• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Shoreline schools were on lockdown for reports of man with a gun

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Rules of the forum prohibit quoting out of context. It was "mental circle jerk" which is materially different than what your out-of-context quote would suggest. Was that a deliberate rules violation?

Besides, do you actually find the term offensive as some puritanical religious nuts might?

Someone has noted that rules are really for those who can't behave themselves of their own accord. Perhaps you should stop taking every disagreement as some kind of personal offense and learn to express yourself with a little more civility. There is almost nobody on this board who is your enemy politically, socially, or otherwise. Viciously and constantly attacking someone who disagrees with you on the 10% or 20% fringes, is like calling up a circular firing squad. We need to accept 80% agreement and even 70% when that means we can advance our RKBA. Leave the attacks and browbeating for those who actually attack your RKBA, rather than for those who have some mild disagreement with you on the peripheral.

Charles

I used a snip of your exact words, nothing was added. It is a common practice to put quotes on a specific phrase. IMO there is no doubt HOW you meant the insult, as there is no doubt it was an insult.

Pot/Kettle!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Without searching on my own, has there been any further information regarding the man, in a hoodie, wearing camo, brandishing a gun? There are examples that a called in report may not exactly describe that which was seen. Until more information is made public I call BS on the report. A OCer is not a man brandishing a gun.

The broader point, in my view, is to what lengths the state will contort themselves into when a gun + school is uttered in the same sentence?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Without searching on my own, has there been any further information regarding the man, in a hoodie, wearing camo, brandishing a gun? There are examples that a called in report may not exactly describe that which was seen. Until more information is made public I call BS on the report. A OCer is not a man brandishing a gun.

The broader point, in my view, is to what lengths the state will contort themselves into when a gun + school is uttered in the same sentence?

Nothing has come up that I noticed.

The real story looks like it will be lost.

We know we can't usually trust the state's version of events.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Have we forgotten how this country really came to be, by taking land from other people and forcing them into exile.

Near as I can tell, most countries came to be this way including the various groups of persons who happened to be living in the Western Hemisphere when Columbus showed up (aka American Indians). Best archaeological evidence I've seen reported is that the tribes/nations present when Columbus showed up had displaced previous groups of persons, perhaps through violent conquest in some cases. They certainly warred among themselves, took slaves, stole property, etc.

Charles
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Near as I can tell, most countries came to be this way including the various groups of persons who happened to be living in the Western Hemisphere when Columbus showed up (aka American Indians). Best archaeological evidence I've seen reported is that the tribes/nations present when Columbus showed up had displaced previous groups of persons, perhaps through violent conquest in some cases. They certainly warred among themselves, took slaves, stole property, etc.

Charles

I have no doubt that they did, in a very limited scale, it is human nature. But please provide some cites just for the heck of it?

Outside of that you seem to now be OK with this behavior as long as the government does it. Why am I not shocked.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I have no doubt that they did, in a very limited scale, it is human nature. But please provide some cites just for the heck of it?

Nah. I won't be providing cites for what every school boy should have learned in history. The Angles in England, the Romans. Besides, you still owe me a cite post civil war for courts finding a constitutional right to OC but not CC.

You have a nasty habit of using the demand for cites as a weapon against any statement, no matter how well known and acknowledged made by someone you don't like. Not playing your game. But do feel free to provide a cite that most nations only engaged in "a very limited scale" of conquest.

Outside of that you seem to now be OK with this behavior as long as the government does it.

Nope. I will accept a cite to the contrary.

I just don't care for my nation--you know, one of the very few in the world that gives any official respect to RKBA which is the stated purpose of this site--being unfairly singled out for bad conduct. Europeans didn't do anything to Indians, Aztecs, Incas, or other groups here in the Western Hemisphere that they hadn't been doing to themselves and each other since long before Columbus was born. The Europeans were just more efficient. Unjust to the Indians. But hardly unique for the lessor developed culture to be overwhelmed by better technology.

Why am I not shocked.

Clearly because you attributed to me a position a don't but which you either erroneously think I hold or deceitfully attributed to me for some untoward reason. Since that position is wholly the creation of your mind, it would truly troubling if you were shocked by it.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I provided you a cite from Heller, you just refused to accept it.

Don't believe I saw the cite from Heller that OC was a constitutional right while CC was not. Pass it along again, please.

And then follow up with the cite that nations other than ours (including the Indian/Incan/Aztec nations) engaged in only limited conquest of other peoples.

And something to back up your claim that I'm ok with genocide on the part of government. You can come up with a cite for that outrageous claim, I'm sure.

Charles
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Don't believe I saw the cite from Heller that OC was a constitutional right while CC was not. Pass it along again, please.

Charles

“Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.””


The above was taken directly from Heller! You would think since you claim to be such an activist YOU would know it.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.


