So plead your case to Universities and local governments. Encourage them to lighten up the bans on law-abiding citizens.

Just do so with the realization that if they don’t accept your argument, it’s NOT a violation of the 2nd amendment because this isn’t the government forcing the gun from your hands, it’s a private party.

Neither is a state university nor a local government a ‘private party’.

You have the absolute right to make a rule against having guns at Hootie University, and I have the absolute right to send my daughter elsewhere. But my tax money goes to the state universities in Kansas, whether my daughter does or not. That means that the Board of Regents doesn’t have the same right that you do. As a taxpayer, I’m part owner of the university my daughter is attending next fall, and I say she should keep her right to defend herself.

It would seem the Virginia Tech killings were not tragic enough in their immediate effect, or in the lasting trauma for those who knew someone that was killed….

Hottie

ScottyDog on April 19, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Freudian slip?

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Just a typo

As far as your SAB, you can’t cure stupid. Sorry to hear.

Hottie

ScottyDog on April 19, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Freudian slip?

You keep making the argument that the constitution does not apply on private or state property. I disagree.

Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If I have no say over whether you can bring a gun onto property I own, then I don’t really have property rights, now do I?

You are correct, the 2nd amendment does not say it shall be limited only in matters of the government trying to infringe scribed writes. Of course, neither do any of the amendments, but for some reason we wouldn’t cry censorship if ABC fired Rosie, now would we? We wouldn’t claim an abuse of the free press if the NYT failed to publish an article by MM, would we? And why not? Because your rights can not supercede anothers. It’s the whole bloody premise.

It’s also noted by TJ and JM that the constitution (and hence those amendments to it) exist to provide a government with limited powers… not a constituency with limited or defined rights. Also, can you show me a court case that dealt with a private party vs. another private party on the issue of the 2nd amendment where the courts upheld the right of one party to carry their weapon onto another’s property, against the wishes of the opposition? I know they exist when it’s private vs. government.

Isn’t it interesting that Utah concealed carry permit holders have the right to carry guns on college campuses. And isn’t it interesting that you haven’t read about any school shootings in Utah?

The same could be said for, what looks like, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, N.C., Maine and Connecticut. How are the CCW laws in those states?

Again, you’re throwing up this straw-man that I don’t believe CCW is beneficial in reducing the number of gun related crimes. And, again, I do understand the correlation and plausible cause. You could quite easily make the case that had there been a few CCW permit holders in either of those two buildings that Cho stormed, Cho may not have killed as many as he did. So plead your case to Universities and local governments. Encourage them to lighten up the bans on law-abiding citizens.

Just do so with the realization that if they don’t accept your argument, it’s NOT a violation of the 2nd amendment because this isn’t the government forcing the gun from your hands, it’s a private party.

Interesting quote from Presser v. Illinois:

“But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment [the Second Amendment] prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

Later, when speaking of the states power to completely remove arms from the people, the Presser case would state:

“the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms…”

This was reaffirmed in Quilici. I don’t particularly agree with this stance, but this appears to be where the supreme court draws it’s precedence from.

On my plot of land, you have no right to bear arms because I say so (or rather, my wife does). If the owner of an office building, a private university, a McDonald’s, or otherwise sets a rule preventing you from carrying on their property, your 2nd amendment rights have not been infringed. The 2nd amendment prohibts the government from denying arms, not fellow private individuals.

So your question would better be posed as, why should we defend a school’s (or business’s) rules that prohibit guns on campus? And the answer would be, because it’s their individual right as the owners of said property.

Hottie

You keep making the argument that the constitution does not apply on private or state property.

I disagree. The second amendment has no such language as you imply. You cannot just suspend a god given right as laid out in the constitution because you disagree with firearms on said property. And the courts, when asked have agreed with my argument.

Why do you think TN has repealed the Gun Ban?

They knew it would be challenged in a court of law and having gun free zones results in only criminals being armed in said gun free zone.

In San Francisco, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren overturned voter-approved Measure H, a city ordinance that banned the private possession of handguns and the sale of all firearms in the city.

The recent decision in the District of Columbia Gun Ban Case, has the gun grabbers underwear in a wad because in case after case the right to own and bear arms is being affirmed. All the prior registration and licensing laws are now fair game for challenge on the grounds that they also violate — “infringe,” to use the Second Amendment word — the individual right to keep and bear arms

Isn’t it interesting that Utah concealed carry permit holders have the right to carry guns on college campuses. And isn’t it interesting that you haven’t read about any school shootings in Utah?

It probably depends on the State. Per code enforcement regulations, colleges are considered businesses, not “educational” facilities. I don’t know what operational definition is used for “educational institutions” everywhere.

Are we absolutely sure Al Gore is from this state? How the hell did that happen?

Blacklake on April 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Yeah, I think Gore’s early influences were all from growing up in D.C.

INC on April 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM

True, but we can’t take away where a man wants to be from, and whom he represented for years, before he was VP.

There is irony in being born in D.C., living all your childhood and teenage life in a fancy hotel in D.C. and then claiming to be from Tennessee. But, heh, this is big Al Gore and he can claim anything he wants.

He still lost his own state, and, if he wouldn’t have, he’d possibly still be our President…

This is clearly language abuse without sufficient research into the writings of the founders, and associated legislation that came out soon after the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The original meaning of the term “regulated” was meant to mean “equipped” or “trained”, as CZ pointed out, not regulated as in “government controlled”. It is important to point to the original intent, which was that firearms should be owned by individuals to protect against an unjust government (as the amendment states). It is also worthwhile to point out that militias generally trained their own members. In essence, that’s all I (IMHO) would be asking, is that a CCW permit come with training. Because the government is charged with maintaining the peace and indisputably has certain interests in protecting the general populace, ensuring that people toting firearms are proficient to a minimum degree is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional. It also does not prevent you from keeping nor bearing arms, just not under certain conditions. Which leads to our next conundrum…

My question to you is why you think banning guns from schools makes them safer when the evidence shows the opposite.

