• 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.

Responding to Mr. Moores article about O-C

J

jrm

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
190
Location
, ,
imported post

Lammie wrote:
I don't wish to get involved in a discussion of "right" and "privilrge". We went down that road ad naseum months ago. Below is the definition obtained from Wkipedia encyclopedia.


A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.
Click to expand...
No, I did not make the comment intending to create a debate on the difference between a right and a privilege. I made the comment merely to point out that, while the common usage is as you describe (as evidenced by someone putting those definitions in Wikipedia), that is not the legal usage. I just want to caution readers that when they take the common usage and apply it in a legal context, they will get frustrated.

Take, for example, recent posters in this thread describing 2A as a right that cannot be subject to any restrictions. We know as a matter of basic constitutional law that all rights can be restricted in some respects. Based on SCOTUS decisions, the most highly cherished and protected right is the right of free speech, particularly political speech. Yet even political speech is subject to "time, place and manner" restrictions. Thus, while the Wikipedia definition is fine for an informal discussion, it fails when applied to a legal principle such as 1A.
 
J

jrm

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
190
Location
, ,
imported post

I don't seem to be able to overemphasize that my comment was for informational purposes only. Feel free to ignore it at will.
 
BB62

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

Lammie wrote:
I beg to differ with BB62 but open carry of firearms in order to exercise the activities contained in Article I section 25 is in my opinion a Wisconsin state constitutional right...
Click to expand...
Technically, I agree with you, but as I alluded to in my response, in WI at present, OCis merely a "right" not a right.

Although it's hard to believe that Ohio is ahead in anything OC related, in my knowledge WI is considerably lower on the OC curve.

For instance, a win by thefellow arrested for OCing on his property, more people OCing in WI,more police encounters that result in nothing happening, some OC walks -wouldmoveWI substantially forward. Maybe those things are happening, but I am not aware of them, hence my opinion.
 
N

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
mailto:rmmore@dwave.net
mailto:ray@lakelandtimes.com

Dear Editor and Mr. Moore,

In his 'Don't muddy the waters', Mr. Wendel Kurr opened with the rhetorical announcement that Mr. Moore and "The Lakeland Times did a good job of raising some of the questions which relate to the complex topic of gun rights." Unfortunately Mr. Kurr's rhetoric did nothing to clarify the topic or even to mention the questions raised but one.

In the midst of his exposition of opinion, he does ask, "How can an individual move about through the community ... while ensuring that the firearm he or she openly carries does not come into the wrong hands?"

It is common practice amongst open carriers to use a 'retention holster' that features (often multiple) mechanical arrangements to ensure the gun cannot be improperly removed. Openly armed police officers usually carry their gun in a retention holster. The occurrence of a successful snatch from a legally armed, and open carrying, citizen has never been documented.

Neither the Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States nor Wisconsin's Constitution, Article I, Section 25 make any mention of training or of what might constitute proper training. Indeed, the Second Amendment requires that it "shall not be infringed."

Doug Huffman
Washington Island
Wisconsin
Click to expand...
Excellent!! Would you like me to post a link to the paper so they have the ability to print your statement?

I think we should all send something to that paper to refute W. Kurr's opinion. Lets take a look at where he is from too. And why would we expect anything else.

As long asthis paper is printing articles and opinions on Open-carry rights, lets do our best to get proper and easily verifiable information out to the rest of the readers.

If we all reply to Kurr, that is a whole lot of responses and they are bound to print one of them!
 
L

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

For those that don't like Wikipedia here is the legal definition of privilege as it appears in West's Encyclopedia of law.



West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.[line]privilege n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course some Rights come with restrictions. The restricitions are, as a rule, limited to those issues that affect public welfare or equal justice. The restrictions themselves are not free of restrictions. For example: Some say the first amendment is restricted because you aren't allowed to shout FIRE in a theater. Well that's not exactly true. You can shout fire in a theater if it is part of the play or movie being performed. You can also shout fire in a theater if there is an actual fire and the intent is to evacuate the building. You aren't allowed to use the first amendment as a defense if your intent of shouting fire in a theater or other place of gathering is to incite fear, panic or bodily harm. Just another legal conundrum.
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
Excellent!! Would you like me to post a link to the paper so they have the ability to print your statement?
Click to expand...
Ahh, it was e-mailed to the listed and noted editor so they do have the ability to print it if they so choose. I even sent verification information that I don't post publicly.

My LtE is a response to Mr. Kurr. I raised no further issues, contradicted one of his few positive statements ('proper training') and answered his one question properly.

Most of his letter was value free statements, characterized by would/should/could, and bald opinion.
 
S

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Lammie wrote:
You aren't allowed to use the first amendment as a defense if your intent of shouting fire in a theater or other place of gathering is to incite fear, panic or bodily harm. Just another legal conundrum.
Click to expand...
Correct. You can certainly call "fire" in a theater to incite panic, however, you will pay. Because now you owe reparations to anybody who was injured in the ensuing chaos and owe money to the owner of the theater for lost business. The first amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences just mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top