too crazy to gather support from those undecided or moderate on the issue.
-
Heh, I would avoid the nuclear bomb starting point, that just leaves one sounding a little too crazy to gather support from those undecided or moderate on the issue.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that compared to the people advocating civilian ownership of tactical nuclear weapons, SAMs and mortars and bazookas, the people advocating being able to own a long gun with a 15" barrel or a suppressor (or even a machine gun) without having to get extra-special $200 government permission look downright tame and "reasonable". I'm pretty sure that the "undecided" and "moderate" gun controllers aren't a significant enough number to make any electoral difference, even if they were amendable to reason and data, which they aren't. At least that's the history of "gun control" so far.
-
There is a compromise level that I am comfortable with. I realize that there will be differing opinions on where that line should be drawn. Having said that I have always considered that you ask for more than you want so that way when/if you do end up compromising you actually end up at the point you were really hoping to settle. I guess this is basic bargaining tactics but I have considered that it should be a tactic used in the firearms debate.
There is no "compromise" with these people. Their idea of compromise is to get everything they want and leave us with nothing. That's the entire point of this parody.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and these people have set us firmly on this path.
America needs to get off at the next exit and return to our point of origin......Freedom.
-
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that compared to the people advocating civilian ownership of tactical nuclear weapons, SAMs and mortars and bazookas, the people advocating being able to own a long gun with a 15" barrel or a suppressor (or even a machine gun) without having to get extra-special $200 government permission look downright tame and "reasonable". I'm pretty sure that the "undecided" and "moderate" gun controllers aren't a significant enough number to make any electoral difference, even if they were amendable to reason and data, which they aren't. At least that's the history of "gun control" so far.
I am not convinced that there is not a significant number of people who are undecided. I have seen a number of diffrent poll results on gun control. On some of the issues msot are split, in some most are in agreeance. To me this suggests that there are a lot who are not at either extreme but somewhere in the middle depending on the particular issue.
Now as to whether those in the middle/undecided are "amendable to reason" that doesn't really matter. The fact is that their vote still counts so whether they are logical in their vote or not we can still consider them in developing a public image of gun rights. We may be right logically and may even have all of the data on our side but in the end votes count.
I have yet to see anything to prove that there are no people in the middle/undecided who are subject to reason and data so I would still consider those who are moderate or undecided a group worth encouraging
-
I am not convinced that there is not a significant number of people who are undecided. I have seen a number of diffrent poll results on gun control. On some of the issues msot are split, in some most are in agreeance. To me this suggests that there are a lot who are not at either extreme but somewhere in the middle depending on the particular issue.
Now as to whether those in the middle/undecided are "amendable to reason" that doesn't really matter. The fact is that their vote still counts so whether they are logical in their vote or not we can still consider them in developing a public image of gun rights. We may be right logically and may even have all of the data on our side but in the end votes count.
I have yet to see anything to prove that there are no people in the middle/undecided who are subject to reason and data so I would still consider those who are moderate or undecided a group worth encouraging
That would be comforting if it wasn't for the fact the anti-gun agenda is being driven by the extremists. The middle of the road respondents to whatever poll you say you have seen are not the Bloombergs, or the Obamas, or the Feinsteins. The people pushing the agenda want to curtail as much private ownership of guns as they can get rammed through the law-making process.
If their recommended compromises made any logical sense in terms of making a positive impact in what they say/believe it will, that would be one thing. Instead, they make their case on pure emotion and inconsistent reasoning.
You have gone around and around saying there are "rational gun control people." By it's very definition, there is nothing logical about emotion and unsupported inductive reasoning.
-
By it's very definition, there is nothing logical about emotion and unsupported inductive reasoning.
But, so goes the argument from eyeeatingfish, those people still get to vote, so we should "compromise" our rights (take positions on gun rights that don't look "extreme" to the totally ignorant) so more of the low-information/no-information voters don't vote against our rights. Of course that is the very reason the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution: so that no "tyranny of the majority" could ever vote to end our natural, civil, fundamental individual rights. The fact that the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government have all conspired to unconstitutionally limit those rights is another question. In the meantime I support the sentiment in the graphic above: no compormise. Though I suspect we may be too far down the rabbit hole at this point to make any difference without a significant "awakening" of the non-political masses.
