Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Possibly unconsidered aspects of OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Being fairly new to this site, and lacking the time to read every post on every thread (including all the states) of the OC Forums, I apologize in advance if the following matters have been discussed elsewhere.

    I start with the premise that the main interest of OCDO is self-defense, as opposed to carrying handguns openly while hunting or in the field plinking, etc. When open carrying, those who do so openly advertise they're armed. There have been (rare) cases where police officers in uniform have been mugged by hoodlums to steal their guns. To some criminal types, walking around OC'ing might be the same as having a bullseye target pinned to your back.

    Well-trained leos are taught various weapon-retention tactics should they get into fights with suspects. Also, many departments require use of holsters designed to make it difficult for other people to grab the officer's gun.

    So my first question is have any OC'ers thought about weapons-retention tactics and shared information as to where civilians who are not leos might get such training? How about types of holsters? I've seen one post on the holster thread asking about a retention holster, but there is no separate section on the forum exclusively for that sort of holster.

    Also I've seen posts in various threads by people relying on the Second Amendment who seemingly have no knowledge of how the US legal system works. Those folks may well find themselves in expensive legal trouble with the possibility of a criminal conviction and loss of their firearm rights because of their lack of knowledge. Would it be a good thing to have a moderators' thread explaining the situation?

    Also, I've noticed no general moderators' thread with the following information. Criminal laws vary among all the states. It seems to me that OC'ers would be well-advised to read the criminal laws of their particular state regarding use of force and justifiable homicide. I would also respectfully suggest that persons doing so might wish to consult a criminal attorney to get an understanding of various cases and how the courts have applied the laws of self-defense in their particular state.

    Please note that my comments above intend no offense to anyone. I expect most people here have heard the saying that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," and I would hate to see a law-abiding gun owner get in serious legal trouble because of a lack of knowledge.



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    303

    Post imported post

    Welcome to years ago.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I see you do not indicate your location. Your premise of being a target while OC'ing has no basis in fact. Police Officers have their guns stolen commission of conducting arrests or just get 'jacked up' on the street because they are CC at the time. This happens. We are not in the business of getting in 'fights with suspects' or effecting arrests. You seem to be projecting that which does not happen.

    OC is a positive deterrent. Control of the weapon really doesn't require fancy retention holsters other than in a crowded urban environment. I suspect 'you' are an urbanite. I also suspect that you are a cop... with the reference to 'civilians'. May I remind you that 'cops' are civilians... unless serving as a member of the Armed Forces. The vast majority of problems caused by OC are a direct result of LEO ignorance or opinionated disregard foractuallaw and rights recognized by the Constitution. Fortunately, this is NOT the case in Arizona.

    Having been a cop... and a career member of the Armed Forces; I'm fairly savvy on use of deadly force... as are most posters to this forum.I would hazard a guess that most posters on this forum are better shots than the average cop as well... because theytend to practice more.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Il Duce, I don't understand your post.

    Sonora Rebel,

    Thanx for commenting. I am not & have never been in law enforcement, and I fully understand and agree that the word "civilian" should apply to all who are not in the military--including leos. My understanding is that OCDO is intended for civilians who are NOT leos. I will edit my original post to make that distinction clear.

    You are correct about an urban environment. I do happen to be a city guy. In some areas of some cities (and perhaps smaller communities as well) I think it could be considered dangerous to carry openly, even more so for those who are NOT leos. In those cases, I think concealed carry would be more prudent--but OCDO is not about promoting concealed carry if I understand the purpose of this site correctly.

    I agree that responsible OC'ers don't deliberately try to get in fights or make arrests, etc, but it seems possible that an OC'er could be suddenly attacked by thugs (or even shot at by drive-by gang-bangers) simply because the person had a visible gun. Naturally such a situation would depend on the community. I don't know of any such instances, but would hope they'd be reported somewhere on this site should such occur.

    I think Arizona is a nice state regarding its gun laws. I visited Phoenix for the NRA Convention in 1983 & have friends who reside there. But parts of AZ do have a serious crime problem, from what I see on the TV news. And not every AZ county has a sheriff like Maricopa County.

    Please accept my thanks for your service to our country. I was also in our military some years ago, and I agree with your thinking that OC'ers who like guns and practice often might be better shots than many leos. But that does not mean that they also have a better knowledge of deadly force.

