Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: What are your thoughts on this subject?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I completely feel that there are no places where a law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to carry their firearm.

    I feel personal protection is the responsibility of any given individual, and they should not have to surrender their firearm in any building, or on any premises that is also open to the public.

    With that said, I have a question for those of you who share the same opinion.

    Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


    Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


    Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?
    No. This is a situation where there is an immediate law enforcement presence who's duty is to protect all those involved and or present for the proceedings, including the accused. Their response time should a threat occur is immediate.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    The Founders had to walk the fine line between individual Liberty and the need for the people to protect themselves from a person who was probably a criminal, but not yet convicted. For this reason, reasonable bail for accused was built into our Constitution.

    Clearly, some Liberty of the accused is, at least temporarily, forfeit to provide society some level of protection against the accused's probable future criminal exploits or his escape. Yet, the accused is given a chance to retain some of his Liberty.

    This system is not perfect. Some criminals continue to commit crime. Some escape. Some innocents have been denied some of their Liberty through no fault of their own.

    It is a true dilemma in a Free Republic. Is it justifiable to restrict the Liberty of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?

    We should consider gun rights in this same vein. Should we restrict the gun rights of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?

    I would say yes. The extent should be determined at the bail hearing. At the very least, the accused should be considered to be "in custody" while in the courtroom, and therefore, unarmed. It may be reasonable for the judge, at the bail hearing, to also decide that the accused should be denied, while out on bail, as a condition of bail, his right to keep and bear arms.

    The point of the bail hearing, as I see it, is to judge the danger to the public and the risk of flight. Based upon that judgment, the judge must balance the rights of the accused against those risks.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I agree that the judge should have the right to be armed, but unfortunately, many states don't allow it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Defendant and/or Plaintiff... No.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    The Founders had to walk the fine line between individual Liberty and the need for the people to protect themselves from a person who was probably a criminal, but not yet convicted. For this reason, reasonable bail for accused was built into our Constitution.

    Clearly, some Liberty of the accused is, at least temporarily, forfeit to provide society some level of protection against the accused's probable future criminal exploits or his escape. Yet, the accused is given a chance to retain some of his Liberty.

    This system is not perfect. Some criminals continue to commit crime. Some escape. Some innocents have been denied some of their Liberty through no fault of their own.

    It is a true dilemma in a Free Republic. Is it justifiable to restrict the Liberty of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?

    We should consider gun rights in this same vein. Should we restrict the gun rights of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?

    I would say yes. The extent should be determined at the bail hearing. At the very least, the accused should be considered to be "in custody" while in the courtroom, and therefore, unarmed. It may be reasonable for the judge, at the bail hearing, to also decide that the accused should be denied, while out on bail, as a condition of bail, his right to keep and bear arms.

    The point of the bail hearing, as I see it, is to judge the danger to the public and the risk of flight. Based upon that judgment, the judge must balance the rights of the accused against those risks.
    I agree it is a dilemma now, but much less so at our founding. From the time
    of our founding until the turn of the 20th century, you went to trial in a matter
    of days, not months or years. Our justice system is so screwed up now.

    No, I do not think you should be able to carry in a court room as it is an
    emotionally charged atmosphere and even even-tempered individuals can be
    "set off".

  8. #8
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    If someone is under indictment by a grand jury I don't feel like restricting their right to bear arms in a court of law is unjust. outside the court of law they should retain their right to keep and bear arms, after all they are innocent until proven guilty.

    That being said, It is not your right to be witness to court proceedings. In keeping with this, there is nothing unconstitutional in requiring people disarm in a court of law. There is a reasonable law enforcement presence to assure the safety of those present.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    If someone is under indictment by a grand jury I don't feel like restricting their right to bear arms in a court of law is unjust. outside the court of law they should retain their right to keep and bear arms, after all they are innocent until proven guilty.

    That being said, It is not your right to be witness to court proceedings. In keeping with this, there is nothing unconstitutional in requiring people disarm in a court of law. There is a reasonable law enforcement presence to assure the safety of those present.
    Common sense would dictate otherwise. Inappropriate to the situation.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I completely feel that there are no places where a law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to carry their firearm.
    Getting a MRI is a good time not to carry, while sitting in a sauna or working in an explosive atmosphere. I really can't see many other places where it is a bad idea.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    211

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


    Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?
    No. This is a situation where there is an immediate law enforcement presence who's duty is to protect all those involved and or present for the proceedings, including the accused. Their response time should a threat occur is immediate.