-
But, so goes the argument from eyeeatingfish, those people still get to vote, so we should "compromise" our rights (take positions on gun rights that don't look "extreme" to the totally ignorant) so more of the low-information/no-information voters don't vote against our rights. Of course that is the very reason the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution: so that no "tyranny of the majority" could ever vote to end our natural, civil, fundamental individual rights. The fact that the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government have all conspired to unconstitutionally limit those rights is another question. In the meantime I support the sentiment in the graphic above: no compormise. Though I suspect we may be too far down the rabbit hole at this point to make any difference without a significant "awakening" of the non-political masses.
Yep. I've continually maintained that there is no such thing as compromise when only one party gives up something.
To say the anti-guns are "giving up" something when they relent on a restriction they were pushing for is utter BS! They lose nothing. They merely forgo a small portion of their demands .... until they try again later.
-
A great local example of "compromise" is the reduction of the KHSC rifle range to 100 yds. Some democrat loving, cool aid drinking liberal was actually praising mayor Caldwell on his support for this effort...on this forum! Wake up brah! At the end of the day, half the rifle range (cake) was "compromised". Just a little local perspective for everyone...
-
But, so goes the argument from eyeeatingfish, those people still get to vote, so we should "compromise" our rights
Not quite. I was merely pointing out that there are people who are not at either extreme of the debate and when it comes to debating gun control we must recognize that this group exists and that they may be swayed towards one direction or the other. If we simply write them off as irrational or uneducated etc. then all we do is serve to alienate a group whose vote could make the difference between which way a firearm legislation goes. Yes I do realize that the Bill of Rights exists but I also recognize that if they ever gathered enough supporters they could amend the constitution to get rid of the 2nd amendment.
I think that if we come out with a hardline extreme position then we might end up sounding too extreme for those people who are not at any extreme. Imagine if you will an individual who is not particularly pro gun but isn't anti gun considering the issue, then out of the gates comes a pro group saying that we should all be allowed to own RPG's or other similarly powerful weapons. Do you think that individual will be convinced or do you think that person might shy away from our side thinking such a position is too extreme? Now compare that to a pro gun group that says something to the effect of, we believe full auto should be legal, but we will compromise that full auto not be legal but "assault rifles" should not be banned. I think that position is more likely to gain more supporters which could make a difference in legislation.
-
You have gone around and around saying there are "rational gun control people." By it's very definition, there is nothing logical about emotion and unsupported inductive reasoning.
And you get to be the arbiter of what constitutes a logical argument? It sounds like you are using circular reasoning to support your initial belief.
I do agree that it is not compromise if only one side was giving up something. I am curious though what you think would constitute them giving up something? Passing a new gun restriction while taking away others already in place?
-
And you get to be the arbiter of what constitutes a logical argument? It sounds like you are using circular reasoning to support your initial belief.
I do agree that it is not compromise if only one side was giving up something. I am curious though what you think would constitute them giving up something? Passing a new gun restriction while taking away others already in place?
Truth doesn't change just because you think someone is playing arbiter.
Read the cartoon again. Compromise involves an exchange. Taking away less than what you wanted to take away constitutes surrender, not compromise. The only thing being compromised when being forced to choose between losing 100% versus less than 100% is your own principles.
You keep asking a question for which there is no answer. There is no compromise when you are the only one giving up something you are entitled to. What are the antis entitled to that they are willing to give up?
-
And you get to be the arbiter of what constitutes a logical argument? It sounds like you are using circular reasoning to support your initial belief.
I do agree that it is not compromise if only one side was giving up something. I am curious though what you think would constitute them giving up something? Passing a new gun restriction while taking away others already in place?
The only reason things sound circular is because you have a closed mind and refuse to accept the concept of an absolute right. You treat the second amendment and the right to self defense as a privilege that can be whittled away to appease the people who wish to strip us of these natural rights.
Just like Israel and Hamas, Israel compromises to get Hamas to agree to a cease fire over and over again. Only Israel loses anything. The terrorists only gain. if they go through this dance often enough, soon Israel will have compromised (surrendered) their entire country away to Palestine and Hamas. The terrorists will never be satisfied, so compromising to gain a temporary ceasefire resolves nothing,
There is very little difference between that example and the anti-gun lawmakers. They take what little they can get each time, hoping that someday they can ban all private firearms. If you don't believe that, then you need to do more research. Plenty of quotes and video of the politicians admitting they want "Mr and Mrs America" to "turn them all in." Of course, she had no problem getting a concealed carry permit when SHE needed protection!! Hypocrites??
http://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY (http://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY)
-
The only reason things sound circular is because you have a closed mind and refuse to accept the concept of an absolute right. You treat the second amendment and the right to self defense as a privilege that can be whittled away to appease the people who wish to strip us of these natural rights.