Also from Heller.

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

And yet another reference from Heller.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

And yet again from Heller.

Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol "publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances," 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-617 (1840) ("A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional").

Another reference to Nunn which makes it clear that open carry is a right.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah

“Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.””


The above was taken directly from Heller! You would think since you claim to be such an activist YOU would know it.

I mistakenly assumed that when you said Heller, you actually had something from Heller other than references to slave era decisions justifying bans on CC.

More importantly, in Heller the SCOTUS did NOT rule that there was a right to OC. I wish they had. But they didn't. They cited Chandler in their arguments to support an individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amd against DC's near total ban on a usable gun inside the home.

Thus, you have failed to provide a post-civil war cite that OC is constitutionally protected while CC is not, and failed to provide ANY SCOTUS decision to that effect.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.


Also from Heller.

And, as above, this is not a ruling that OC is a constitutional right (I wish it were) while CC is not. It is historic explanation that the individual RKBA has never been seen as unlimited. The court could have just as easily included bans on slaves and freed blacks carrying guns. Sadly, I cannot find a single SCOTUS decision that OC is a protected right, nor that CC does not enjoy equal protections. One might exist. But you, sir, have not yet provided a citation to any such decision.

I wish you could and would. Heaven knows that I'd be thrilled to have a binding SCOTUS decision that OC is a protected, individual right.

Can you provide a citation that the SCOTUS recognizes OC as an individual right?

Charles
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Denial is not a river in Egypt, the fact that the court used these particular references several times clearly indicates that open carry is recognized as the right to bear arms. Also some states, including NC spell it out clearly in the constitution. Add to that the Kerner NC supreme court decision clearly spells it out that OC is the right and conceal carry can be legislated. And in fact was illegal with NO provision for concealed carry until 1995.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Denial is not a river in Egypt, the fact that the court used these particular references several times clearly indicates that open carry is recognized as the right to bear arms. Also some states, including NC spell it out clearly in the constitution. Add to that the Kerner NC supreme court decision clearly spells it out that OC is the right and conceal carry can be legislated. And in fact was illegal with NO provision for concealed carry until 1995.

Look, Charles, you and I disagree on some little fundamentals but let's be honest we are splitting hairs. Heller vs. US seems to spell out some explicit words. Case law might not be the strongest logical opposition but can you rebut the court ruling itself?

I don't doubt your ability to interpret words, I'm just curious.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Look, Charles, you and I disagree on some little fundamentals but let's be honest we are splitting hairs. Heller vs. US seems to spell out some explicit words. Case law might not be the strongest logical opposition but can you rebut the court ruling itself?

I don't doubt your ability to interpret words, I'm just curious.

The court was not asked to rule on OC, nor were they asked to rule on permits. In fact the petitioner made it clear that he had no problems with licensing. So the court was limited in how they ruled. But the fact that they based their rulings on cites they repeated several times, IMO makes it clear they agree with them. Or they would not have used them. The Heller decision was my biggest objection to the dangerous attempt to have NFA overturned. The majority of justices in Heller made it clear how they will rule, possibly making matters worse.

There has been no rulings that I know of that have reversed the citations/rulings they referenced. Not only that concealed carry supposedly a right was mostly illegal until states passed laws. We have only seen a few rulings that have supported concealed carry LICENSING. If a state licenses a right it then becomes a privilege and not a right, I think most of us agree on that. So arguing for licensing of a right is hardly arguing rights, unless the person is a "butter".
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Nothing has come up that I noticed.

The real story looks like it will be lost.

We know we can't usually trust the state's version of events.
It is unfortunate that there is not outrage amongst the locals. This particular type of "crying wolf" is one that will always be believed without any scrutiny by the state.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Denial is not a river in Egypt, the fact that the court used these particular references several times clearly indicates that open carry is recognized as the right to bear arms. Also some states, including NC spell it out clearly in the constitution. Add to that the Kerner NC supreme court decision clearly spells it out that OC is the right and conceal carry can be legislated. And in fact was illegal with NO provision for concealed carry until 1995.

Some peoples thought process is hard to understand. Not agreeing with a cite equals you didn't cite? :confused:

Oh well, I guess its the same thought process that if you don't have dialogue I agree with than you are not having dialogue.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Some peoples thought process is hard to understand. Not agreeing with a cite equals you didn't cite? :confused:

Oh well, I guess its the same thought process that if you don't have dialogue I agree with than you are not having dialogue.

And he completely forgets, or conveniently that the BOR was written PRE CIVIL WAR, not post civil war. Maybe that is the reason for the lack of respect for it.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
And he completely forgets, or conveniently that the BOR was written PRE CIVIL WAR, not post civil war. Maybe that is the reason for the lack of respect for it.

It is LIE to claim I do not respect the Bill of Rights. Indeed, among so many who are hostile to the entire federal constitution, my respect for the Bill of Rights is higher than many here as I am a strict constructionists supporter of the federal Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment has no asterisk. It makes no distinction between OC and CC and I am unaware of any historical usage that would suggest that the "bearing" of arms is properly done only if the arms are carried exposed to public view, the weather, etc.

Sadly, Heller did not recognize any individual right to carry firearms outside the home either OC'd or discretely. If it had, laws against carrying without a permit would have fallen nationwide very shortly after McDonald made clear that Heller applied to the States. Heller cited antebellum court decisions to support its (correct) finding that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, rather than some "collective" or "State" right. To borrow your recent words, I would expect that a activists such as yourself would know how to correctly read a Supreme Court decision.

That your understanding of what Heller actually did or didn't rule is so flawed on this point, I guess I should not be surprised nor offended when you grossly misunderstand what I write. It probably isn't intentional on your part. Just a disability of some sort.

In your own snippy way, you've expressed far more hostility to the discrete carrying of a self-defense gun than I have in all my walls of text to the OCing of long guns. The irony and hypocrisy is rank.

I support the individual right to own and carry a gun for self defense. I support OC. I support CC. Even as I caution some thought about how, when, and where to OC rifles, I oppose legally imposed limits. I support OC. I support CC. I do not condone nor understand hostility to either among self-proclaimed supporters of the RKBA.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Look, Charles, you and I disagree on some little fundamentals but let's be honest we are splitting hairs. Heller vs. US seems to spell out some explicit words. Case law might not be the strongest logical opposition but can you rebut the court ruling itself?

I don't doubt your ability to interpret words, I'm just curious.


Why would I want to rebut Heller? It is a very good RKBA decision. A vital decision. But not the end-all, be-all decision.

But what it rules is found entirely in the "Held:" section starting on page 1. To whit (edited for length but not for material content):


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a)-(f) [various supportive statements to 1]

2.Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3.The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.


Everything else is really just the verbose logic and reasoning by which the court arrived at its decision.

Notice what the court "Held" (or ruled) in Heller (in plain English):

1-The 2nd amendment protects and individual RKBA not requiring any connection to militia membership nor service.

2-The 2nd amendment is not unlimited and this ruling doesn't go any farther than what we (the court) have explicitly said. Lower courts, don't go overturning long standing laws about felons, off-limits locations, or limits on concealed carrying.

3-The DC licensing scheme is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory and without a license it is illegal to keep a usable gun for home defense. DC, you are ordered to issue Heller a license so long as he is not disqualified from exercising his individual 2nd amendment right to a usable gun inside his home.

Period. End of ruling. The next 44 pages of printed legal opinions are just the majority and minority showcasing their logic in hopes that lower courts and future SCOTUS courts will seize on something to the benefit of their desired position. Ok, to be fair, the majority opinion is a bit more than just showcasing. The logic and reasoning is supposed to be used by lower courts to make consistent decisions in similar cases in the future. But the truly binding part is the first couple of pages in the "Held:" section.

And the SCOTUS issues zero ruling, did not "hold", anything relative to possession of guns outside the home. It used bans on concealed carry as examples of laws showing limits on the 2nd amendment and said it wasn't overturning such laws. But it did not specifically rule on concealed carry. Likewise, in the majority opinion we can find some references to carrying guns and to other court cases ruling on OC. But these are used as examples and as logic to arrive at the 3 fundamental holdings I listed above. The court did not rule or "hold" anything relative to OC in Heller.

Would that it had. Heller was great. First SCOTUS decision holding that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. But beyond that, pretty narrow. A solid foundation on which to build other cases including McDonald, the 4th District Chester Decision (tossing lifetime loss of RKBA for misdemeanor DV), the 7th Circuit Moore decision holding that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess guns outside the home for self defense, and gymnastic surrounding the 9th circuit Nordyke case regarding bans on gun shows.

But for all these good decisions, perhaps twice as many bad decisions have been issued by circuit courts since Heller including one decision upholding the lifetime loss of RKBA for misdemeanor DV.

Heller is a start. Not the conclusion. And I don't doubt for one second that a minor shift in the court's justices would result in either a complete reversal of Heller, or explicit allowance of so many onerous "common sense" laws as to make Heller effectively meaningless. We need to be pushing to advance statutory recognition of RKBA everywhere we can, and getting court cases that recognize various aspects of RKBA as protected by the 2nd amendment. A ruling that forces a city to do shall issue permits is not perfect, but a move in the right direction. A ruling that government property cannot discriminate against gun shows is a small victory. Overturning lifetime loss of rights for misdemeanor DV, mental illness, and so on are steps to take. We can't afford to be picky about which victories we can get where. Some will be imperfect but move in the right direction. So be it.


Charles
 
Top