    Thats what I thought But sometimes you have crazies who will still attack with law enforcement around.
    I had a friend who was being stalked and I went to court with her she had a 50-C against the guy and even though there was police around right outside the court room the guy tried to come at her while the guard at the door just sat and watched.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    I've seen a lot of dumb questions asked on this forum of late. Whywould anyone even spend the time toanswer such stupid questions? Do some of you guys actually sit aroundtrying to see who can come up with the dumbest question? Or are you actually this stupid?Well, I think this is the winner so far by an extremely wide margin. I suppose itwill be quite some time before someone tops this one.Yeah, I know, I took the time to write this reply, but I needed to say it. So, there it is. I'm really close to dumping this forum for the Huffington Post. As stupid as the folks overthere are, at least they sound intelligent.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Actually, legally, it is an intriguing question. I may disagree with the OP's take on the issue, but I respect the civility with which he presented his ideas, so I respectfully answered him.

    I would rather respond to a thousand such posts than to one whose purpose was to insult everyone in sight.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Do you feel that a citizen, whom is pending trial for a crime, but has not been found guilty, and has not plead guilty, should be able to carry their firearm in the court room?


    Basically they're having charges brought upon them from the prosecutor's office, but they haven't been found guilty. They're in court awaiting a verdict. Considering they have not been found guilty, should they still be able to carry their firearm in the court room?
    No. This is a situation where there is an immediate law enforcement presence who's duty is to protect all those involved and or present for the proceedings, including the accused. Their response time should a threat occur is immediate.
    Agree with Nevada Carrier on IN COURTROOM. But all courtrooms MUST provide a system for securing the firearms for those attending the courtroom using lockers that the gun owner has the key too while the firearm is secured!

    For otherwise, I would defer on this question to the judge at the bail hearing... IF NO BAIL, then NO gun cuz the accused is in Jail. IF High bail and a crime of violence then prohibit the possession of firearms as part of the bail hearing per the judge. If low bail, Misdemeanor, not a violent crime, or released on OWN RECOGNIZANCE then the accused gets to keep the guns, again up to judge.

    Again, due process is protected because my proposal would be enforced at the bail hearing.....

    And for what it is worth.... AFTER one is released from jail/prison and is no longer on probation/parole then COMPLETE RESTORATION OF ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING FIREARMS, no matter what the conviction was for (applies ONLY for 1st or 2nd conviction. If they are trusted enough to not be on parole or probation then let em go....
    Now, 3rd conviction.... nope they lost the right.




    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I completely feel that there are no places where a law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to carry their firearm.

    I feel personal protection is the responsibility of any given individual, and they should not have to surrender their firearm in any building, or on any premises that is also open to the public.
    I completely disagree, although I would prefer that restricted places be handled in the same manner as court buildings and re-define what a restricted building is relaxing the rules a little. The reason for this is simple; stupid people. There are plenty of stories of NDs from people "accidentally" firing that I think it is reasonable to put a certain level of restriction on carrying in certain places. If the push for gun activists is to be more like Alaska (and now Arizona) with regards to carry laws, I feel that certain carry restrictions in certain places is a fare compromise. After all, personal and private property rights seem to trump individual rights.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    211

    Post imported post

    I ain't saying you should be able to carry because some people aren't responsible enough to carry in that type of atmosphere (Emotion's running high) ETC

    I am saying not all "security" for the court system does their Jobs and in a case like that what do you do?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    In my not so humble and totally politically incorrect opinion.... and belief...

    There is no need for any restrictions on where, or who, can carry a gun.

    There is a need to punish those who use guns irresponsibly and/or in a criminal manner.

    Court rooms where emotions run high? No big deal... anyone who shoots anyone else for other than self defense inside a courtroom gets to go to prison same as if they shot someone for other than self defense in any other place.

    My logic is simple.... the right.. and it IS a right.. does not need to be tampered with in any way shape or form. The only thing necessary is to punish those who abuse that right to inflict harm onto others.

    If someone is too dangerous (either criminally or mentally) to be trusted with a gun then they should NOT be out in society anyway. Lock 'em up and leave 'em there.... because the gun had nothing to do with them being dangerous as they would still be dangerous with a knife, baseball bat, or rock.

    Hold the person who does harm responsible... not the gun he/she used to do the harm... period.

    It ain't the gun Son... it's the human being using it.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    211

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    In my not so humble and totally politically incorrect opinion.... and belief...

    There is no need for any restrictions on where, or who, can carry a gun.

    There is a need to punish those who use guns irresponsibly and/or in a criminal manner.

    Court rooms where emotions run high? No big deal... anyone who shoots anyone else for other than self defense inside a courtroom gets to go to prison same as if they shot someone for other than self defense in any other place.