There is very little difference between that example and the anti-gun lawmakers. They take what little they can get each time, hoping that someday they can ban all private firearms. If you don't believe that, then you need to do more research. Plenty of quotes and video of the politicians admitting they want "Mr and Mrs America" to "turn them all in." Of course, she had no problem getting a concealed carry permit when SHE needed protection!! Hypocrites??
You don't need to convince me that there are quite a few out there that want to ban any and all firearms, believe me I recognize this fact.
I do not refuse to accept the concept of an absolute right, I recognize that the issue is not so simple black and white. I take two lines of reasoning on this that I will explain,
#1: we have to ask the question of how the 2nd amendment applies to modern weapons. They didn't have RPGs and nuclear weapons back then, they didn't have fully automatic pistols, etc etc. Do you think the founders would have advocated private citizens owning such weapons? Do you think the 2nd amanedment guarantees you the right to own a nuke? If you don't think so then you are recognizing that it isn't so black and white.
#2: When I read the 2nd amendment and try to examine it I find that there is no definitions section for the bill of rights. Now this may sound silly but if you read laws today you often find a definitions section at the beginning of the chapter. Legal definitions are often needed because legal language does not always follow commonly spoken language and it helps to clear up questions about the law that will be raised. For example one could ask the question of what they mean by "bear arms"? What qualifies as a "well regulated militia"? When it says shall not be infringed does that mean a dangerous convict can own one, or can a 10 year old buy one because denying them is infringing at some level.
And no you cannot just say the answer is common sense, if legal language was so common sense you wouldn't need lawyers in this world.
Your thoughts?
-
You don't need to convince me that there are quite a few out there that want to ban any and all firearms, believe me I recognize this fact.
I do not refuse to accept the concept of an absolute right, I recognize that the issue is not so simple black and white. I take two lines of reasoning on this that I will explain,
#1: we have to ask the question of how the 2nd amendment applies to modern weapons. They didn't have RPGs and nuclear weapons back then, they didn't have fully automatic pistols, etc etc. Do you think the founders would have advocated private citizens owning such weapons? Do you think the 2nd amanedment guarantees you the right to own a nuke? If you don't think so then you are recognizing that it isn't so black and white.
#2: When I read the 2nd amendm :stopjack:ent and try to examine it I find that there is no definitions section for the bill of rights. Now this may sound silly but if you read laws today you often find a definitions section at the beginning of the chapter. Legal definitions are often needed because legal language does not always follow commonly spoken language and it helps to clear up questions about the law that will be raised. For example one could ask the question of what they mean by "bear arms"? What qualifies as a "well regulated militia"? When it says shall not be infringed does that mean a dangerous convict can own one, or can a 10 year old buy one because denying them is infringing at some level.
And no you cannot just say the answer is common sense, if legal language was so common sense you wouldn't need lawyers in this world.
Your thoughts?
Take your same examples and apply them to the rest of the constitution. Does the first amendment not apply to computers because the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball to see into the future. Are illegal search and seizures applicable only to horse drawn carriages or horse transportation. The constitution is a living document for this very reason.
You can't apply rules to only certain things as you see fit while not applying to others. That's nit picking
-
Take your same examples and apply them to the rest of the constitution. Does the first amendment not apply to computers because the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball to see into the future. Are illegal search and seizures applicable only to horse drawn carriages or horse transportation. The constitution is a living document for this very reason.
You can't apply rules to only certain things as you see fit while not applying to others. That's nit picking
Indeed, you highlight the difficulty in writing laws that are not too vague but not too specific. A law that is written to account for every technicality that might come up would be unbearably complex and long. Thus we end up with the supreme court ruling on difficult issues in which the constitution is not specific.
-
You don't need to convince me that there are quite a few out there that want to ban any and all firearms, believe me I recognize this fact.