    And not all people here may be in that category; there are folks under 21 participating. (They cannot get FFLs or C&R licenses or concealed carry documents because they're not old enough.) With all due respect, I do not think everyone who has joined this site is knowledgeable in the law. And regardless of how good a shot one may be, if one does not know when the law allows one to shoot in self-defense one can get into a great deal of trouble and even wind up in prison.

    This is why I suggested that some "basic information" on certain subjects might help newcomers who have lesser knowledge than experienced people like yourself.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Weapons retention, retention holsters, gun grab risks are all subjects that have be often discussed on this forum for years. The search function is your friend.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    Yes, we have covered all of that... Years ago..

  7. #7
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    JW joined for one purpose, to come here and try to tout how wonderful an anti-carry gun show is and try to get us to "change our evil ways". Looks like he's continuing that trend by trying to convince OCDO that our OC is "dangerous" and "gonna get us in trouble". Things that have been refuted so many times from so many trolls I have lost count of how many threads have been locked. JW, do yourself and us a favor, and if you don't like OC, fine, get lost. You aren't going to convince anyone here of anything. Go have fun with the rest of the fudds at the next WAC show and leave the rest of us who would like to keep our 2A rights to our own devices.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Apparently JW is lost in the '50's or something. Yeah... after some considering... he'sprob'ly aFudd.

    Nothing is 100%... but it's better than 0%. Forget the 'what if's'! Life is fulla circumstances beyond anybody's control. Fact is... your 'what if's' regarding OC don't happen.If they did happen, the MSM via the Brady'swould be all over it. I'd hazard a guess that most on this forum are more aware of the 'laws' of their individual locations than the LEO's in those locations. (Arizona LEO's being an exception).



    We tend to ascribe to one law... The2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Don't you wish everybody did?

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    With all due respect, I do not think everyone who has joined this site is knowledgeable in the law. And regardless of how good a shot one may be, if one does not know when the law allows one to shoot in self-defense one can get into a great deal of trouble and even wind up in prison.

    This is why I suggested that some "basic information" on certain subjects might help newcomers who have lesser knowledge than experienced people like yourself.
    I doubt very many people open carry without knowing the laws. Most people aren't that stupid. Most people here who do carry do know the laws, and there is a LOT of great information on this site. As you noted, the laws in different areas are different. If you visit the individual forums for each state and ask questions in these areas you will find an abundance of information, including links to actual laws and case law.

    One cannot rely simply upon basic summaries of the laws either. If one wants to understand the law, they should read the actual laws themselves as well as the appropriate case law.

    Most of us have also thought about weapons retentions issues. Not all of us can afford formal training. Many of us use holsters with lots of fancy retention devices, and others use holsters with less and are willing to take the risks involved with it. I also doubt many people who OC walk around paying no attention to those around them and pay no attention to retention.

    Anyone attempting to take a gun out of someone's holster is putting themselves in a lot of danger doing so. While diligence in retention is necessary, I would imagine that most of the time when police are in a situation where someone is trying to take their gun it is not some random person walking up to them on the street and trying to rip their gun out of their holster, it is usually after they have already confronted a dangerous individual who is not willing to peacefully comply with their arrest.


    Is it possible that someone may shoot you in the back to steal your gun? Sure. It's also possible that they may shoot you in the back to steal your wallet, or to steal your watch, or your briefcase, or just because they felt like shooting someone in the back.

    I'm willing to take that risk. Everyone takes that risk everyday, armed or not.

    Now is it also possible that they may think of robbing you and see your gun and decide to pick on someone else? I think its also a possibility.

    I think having the proper tools is far more likely to be beneficial to one than not having them.

    One could also consider the risks involved with wearing a seat belt. If you drive your car into a lake, a seat belt may not be beneficial, but if you drive your car into a tree it probably will be. And I would say crashing into a tree or similar rigid object is more common than crashing into a lake. I think the chances of open carry causing your death are similar to the chances of your seat belt causing your death.

