General Categories > Carry Issues
Omaha oakview mall
Mudinyeri:
I've been reading the McDonald decision this morning, which hinges largely on the Heller decision, and have noticed an interesting consitency between both. Both decisions refer to keeping a gun in the home for self-defense.
Here are a couple quotations from the McDonald brief:
--- Quote ---It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.
--- End quote ---
So, if those of you arguing against me are arguing for keeping a gun in your home for self-defense, I'll gladly acquiesce that you may participate in as little (or as much) training as you like. An untrained individual with a gun in their home is much less likely to put the general public at risk than someone like the idiot I mentioned in the AT&T store example eariler. Only those who enter that individual's home will be potentially put at risk. (Well, OK, I suppose a bullet could penetrate a wall and injure or kill someone within a few yards of the home.)
Finally, we all need to remember that our rights end where the rights of others begin. If the right of one individual to bear arms infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life, what are we to do?
DaveB:
When I lived and worked in Omaha, our store was robbed at gunpoint, I don't know how much training the robber had, but we were only allowed to be victims. By anybody being armed in the store at the time of the robbery, it may not have happened, and I would not have worried about whether or not they had formal training. The only people in danger were two people that had a gun pointed at them, all for $63.00. Fortunately no one was hurt. The right to self defense does not end as soon as I walk out of my home.
Seems that a lot of the pros are having some bad luck shooting change machines, their legs, and roofs, but I guess that's okay since they are cops.
I agree, we disagree.
I am also old and don't accept change well, and I argue until I get tired.
DanClrk51:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 28, 2010, 11:03:38 AM ---I've been reading the McDonald decision this morning, which hinges largely on the Heller decision, and have noticed an interesting consitency between both. Both decisions refer to keeping a gun in the home for self-defense.
Here are a couple quotations from the McDonald brief:
--- Quote ---It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.
--- End quote ---
So, if those of you arguing against me are arguing for keeping a gun in your home for self-defense, I'll gladly acquiesce that you may participate in as little (or as much) training as you like. An untrained individual with a gun in their home is much less likely to put the general public at risk than someone like the idiot I mentioned in the AT&T store example eariler. Only those who enter that individual's home will be potentially put at risk. (Well, OK, I suppose a bullet could penetrate a wall and injure or kill someone within a few yards of the home.)
Finally, we all need to remember that our rights end where the rights of others begin. If the right of one individual to bear arms infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life, what are we to do?
--- End quote ---
Those were Justice Samuel Alito's words not mine. And I disagree with his take here. His assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.? is dangerous. This means now that we are going to be limited in the choice of weapons, manner carried, and for the purpose carried in the future. Sounds a lot like California's "May Issue" system were only a handful of people get awarded the privilege of carrying a concealed handgun. There you have to have a "legitimate" purpose to carry. Legitimate can mean so many things to so many different people, especially liberals who think you should only be allowed to carry a weapon unless its for your job or you can physically prove that your life is being threatened. This is a dangerous path that we are on.
Plus, I wanna know how a loaded holstered firearm carried by a citizen of this country "infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life"?
The only way there would be an infringement is if the armed individual has ill intent and abuses his right to use the gun to commit a crime such as robbery, rape, assault, or murder. OR if the individual were to become negligent and pull the gun out of the holster and start to point at around all over the place entailing the muzzle being pointed at peoples bodies and limbs. Even then however, one could argue, their life wasn't entirely in danger unless the trigger was pulled.
Police point their guns at innocent people all the time because of mistaken identities or out of caution or suspicion. Are the officers ever charged with putting people's life's at risk? No.
So long as a citizen peacefully carries a loaded gun there shouldn't be a problem. They should not be charged with "carrying a concealed weapon" they should not be charged with "disturbing the peace", they should not be charged with "disorderly conduct", and they shouldn't be required by government to have formal training and a government issued permit "or else we the government will charge you with a crime". Remember that as soon as the government has the power to issue you a permit (permission=privilege) it can also revoke it at any time for any reason whatsoever. Take the case of this mom who legally obtained a concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania but was revoked her permit because she openly (and legally) carried it at a soccer game. The sheriff held that carrying at a soccer game was "bad judgement".
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/4226-pistol-packing-pa-soccer-mom-loses-gun-permit.html
Sadly there is an update to this story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/melanie-hain-gun-carrying_n_315291.html
A CCW permit is the same as a gun registration. Gun registration eventually leads to confiscation when enough bad guys are in government.
Once you have one (CCW), the government knows that you own guns and they also know what address to come to when a fascist government has taken over in order to disarm the public to prevent an uprising against its oppressive regime.
2 E L O:
I think some people argue just to argue. Some people complain just to complain.
Dave, crazy story about your store getting robbed. I understand your point about only being allowed to be victims since guns weren't allowed. I try not to shop at stores with posted "No Guns" signs. That's an issue for another thread, though...
It would have been nice if an armed citizen that's proficient with his weapon would have been in the store to diffuse the situation however necessary. I think we all fully agree on that point. Mudinyeri's and my point is that it would NOT be nice if an armed citizen that didn't know a semi-auto from a revolver, has only ever put about 60 rounds through a handgun (56 of those at the CCW course), is not aware of their surroundings, etc. etc. etc.
Just look at the Walgreens incident... McCollough had some training (sounded somewhat minor), but he WAS proficient with his weapon, shot often, had situational awareness, etc. etc. etc. He only landed 4 of 8 shots, which in a situation like that is probably pretty darn good!
What happens when you throw somebody inexperienced off the street that just decided to get a CCW for the heck of it and now carries a gun everywhere? Maybe they land 1 of 8 shots, maybe zero? What happens if they hit the young lady at the ATM instead of the robber with the shotgun in her back? What if that young lady is your daughter? Your wife?
I'd rather the bad guy just take the $63 and leave rather than have one of the handful of idiots in my CCW class try to defend me or my family if I was unarmed. I didn't even want to stand next to them when they were in a controlled environment and shooting downrange at paper targets. No friggin' way would I want them shooting a gun in some crazy situation like a robbery in a small store.....
I'm a CHP holder. I own guns. I fully support the 2nd amendment. If people want to keep guns in their home then so be it. Keep an arsenal for all I care. However, I believe that a CHP should require additional training and/or testing than the current standard. Maybe the shooting and written tests should just be a little tougher? Maybe there should just be some testing to verify weapon proficiency...? That way it wouldn't require additional FORMAL training (or punishment, as so many of you like to call it) but it would help verify proficiency before someone is given a CHP.
Ok, now commence with the arguments for argument's sake and call me a gun hater.... >:D
AAllen:
My question is what training do you think is needed? Everything that you describe people in you CCW class as having done I have witnessed Police doing the same thing, at the range, in my CCW class (I had one officer there and they were the most unsafe person in the class) and at the OPD when registering handguns.
So with this great amount of constant training I hear about not being able to remove these issues what training should a citizen need to be able to carry a firearm?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version