I do not refuse to accept the concept of an absolute right, I recognize that the issue is not so simple black and white. I take two lines of reasoning on this that I will explain,
#1: we have to ask the question of how the 2nd amendment applies to modern weapons. They didn't have RPGs and nuclear weapons back then, they didn't have fully automatic pistols, etc etc. Do you think the founders would have advocated private citizens owning such weapons? Do you think the 2nd amanedment guarantees you the right to own a nuke? If you don't think so then you are recognizing that it isn't so black and white.
#2: When I read the 2nd amendment and try to examine it I find that there is no definitions section for the bill of rights. Now this may sound silly but if you read laws today you often find a definitions section at the beginning of the chapter. Legal definitions are often needed because legal language does not always follow commonly spoken language and it helps to clear up questions about the law that will be raised. For example one could ask the question of what they mean by "bear arms"? What qualifies as a "well regulated militia"? When it says shall not be infringed does that mean a dangerous convict can own one, or can a 10 year old buy one because denying them is infringing at some level.
And no you cannot just say the answer is common sense, if legal language was so common sense you wouldn't need lawyers in this world.
Your thoughts?
The courts have already defined the answers you seek. Private citizens are permitted to possess the same types of weapons the infantry foot soldier would carry on the battlefield.
Now, to make the case for or against explosives, you have to dig deeper.
There are weapons of mass destruction, strategic weapons, and tactical weapons. In most analyses of the types of weapons we as citizens can own, there is one important factor: what weapons do the people who threaten us possess?
If the mass majority of crimes committed with firearms involve handguns, then we need those. If a large number use AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles, then we need those (AR is no more effective in overall lethality than a hunting rifle, and it's out-matched in caliber by almost any hunting rifles larger than .223). If criminals use shotguns, we need those, too. The 2nd is NOT about hunting and target shooting. Those are legitimate needs for firearms, but they should never be the center of the debate.
Nukes and rocket launchers? We should NOT own nukes as individuals -- WMD is never considered a defensive weapon for individual use. If the threat rises to that level, then someone is pissed at a LOT more people than just me! (I hope!!)
Rocket launchers? If you lived in Somalia, and the people threatening your life carried those, then I'd say yes (given we had the same Constitutional law there)! Here in the US? Not too many RPG attacks in the news, so for now, no need for them, and no need to make them legal to own.
See where this is headed? There is no litmus test or concrete factors that we can apply to the law and thereby make a list of weapons to allow or deny to the individual. The weapons we should be allowed to own are dictated by the threats we face. Cops face criminals everyday and need adequate firepower to compete (and hopefully surpass) the firepower of the crooks.
You and I face the same threats as Cops, so we should be allowed at least the same weapons they justify for their own use. That includes body armor and greater than 10 rd mags.
The Constitution is not specific for a reason....
Have you ever been in the military? If so, you're familiar with regulations. Regulations are written at the JCS and headquarters level in very broad terms. They outline the scope, purpose, and rationale behind the regs as well as the objectives they intend to meet.
Once the next tier of the military gets that, be it combatant commands or their support units, those organizations IMPLEMENT the regs by doing what you said: write definitions, assign units responsibilities, identify material and personnel requirements, and so forth. They do all that to meet the intent of the vague, broad, and general higher-level guidance.
Look at the Constitution as if it is the Joint Chiefs. It outlines the overall goal of what it sets out to accomplish. The legislature then enacts more detailed, but still higher-level,federal laws to require the states and individuals to comply with those laws.
The states then write their own laws to implement programs, enforcement units, budgets, training, etc. to stipulate in detail HOW we are going to meet the intent of the federal laws. When laws are ambiguous, we still have to look at the spirit, and not just the letter, of the law to see if one is in compliance.
The only part of the Constitution that lists details, like how old a President must be at a minimum, voting age, and all that are in the amendments, because people saw a need to standardize some requirements instead of letting each state make up their own rules for those specific clauses.
Putting the details of every law in the Constitution to the level needed to implement the laws would be impossible. Even if we tried, as situations change, the Constitution would need constant ratification to make those changes.
The founders made it difficult, but not impossible, to change the document for a specific reason. They knew they were not perfect. They were wise enough and humble enough to understand they couldn't think of everything. They hoped future generations would preserve what was working and correct what was not. This document was so important, they required lawmakers to go though a very difficult process of state ratification and super majority votes before they could change it.
No founder thought about, or cared about, semi-auto firearms or nukes. They left the details to us. What they did spell out is that the individual has a right to defend himself and his family from all threats, including a government run amok. Remember, they had just finished fighting the most powerful government on the planet over the very issues they included in the Declaration of Independence.