    If open carry always put the person carrying at more risk than someone not carrying, police departments probably would not issue openly carried holsters to police.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    j w mathews wrote:
    Also I've seen posts in various threads by people relying on the Second Amendment who seemingly have no knowledge of how the US legal system works. Those folks may well find themselves in expensive legal trouble with the possibility of a criminal conviction and loss of their firearm rights because of their lack of knowledge. Would it be a good thing to have a moderators' thread explaining the situation?
    Would you care to elaborate on this concern of yours? The 2nd amendment specifically protects open carry, as I believe SCOTUS has ruled that "bear arms" means carrying, not just storage in a house. In KY, a 1952 court of appeals case confirms this also. Various other state constitutions have adopted this interpretation as well.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Companio365--

    I think yr post here is both inaccurate & out of line. This is a "general" thread, unrelated to any particular state. I suggest you confine your comments about the other matter to that thread and focus here on the matters discussed in THIS thread.

    Statesman--

    Your question is entirely reasonable imo.

    This site is all about providing information to people interested in OC. I believe that legal issues are a very important aspect and of great interest to people interested in their firearms freedoms. Accordingly, it seems logical to me that for each state, at the top of the first page as part of the basic info for that state, it might be nice to have a "sticky" that provides the following:

    1. Quote the RKBA provision from the State Constitution (if there is one) or other basic provision and any statutes that specifically refer to open carry, if applicable.

    2. Quote the statute law of the state regarding use of force & justifiable homicide, so OC'ers will have at least a basic idea of their RESPONSIBILITIES in a self-defense situation.

    In further answer to yr question, below are portions of a post I made on the thread: "what to say to an LEO."

    "Thank you Hansolo, Citizen and '47' for your responses. I appreciate the information about legal cases as I enjoy reading court opinions & reasoning when I can find the time.

    As to relying on the US Constitution, I'm not sure that some OC'ers really understand the situation. I think many people agree that the thinking behind the Bill of Rights was that the rights therein are "preordained" and inherent, and that the government is supposed to protect those rights.

    I've seen the reality of the situation mentioned in posts on another thread or two, but the information seems to be buried within the topic of the thread and many people may not find it. I've originated a new thread (THIS ONE) with the suggestion that perhaps a moderators' post on the general forum could explain the situation so that uninformed people will stop relying on the Second Amendment.

    My point is that one's personal opinion does not count in court. The Constitution is interpreted by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and in reality our rights are those supported by decisions of that court. (A reason why gun owners should elect politicians who will appoint judges who uphold the Constitution--in my personal opinion.)

    Like it or not, it's a FACT that the SCOTUS has NEVER at this point in time ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. They may someday do so, as there are civil cases against various state laws working their way through the system, as well as conflicting interpretations between two US Circuit Courts.

    A recent news release from the Second Amendment Foundation reported that the Ninth Circuit (of all places--the most "liberal" court that has had the greatest number of decisions overturned by SCOTUS of any of the lower federal courts) ruled in a CA case about gun shows on gov't property that the Heller decision applies to the states within the 9th Circuit. (The west coast & a few others.)

    But another circuit has ruled that the Heller decision does NOT apply to the states. So if you're not in a state within the boundaries of the 9th Circuit, you cannot rely on the Second Amendment AT THIS TIME.

    This means that anyone who gets in legal trouble regarding firearms matters is governed only by the Constitution/laws of the particular state. It won't be a Federal matter unless the defendant can afford the legal costs to appeal the case through all the state court levels into the federal system (if the federal courts would even consider the case).

    Furthermore, several states (6-7, I think) do NOT have constitutional protections of the right to bear arms, including some of the most populous ones such as CA, IL and NY. Thus one has to rely on court cases within those states as to how the statute laws of those states have been applied. Some judges may look to other states if they cannot find precedents within their own states to help decide a case, but I do not know whether any states have rules of court procedure REQUIRING judges to do that.

    It seems possible that some overzealous OC'ers may get themselves into serious legal trouble because of their lack of understanding of our legal system and knowledge of the working of our court system re interpreting the Constitution. That sort of thing hurts the image of responsible gun owners and will certainly hurt the individuals directly involved.

    If there is gross police misconduct such that a civil suit for damages appears to be reasonable and winnable, an attorney might take such a case on contingency. But if there is no prospect of monetary damages as a result of a criminal conviction, the defendant will have to pay an attorney to fight a miscarriage of justice, and that can result in financial ruin in addition to other burdens resulting from a conviction."