    My logic is simple.... the right.. and it IS a right.. does not need to be tampered with in any way shape or form. The only thing necessary is to punish those who abuse that right to inflict harm onto others.

    If someone is too dangerous (either criminally or mentally) to be trusted with a gun then they should NOT be out in society anyway. Lock 'em up and leave 'em there.... because the gun had nothing to do with them being dangerous as they would still be dangerous with a knife, baseball bat, or rock.

    Hold the person who does harm responsible... not the gun he/she used to do the harm... period.

    It ain't the gun Son... it's the human being using it.
    I agree its not the gun, I could kill just as fast with a ink pin for that matter (No joke)
    I mean as far as that goes a knife is more lethal than a gun in close quarter's.
    THe thing is sometimes people who cause harm to other people are NOT held responsible for their crime Just like I was reading this morning and their was a man who was serving 36-month probation for felony drug possession ETC
    And had been charged with assault with a deadly weapon in the past
    Well this past week he broke in to a NC home and "brutally murdered" a 92 year old woman and her 65 year old daughter

    http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/7566997/


    If someone wants to kill someone 8 times out of 10 they don't need a gun.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I have a question? I am a Virginia Resident and I have Concealed carry permit am I aloud to drive on to a VA state prison to drop someone off so they can go see someone.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    "Shall not be infringed" end of story.

    It's my right get over it. Shall we not let people of agiven race/religion do certain things, go places, or own property? So many people believe they can prevent criminal activity by law. It's not possible. Most of you know "gun/drug-free" zones don't work, and do more harm than good. What the hell is so hard? yall want to twist the founders to fit your agenda, and make a criteria to have rights. I was born with my rights, I don't have to be a citizen, a soldier,pay for rights, were certain clothes, be a certain color, have one shoe bigger than the other. They come from God, not from law. They are limited only by others rights, and just because it's not in the "bill of rights" does not mean it's not a right. If you don't want we to be armed that's tuff titty, cause it's my right, not yours. You don't want me to be white, tuff titty. Deep breathes... Deep breathes...

    "If you can't be trusted with a gun, then you can't be trusted life, at least without shackles" - me

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Valdosta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    347

    Post imported post

    I somewhat disagree with the first statement as you didn't mention a background check.

    Even though people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, my answer is no. I mean not just the accused but everyone except law enforcement should not be allowed to carry there. Grieving family members might just shoot the trash that raped and killed their daughter, especially if he was found innocent. The accused might also shoot the judge when sentenced to death.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Valdosta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    347

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    I've seen a lot of dumb questions asked on this forum of late. Why┬*would anyone even spend the time to┬*answer such stupid questions? Do some of you guys actually sit around┬*trying to see who can come up with the dumbest question? Or are you actually this stupid?┬*Well, I think this is the winner so far by an extremely wide margin. I suppose it┬*will be quite some time before someone tops this one.┬*Yeah, I know, I took the time to write this reply, but I needed to say it. So, there it is. I'm really close to dumping this forum for the Huffington Post. As stupid as the folks over┬*there are, at least they sound intelligent.
    I believe you might benefit from my "tolerance" thread.

  23. #23
    Regular Member One_Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uncertain, Texas, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    It always starts with something that sounds resonable, simple, and for a good cause. That is why we have lost so many of our rights through the years. As long as we continue to help the liberals reduce and restrict our RIGHTS we are as much to blame for this mess as they are.

    We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, anywhere and anytime. When you surrender one inch of that right you start down a very slippery slope that you many never recover from. Don't believe me, look at our laws now!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    One_Shot wrote:
    It always starts with something that sounds resonable, simple, and for a good cause. That is why we have lost so many of our rights through the years. As long as we continue to help the liberals reduce and restrict our RIGHTS we are as much to blame for this mess as they are.

    We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, anywhere and anytime. When you surrender one inch of that right you start down a very slippery slope that you many never recover from. Don't believe me, look at our laws now!
    Pass a law, lose a freedom. It's that simple.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    I've seen a lot of dumb questions asked on this forum of late. Whywould anyone even spend the time toanswer such stupid questions? Do some of you guys actually sit aroundtrying to see who can come up with the dumbest question? Or are you actually this stupid?Well, I think this is the winner so far by an extremely wide margin. I suppose itwill be quite some time before someone tops this one.Yeah, I know, I took the time to write this reply, but I needed to say it. So, there it is. I'm really close to dumping this forum for the Huffington Post. As stupid as the folks overthere are, at least they sound intelligent.
    By all means, do what you have to do. If you find that you can post there without insulting everyone in sight, then that place would be a more comfortable fit for you.

Posting Permissions

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