You have described why these discussions and debates continue ... because people with opposing viewpoints always exist. The beauty of our government over all others before it is we can voice our dissent and work within the system to effect change without the need to resort to violence. Look at Egypt and Libya and even Iraq. It took full-on warfare to topple these dictators. An election was not going to do that. We are way ahead of the other forms of gov't just in that one example alone!
-
The courts have already defined the answers you seek. Private citizens are permitted to possess the same types of weapons the infantry foot soldier would carry on the battlefield.
Now, to make the case for or against explosives, you have to dig deeper.
There are weapons of mass destruction, strategic weapons, and tactical weapons. In most analyses of the types of weapons we as citizens can own, there is one important factor: what weapons do the people who threaten us possess?
If the mass majority of crimes committed with firearms involve handguns, then we need those. If a large number use AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles, then we need those (AR is no more effective in overall lethality than a hunting rifle, and it's out-matched in caliber by almost any hunting rifles larger than .223). If criminals use shotguns, we need those, too. The 2nd is NOT about hunting and target shooting. Those are legitimate needs for firearms, but they should never be the center of the debate.
Nukes and rocket launchers? We should NOT own nukes as individuals -- WMD is never considered a defensive weapon for individual use. If the threat rises to that level, then someone is pissed at a LOT more people than just me! (I hope!!)
Rocket launchers? If you lived in Somalia, and the people threatening your life carried those, then I'd say yes (given we had the same Constitutional law there)! Here in the US? Not too many RPG attacks in the news, so for now, no need for them, and no need to make them legal to own. See where this is headed? There is no litmus test or concrete factors that we can apply to the law and thereby make a list of weapons to allow or deny to the individual. The weapons we should be allowed to own are dictated by the threats we face. Cops face criminals everyday and need adequate firepower to compete (and hopefully surpass) the firepower of the crooks.
You and I face the same threats as Cops, so we should be allowed at least the same weapons they justify for their own use. That includes body armor and greater than 10 rd mags.
The Constitution is not specific for a reason....
Have you ever been in the military? If so, you're familiar with regulations. Regulations are written at the JCS and headquarters level in very broad terms. They outline the scope, purpose, and rationale behind the regs as well as the objectives they intend to meet. Once the next tier of the military gets that, be it combatant commands or their support units, those organizations IMPLEMENT the regs by doing what you said: write definitions, assign units responsibilities, identify material and personnel requirements, and so forth. They do all that to meet the intent of the vague, broad, and general higher-level guidance.
Look at the Constitution as if it is the Joint Chiefs. It outlines the overall goal of what it sets out to accomplish. The legislature then enacts more detailed, but still higher-level,federal laws to require the states and individuals to comply with those laws.
The states then write their own laws to implement programs, enforcement units, budgets, training, etc. to stipulate in detail HOW we are going to meet the intent of the federal laws. When laws are ambiguous, we still have to look at the spirit, and not just the letter, of the law to see if one is in compliance. The only part of the Constitution that lists details, like how old a President must be at a minimum, voting age, and all that are in the amendments, because people saw a need to standardize some requirements instead of letting each state make up their own rules for those specific clauses.
Putting the details of every law in the Constitution to the level needed to implement the laws would be impossible. Even if we tried, as situations change, the Constitution would need constant ratification to make those changes.
The founders made it difficult, but not impossible, to change the document for a specific reason. They knew they were not perfect. They were wise enough and humble enough to understand they couldn't think of everything. They hoped future generations would preserve what was working and correct what was not. This document was so important, they required lawmakers to go though a very difficult process of state ratification and super majority votes before they could change it.
No founder thought about, or cared about, semi-auto firearms or nukes. They left the details to us. What they did spell out is that the individual has a right to defend himself and his family from all threats, including a government run amok. Remember, they had just finished fighting the most powerful government on the planet over the very issues they included in the Declaration of Independence.
You have described why these discussions and debates continue ... because people with opposing viewpoints always exist. The beauty of our government over all others before it is we can voice our dissent and work within the system to effect change without the need to resort to violence. Look at Egypt and Libya and even Iraq. It took full-on warfare to topple these dictators. An election was not going to do that. We are way ahead of the other forms of gov't just in that one example alone!