  12. #12
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    I'm just posting this to lighten up the mood. It is not a jab at anyone, just thought the photo fit the text.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Fullauto--

    Your post is exactly the sort of thing I'm discussing. I appreciate the levity & understand (and share) the ire aroused by bad gun laws. But there seem to be some OC'ers, and other gun owners on other forums, who do not understand that their opinion doesn't count if they get arrested & hauled into court for some kind of gun law violation. They don't seem to know that the US Congress & State Legislatures have ALREADY infringed our firearms rights--in some cases a long time ago. (New York's Sullivan Law dates from 1911.) Getting them "unfringed" will cost a lot of time & money.

    Washington DC's UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun law was enacted in 1976. It was in effect for 32 years before being overturned a year ago--but in actual practice it has not gone away because the city gov't is "stonewalling" changes. And the Heller decision, for those who haven't read it, is similar to some other Bill of Rights cases in that the right is NOT "absolute" just like free speech is limited. (You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.)

    Chicago enacted a handgun ban that same year. It is now being challenged, but until a final court ruling comes down the existing "infringement" will remain.

    I think everyone on this site is FOR the Second Amendment and removing restrictions on firearms for law-abiding citizens, but many Legislatures and courts don't see it that way.

    All the ranting & raving by gun owners won't do one bit of good. It takes years, a great deal of money, and very good lawyers to get bad laws overturned thru the court system. A better way, but perhaps harder in some cases, is to get legislators to repeal bad laws & enact good ones. Getting good legislators & judges is also a difficult thing to do.

    In the meantime, I think gun owners who want to avoid trouble should know the laws in their own states. Those who want to violate them do so at their own risk. But they shouldn't expect the Second Amendment to save them from time in jail & spending their life's savings on attorney fees!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    Well like we said JW this has already been discussed Years ago and Today.

    You will always have a varying knowledge base when you have thousands of people reading laws.

    But I do feel the vast majority of the people who OC do know the risks they take. WE may not always think they do, but that's our opinion

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    'Like it or not, it's a FACT that the SCOTUS has NEVER at this point in time ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. They may someday do so...'

    If the 2A doesn't apply to the states... then neither does the rest of the Constitution... by that 'fuzzy-think' rationale.


    Individual Right

    "The Second Amendmend 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." (page 1)

    "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'" (19)

    "We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisiting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents." (25)

    "It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia." (26)

    Rights are extended to the People. The People are comprised of Individuals... therefore it is the Individual who has the RIGHT. "The 2nd Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms" SCJ Scalia 2008



    I don't know the actual intent of your position j w mathews... but you're boorishly behind the times.


  16. #16
    Regular Member altajava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    j w mathews wrote:
    Like it or not, it's a FACT that the SCOTUS has NEVER at this point in time ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. They may someday do so, as there are civil cases against various state laws working their way through the system, as well as conflicting interpretations between two US Circuit Courts.

    I would hope that theSCOTUS NEVER rules that the Second Amendment applies to the states because the Bill of Rights applies to all individuals, not the states,legaly residing in this country.

    As for knowing the laws of carrying a firearm. I have been using a firearm of some type since the day I turned 18, I am now 41:shock:. Having 21 years of experience handling firearms I still spent a good 18 months reading these boards and the links provided before joining and buying a holster for open carry. This is no slight to LE but the people on these boards know firearms law better than most LEO.

    As far as the collective extreme defense of the second of the first ten ammendments, IMO it is the only one that guarantees the other nine.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel & Altajava--

    Your 5-13 posts illustrate the point I'm trying to make but that you don't seem to understand. It is entirely true that many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights recognize INDIVIDUAL freedoms. What you're overlooking is that when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1789 the provisions thereof applied ONLY to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Bill of Rights did NOT prevent the states from restricting individual liberties in many ways.

    For example, the states were free to restrict freedom of speech in various ways (movie censors, etc), enact "blue" laws prohibiting commercial activities on Sundays (which favor some religions over others), etc. The states could allow unreasonable searches & seizures, double jeopardy, and enact restrictive firearms laws.