I don’t, actually. I know the statistics. A criminal who knows he has a better chance of being gunned down himself is not likely to commit the crime. Again, worth pointing out that this doesn’t help defend against the mentally insane (the “Psy-Chos”) who don’t rationalize criminal actions. More importantly is the issue of who makes the decision to or not to carry on certain property. On my plot of land, you have no right to bear arms because I say so (or rather, my wife does). If the owner of an office building, a private university, a McDonald’s, or otherwise sets a rule preventing you from carrying on their property, your 2nd amendment rights have not been infringed. The 2nd amendment prohibts the government from denying arms, not fellow private individuals.

So your question would better be posed as, why should we defend a school’s (or business’s) rules that prohibit guns on campus? And the answer would be, because it’s their individual right as the owners of said property.

I would you sugguest that you read the book “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. Lott is a Harvard Professor, certainly not a conservative institution.

As to the constitution, the 2nd amendment contains the phrase ” The right of the people” as does several other amendments. The right of the people has been interpreted as an individual right by the courts, not as a militia. you can look it up…

By the way there are over 20,000 laws, maybe more, pertaining to guns in the US……

Does anyone believe that CCW should not require training?

Raises hand in the affirmative. When society can definitively GUARANTEE the certification of Rapists, Muggers, and other Violent Criminals, then society can with a clear conscience dictate legislatively that the right to defend oneself with a firearm comes with a training prerequisite (and accept the responsibility when non-certified criminals attack).

Until then, training should be STRONGLY ENCOURAGED as a way to shorten the learning curve and make the lawful CCW holder more effective, as well as more responsible and aware of collateral consequences to their actions.

Put simply, YES!!! I believe that training should not be a requirement to carry, Vermont is the model…non-felons are assumed to have the right without the need for any licensing whatsoever.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm

I did not know you have to qualify to be covered by the 2nd amendment.

Yes Wade, your bad. You misread the Constitution. Notice the word “regulated”. Note also that your right to own, carry and fire does not come with an unconditional right to do so anywhere, at any time, for whatever reason. You may not do so on my property. You may not do so where a private entity (such as a school) says you may not. You may not do so in a courtroom, in an airport, etc.

So yes, Wade, there are restrictions. And yes, this line of thought does apply to the 1st amendment as well. I could direct you to a plethora of well-reasoned court cases that make my argument concerning “free speech” and “free press”.

Hootie on April 19, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Hootie where did you come up with this nonsense?

When you speak of regulated I assume you are talking about a well regulated militia. That has nothing to do with the individual rights of citizens to own and possess firearms.

“We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear
arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training” and “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment”

U.S. v. Emerson, 5 court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

Limiting individuals right to carry firearms is an infringement on the second amendment and has been backed up by court cases.

In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902) (struck down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both Second Amendment
and Idaho Const. guarantee

The problem with these gun bans from schools and the courts is that people have not filed court cases to have them repealed. Where court case have been tried, they have been overturned time and again as being unconstitutional.

My question to you is why you think banning guns from schools makes them safer when the evidence shows the opposite.

I think it should worry a few people that responsible citizens carrying in public might succumb to a rash response and fire a weapon in a public place… not necessarily hitting the intended target. Personally, as much as I defend a person’s right to own firearms, I’d prefer that I entrust public firearm discharge to the PD trained to use them.

I’ve been a range officer for several years…ran literally thousands and thousands of person runs on action shooting scenarios that very much exceed what the average local police officer would need to experience in order to stay qualified with a firearm. Without any disrespect to the profession, there are shooters who happen to be LE’s that are quite good. Sadly, there are way too many LE’s that simply don’t have the department funding for regular firearms proficiency training, or the motivation to work at it as do the average CCW holder who participates at our club. Given the choice of randomly selecting a Police Officer or a CCW holder in the moment of truth, I’d rather have a fellow CCW holder watching my back.

Yes Wade, your bad. You misread the Constitution. Notice the word “regulated”. Note also that your right to own, carry and fire does not come with an unconditional right to do so anywhere, at any time, for whatever reason. You may not do so on my property. You may not do so where a private entity (such as a school) says you may not. You may not do so in a courtroom, in an airport, etc.

This is clearly language abuse without sufficient research into the writings of the founders, and associated legislation that came out soon after the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The “Well Regulated Milita” comments (which have been so viciously abused by the anti-gun crowd) are MOTIVATIONAL, not CONDITIONAL. The Militia Act of 1792 defined “the Militia”, and within it’s construct ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP. The defined militia demographic was to provide their own firearm, initial supply of ammo’, and the “tactical gear” of the day.

When will our population wake up and realize that RESTRICTING CARRY STACKS THE ODDS IN FAVOR OF CRIMINALS. Cho was well assured that he would be the only one with a gun which made his job easier. Nutjobs like Cho WILL NOT OBEY GUN-FREE ZONE SIGNS!!!!

Our founders believed that the right to personal defense was God-Given. Removing the means to defend oneself INFRINGES on that RIGHT. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! That’s the prescriptive language of the 2nd Amendment.

Some intellectual honesty and common sense would be most welcome.

The infamous Glock FOH-TAY vid.

Now I know why we’re losing the war on drugs.

Much like driving a car, just show me some level of competency, not expert marksmanship.

Oh man, if only I had that link with anecdotes about cops and weapons proficiency. If someone compiled a list of incidents, you’d probably not want cops to carry, EVER.

As for practice and training, how many times do you think cops (not SWAT or anything specialized) ever “qualify” or train with their weapons?

A very good one to trust!