I did some searching but have not found any court cases specifically defining the word arms. Are you aware of any specific ones?
I did find this article which appears very well written mentioning a specific case where the court touched on the issue. It is long but does a good job of explaining different ways of analyzing the constitution and specifically the 2nd amendment. Especially interesting is the analyses on different ways of interpreting a law. (as a living document using modern situations vs using historical writings to try and ascertain intent vs simply analyzing the text itself but using other historical documents to understand how words were used at the time) The author prefers what he calls the textual analyses.
In the end the author summarizes with this after mentioning the preamble.
I think the preamble supports the idea that we the people can rein in someone’s claim to a “right” if that right presents enough of a threat to our domestic tranquility, and if the general welfare of our people is in enough danger. The danger posed by powerful weapons controlled by incompetent, careless, or malevolent individuals obviously qualifies."
http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/ (http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/)
I think the author lays out a very good basis on how we might decide which arms to allow as well as who to allow them to.
In that line of reasoning I think it makes sense to ban explosive type weapons. Specifically as the author says the right presents enough of a threat to our domestic tranquility, to which I think explosives would apply. RPGs do not make all that great of a self defense tool anyway. (a lot of collateral damage from an explosion, etc)
I do think you did a good job of outlining a reasonable argument and clearly you recognize it is not an easy black or white issue, that a gray area does exist and that certain types of arms can be regulated. My gray area probably lies a little more towards the middle than does yours but we are generally on the same side. Certainly other peoples gray areas lie much father to the left. I am willing to compromise on things that are in my gray area, an example would be fully automatic firearms, that is something I would be willing to bargain away if it meant a stronger guarantee for the protection of firearms below that level. That is just an example I am using to illustrate and I do not mean to get into debate about the nitty gritty of what regulations are good or bad.
And on a side note I just now saw the graphic posted. For some reason the other computer I was on wasn't displaying the graphic.
-
Which arms are we Constitutionally allowed to keep and bear?
Aymette v. State, 21Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), In Aymette, the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”
1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
-
Which arms are we Constitutionally allowed to keep and bear?
The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment;
Well, hell, I ain't civilized, but were I going to try to be, guess I'd have to get rid of my flame thrower, anti-personnel mines, and nerve gas.
Darn, those Claymores out on the front lawn were so comforting to have should an alphabet agency to come sniffing around................................... :love:
-
Which arms are we Constitutionally allowed to keep and bear?
Good thing I am a free white man!
Also it seems that the commentary is saying that arms can be kept but not worn around (CCW). We can have the same civil firearms that the military uses we can be restricted from wearing it.
It is interesting to read old court cases but this one just raise more questions for me. It seems to give us more rights in one area but take rights away in another.
Thanks for posting that!
-
Good thing I am a free white man!
Also it seems that the commentary is saying that arms can be kept but not worn around (CCW). We can have the same civil firearms that the military uses we can be restricted from wearing it.
It is interesting to read old court cases but this one just raise more questions for me. It seems to give us more rights in one area but take rights away in another.
Thanks for posting that!
Never take one case out of context and in a vacuum. The specific issue which brings the case before the court (charges filed, rights denied, ...) and the subsequent cases which use this one as precedent, as well as challenges in higher courts, all combine to form the body of law affecting the specific issues raised.
So, this case was not supposed to put to rest all questions about right to bear arms. it was tried because
an indictment was filed against William Aymette. This indictment charged: 1st. That Aymette on the (p.155)26th day of June, 1839,
in the county of Giles, "did wear a certain bowie knife under his clothes, and keep the same concealed about his person, contrary
to the form of the statute". "That on the same day, the said Aymette did wear a certain other knife and weapon, in form, shape and
size resembling a bowie knife, and under the clothes of him the said Aymette, and concealed about the person of him".
I bet that opens up even more questions for you! :rofl:
-
It's easy to get lost in the "weeds" with the specific details about what is or isn't a legitimate arm/weapon for a law-abiding citizen to own, BUT let's look at the issue of compromise from the actual at-the-moment reality we face in Hawaii. We cannot carry any weapon outside our private property for self-defense that would be effective in anything other than hand to hand combat/assault, and cannot own many such arms/weapons as would be effective at a safer distance than contact even on our property. No guns in public (obviously). No "stun guns" (illegal to possess). No standard capacity manufacturer magazines if they are over 10 rounds. No pepper spray in over 1/2 ounce size. No expandable batons. 14 to 20 day waiting period for handgun permit. Registration of "unusable, unserviceable" firearms. Registration of any firearm owner (never been used to solve a crime). Long gun barrel length of less than 16 inches. Fully automatic or burst fire option. Hearing protection in the form of noise suppressor. Etc. Etc. Etc. This is what I'm talking about when I assert "no compromise". These issues are clear. There is no rational reason, nor any evidence that will withstand critical scrutiny that could possibly support the government rationalization of having "a compelling interest in public safety". Period. No compromise. These are clearly abuses of the natural, civil, fundamental, individual Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of law-abiding citizens. Why would we willingly "compromise" our rights for no legitimate reason?All of these things prohibited (or enforced) in Hawaii are legally allowed (or no registration, etc. to be enforced) in the vast majority of states and local jurisdictions in the Untied States, and there is no abuse by law abiding citizens. And the criminals ignore the laws as they always have.
If we obey these laws we 1. put ourselves, our families and friends, and our communities at greater risk of being victimized by criminals who obviously never have and never will obey any such laws that jeopardize us, and 2. we have submitted to illegitimate authority and allow them to take further and further steps deny our rights and encroach upon our lives in ways no government ought to.
If we disobey these absurd illegitimate laws (by, for instance, carrying a weapon concealed outside our property), we instantly become serious criminal felons, and if caught, even though we have harmed no one, are subjected to severe criminal and civil sanctions.
I don't see where "compromise" is an option worth considering.
-
Never take one case out of context and in a vacuum. The specific issue which brings the case before the court (charges filed, rights denied, ...) and the subsequent cases which use this one as precedent, as well as challenges in higher courts, all combine to form the body of law affecting the specific issues raised.
The thing about being a white male was really just a joke...
-
It's easy to get lost in the "weeds" with the specific details about what is or isn't a legitimate arm/weapon for a law-abiding citizen to own, BUT let's look at the issue of compromise from the actual at-the-moment reality we face in Hawaii. We cannot carry any weapon outside our private property for self-defense that would be effective in anything other than hand to hand combat/assault, and cannot own many such arms/weapons as would be effective at a safer distance than contact even on our property. No guns in public (obviously). No "stun guns" (illegal to possess). No standard capacity manufacturer magazines if they are over 10 rounds. No pepper spray in over 1/2 ounce size. No expandable batons. 14 to 20 day waiting period for handgun permit. Registration of "unusable, unserviceable" firearms. Registration of any firearm owner (never been used to solve a crime). Long gun barrel length of less than 16 inches. Fully automatic or burst fire option. Hearing protection in the form of noise suppressor. Etc. Etc. Etc. This is what I'm talking about when I assert "no compromise". These issues are clear. There is no rational reason, nor any evidence that will withstand critical scrutiny that could possibly support the government rationalization of having "a compelling interest in public safety". Period. No compromise. These are clearly abuses of the natural, civil, fundamental, individual Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of law-abiding citizens. Why would we willingly "compromise" our rights for no legitimate reason?All of these things prohibited (or enforced) in Hawaii are legally allowed (or no registration, etc. to be enforced) in the vast majority of states and local jurisdictions in the Untied States, and there is no abuse by law abiding citizens. And the criminals ignore the laws as they always have.
If we obey these laws we 1. put ourselves, our families and friends, and our communities at greater risk of being victimized by criminals who obviously never have and never will obey any such laws that jeopardize us, and 2. we have submitted to illegitimate authority and allow them to take further and further steps deny our rights and encroach upon our lives in ways no government ought to.
If we disobey these absurd illegitimate laws (by, for instance, carrying a weapon concealed outside our property), we instantly become serious criminal felons, and if caught, even though we have harmed no one, are subjected to severe criminal and civil sanctions.
I don't see where "compromise" is an option worth considering.
I agree, there really isn't much left to compromise in Hawaii. Perhaps though we could trade one thing for another, like get hi cap mags back in exchange for a law could prevent seriously crazy people from owning firearms. (just an example)
Where is it written that people cannot have pepper spray over ½ ounce? I haven't seen that one before.
I was talking to a gas station convenience store worker who explained they had been robbed some time ago. She was surprised when I explained that she can carry a gun at work. Most stores don't want employees to fight suspects though as they don't want to pay for workman's comp claims.