    I expect you've heard of the 5th Amendment provision against self-incrimination. You see it all the time on TV cop shows when a person being arrested is given the Miranda warnings. They're called that because of a court case from the 1960s iirc. (I think the case may have originated in AZ but am not sure.) A man was convicted and the case was appealed into the federal system on 5th Amendment grounds. SCOTUS said the 5th applied to the states, and so thereafter (BUT NOT BEFORE) all state leos were required to provide the information.

    The reason the states have to observe most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights is that SCOTUS has said so as a result of legal cases originating in the states that wound thru the Federal Court system. This was a gradual process over many decades.

    The reason that some states have very restrictive gun laws is because SCOTUS has NOT ruled that state governments must obey the Second Amendment. And the Heller decision has opened the door for further litigation on many details which are NOT mentioned in the Second Amendment. The court opinion is an interesting read, imo, for those who may not have read it.

    I think it would be nice if all states had simple gun laws like Vermont (if you can legally own you can carry; no special license needed for concealed carry; residents may own machine guns, etc). But this is not the case, and until SCOTUS says otherwise, state & local gov'ts are free to enact various types of restrictive legislation.

    Right now in most parts of the US it is state laws that govern the "bearing" of arms. Accordingly, telling an leo that one is "exercising my Second Amendment rights" will be of little, if any use. People need to know the laws of their own state.

    I don't say any of us has to like the present situation; I'm only trying to explain it so that people understand it and stop thinking the Second Amendment will somehow protect them from being charged with a gun law violation.

    I see many posts on various threads here mentioning the Second Amendment when that provision DOES NOT APPLY to the subject of the discussion.

    Sonora Rebel, with all due respect the "fuzzy thinking" would seem to be yours. The parts of the Bill of Rights that restrict the abilities of STATE governments to infringe individual liberties do so because of SCOTUS decisions. It's called "incorporation" in legal terms, I believe, based on the 14th Amendment.

    You state I'm "boorishly behind the times." I think I'm as current as anyone regarding the federal law situation--I do NOT claim to have expert knowledge of the laws of all 50 states. American gun owners did get a big boost when SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban, because it opened the door to a future decision applying Heller to the states. But that has NOT HAPPENED YET! Heller applies only to Washington DC per the SCOTUS ruling. And all the quoting of various judges' opinions and articles on the background/origins of the Second Amendment, etc, won't change things. IT HAS TO COME FROM SCOTUS.

    Unless you're trying to be funny, it looks to me as though you do not understand the above point.

    (NOTE: The 9th Circuit has ruled that the 2A does apply to the states covered by that Circuit, but another circuit said it doesn't, and a state gov't wanting to restrict gun rights--such as CA--could appeal that 9th Circuit ruling to SCOTUS.)

    Altajava--I fully agree that the Second Amendment supports the other nine. As I'm sure you know, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the Federal Gov't to restrict individual liberties. When I (and perhaps other people) mention the idea of applying the Second Amendment to the States, we mean REQUIRING the states to recognize the individual RKBA as the Federal Gov't is supposed to do. I hope I'm clear on this point.





  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Memphis, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    104

    Post imported post

    I really think you should let others worry about themselves instead of you worrying about them. When a person decides to carry a gun, openly or concealed, it is their responsibilty to know the laws of the state or states they carry in.

    I live in Memphis, TN, I can be in Arkansas or Mississippi in less than 20 minutes from my front door. I made it a point to know all the relevant laws in those states as well as my home state of Tennessee - for example, in MS and ARI can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but not in TN. In TN I can carry in a church but not in MS. In TN and MS I can open carry but not in AR.

    As far as what "could" happen - I "could" get struck by a meteorite fragment and killed every time I walk outside. I really don't worry too much about it though - about as much as I worry about my gun getting grabbed...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    j w mathews wrote:
    Statesman--

    Your question is entirely reasonable imo.

    This site is all about providing information to people interested in OC. I believe that legal issues are a very important aspect and of great interest to people interested in their firearms freedoms. Accordingly, it seems logical to me that for each state, at the top of the first page as part of the basic info for that state, it might be nice to have a "sticky" that provides the following:

    1. Quote the RKBA provision from the State Constitution (if there is one) or other basic provision and any statutes that specifically refer to open carry, if applicable.

    2. Quote the statute law of the state regarding use of force & justifiable homicide, so OC'ers will have at least a basic idea of their RESPONSIBILITIES in a self-defense situation.

    In further answer to yr question, below are portions of a post I made on the thread: "what to say to an LEO."

    "Thank you Hansolo, Citizen and '47' for your responses. I appreciate the information about legal cases as I enjoy reading court opinions & reasoning when I can find the time.

    As to relying on the US Constitution, I'm not sure that some OC'ers really understand the situation. I think many people agree that the thinking behind the Bill of Rights was that the rights therein are "preordained" and inherent, and that the government is supposed to protect those rights.

    I've seen the reality of the situation mentioned in posts on another thread or two, but the information seems to be buried within the topic of the thread and many people may not find it. I've originated a new thread (THIS ONE) with the suggestion that perhaps a moderators' post on the general forum could explain the situation so that uninformed people will stop relying on the Second Amendment.

    My point is that one's personal opinion does not count in court. The Constitution is interpreted by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and in reality our rights are those supported by decisions of that court. (A reason why gun owners should elect politicians who will appoint judges who uphold the Constitution--in my personal opinion.)

    Like it or not, it's a FACT that the SCOTUS has NEVER at this point in time ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. They may someday do so, as there are civil cases against various state laws working their way through the system, as well as conflicting interpretations between two US Circuit Courts.

    A recent news release from the Second Amendment Foundation reported that the Ninth Circuit (of all places--the most "liberal" court that has had the greatest number of decisions overturned by SCOTUS of any of the lower federal courts) ruled in a CA case about gun shows on gov't property that the Heller decision applies to the states within the 9th Circuit. (The west coast & a few others.)

    But another circuit has ruled that the Heller decision does NOT apply to the states. So if you're not in a state within the boundaries of the 9th Circuit, you cannot rely on the Second Amendment AT THIS TIME.

    This means that anyone who gets in legal trouble regarding firearms matters is governed only by the Constitution/laws of the particular state. It won't be a Federal matter unless the defendant can afford the legal costs to appeal the case through all the state court levels into the federal system (if the federal courts would even consider the case).

    Furthermore, several states (6-7, I think) do NOT have constitutional protections of the right to bear arms, including some of the most populous ones such as CA, IL and NY. Thus one has to rely on court cases within those states as to how the statute laws of those states have been applied. Some judges may look to other states if they cannot find precedents within their own states to help decide a case, but I do not know whether any states have rules of court procedure REQUIRING judges to do that.

    It seems possible that some overzealous OC'ers may get themselves into serious legal trouble because of their lack of understanding of our legal system and knowledge of the working of our court system re interpreting the Constitution. That sort of thing hurts the image of responsible gun owners and will certainly hurt the individuals directly involved.

    If there is gross police misconduct such that a civil suit for damages appears to be reasonable and winnable, an attorney might take such a case on contingency. But if there is no prospect of monetary damages as a result of a criminal conviction, the defendant will have to pay an attorney to fight a miscarriage of justice, and that can result in financial ruin in addition to other burdens resulting from a conviction."
    hence my closing statement,

    Various other state constitutions have adopted this interpretation as well.
    Honestly, I don't pretend to know for a fact if the 2nd amendment applies to states. It's my understanding it is a federal constitution, and each state has it's own. I also believe states should remain independent and soverign, and have their own constitutions. If we do end up with a federal constitutional convention, I don't want the U.N. tyrants conspiring to modify it to take away states rights. The states will have something to say about this. For years now, states have been controlled through federal dollars.

    We will have to wait and see if states will capitulate, grab their ankles, and become federal territories in the future due to state bankruptcy, and dependence on federal money.

    This scenario can be prevented by repealing federal legal tender laws. Getting the states to submit in this manner was the entire purpose of such laws.

    Kentucky Constitution

    Section 1
    Rights of life, liberty, worship, pursuit of safety and happiness, free speech, acquiring and protecting property, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, bearing arms. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
    First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.
    Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
    Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.
    Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.
    Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.
    Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.
    Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

    Text as Ratified on:August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
    History:Not yet amended.


  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    The Second Amendment has already been incorporated against the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke. It is still possible this case will be reheard, or end up at the SCOTUS (who will likely incorporate, which of course would be nationwide).

    But the fact remains that Heller is so last year, and j w matthews would do better to expand himself than to criticize the membership here for not being current on RKBA politics and legalities. :quirky

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •