Belle Meade votes to amend city ordinance 11-602 by deleting it proposed ord. 2010-7

[slowfiveoh]

Well, doesn't make any difference. They've already eliminated that part of the law.

Indeed. In fact, I will throw out a smiley for that too.








Ponch,

Thought out reply is appreciated.

However,

It is important to understand that the deference is to that which is more free, and in line with common liberty. Not more limited.

In this vein I submit that "such as", as a term, is meant to be composed of a bit of levity to include those firearms that were used in military service.

This for example:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/such_as

"Adverb such as

1. (idiomatic) for example Waterbirds such as the duck or the gull are common in the area.
2. (idiomatic) like, of the kind mentioned I was never in a country such as that.
3. (idiomatic, formal) those who Such as have already done their work may leave.

[edit] Usage notes

In the sense of “for example”, such as is preferred to like in formal writing."


I enjoy the comparative to "like".

 

[Ponch]

In this vein I submit that "such as", as a term, is meant to be composed of a bit of levity to include those firearms that were used in military service... "In the sense of “for example”, such as is preferred to like in formal writing."

The Belle Meade ordinance doesn't say "such as." It says, "...or any other dangerous
weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand..." If they decided to prosecute along those lines, the debate in court would be whether "the army or navy pistol" refers to a specific type of weapon current in the 19th century, or whether it refers to whatever pistol is issued by the army or navy at any given time.

As I said, they wouldn't go that route anyway, because it would make them a laughingstock. If Embody took his wife to South Carolina and (legally!) beat her in front of the courthouse on a Sunday, the prosecutor there would NOT try to argue whether he was in fact "on the courthouse steps," for the same reason. If he moved on to Arizona, and had a donkey sleep in a bathtub (illegally!) in the front yard, the prosecutor wouldn't get into an argument whether a bathtub must be connected to water in order for the statute to apply. Etc.

 

[slowfiveoh]

The Belle Meade ordinance doesn't say "such as." It says, "...or any other dangerous
weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand..." If they decided to prosecute along those lines, the debate in court would be whether "the army or navy pistol" refers to a specific type of weapon current in the 19th century, or whether it refers to whatever pistol is issued by the army or navy at any given time.

As I said, they wouldn't go that route anyway, because it would make them a laughingstock. If Embody took his wife to South Carolina and (legally!) beat her in front of the courthouse on a Sunday, the prosecutor there would NOT try to argue whether he was in fact "on the courthouse steps," for the same reason. If he moved on to Arizona, and had a donkey sleep in a bathtub (illegally!) in the front yard, the prosecutor wouldn't get into an argument whether a bathtub must be connected to water in order for the statute to apply. Etc.

I agree that stupid laws need to be taken off the books. Law is not novelty. It appears we keep some around for that purpose though.

Those that infringe upon or severely limit rights, should be removed.

 

[RussP]

He didn't say they were not service weapons; he said they are not service weapons. They were a hundred years ago; they are not today.

Correct...

Important indeed. Russ is reaching a little, but his point is that the law could be interpreted either way. In United States v Miller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment particularly protected military small arms, based on the clarification that it was expressly given because "a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state." They might have concluded that this referred to flintlocks and muskets, but they did not--instead they held that a modern rifle is protected by the 2A, but a sawed-off shotgun, not being a military weapon, is not:

Similarly, it could be argued that the intent of the Belle Meade ordinance was not to restrict carry to a certain style of black-powder revolver, but rather to specify that the handgun must be of the type issued by the military at the time of the incident. They stand a solid chance of winning if they take that approach. They won't, mostly because it didn't occur to them, but also because attempting to enforce the letter of this particular statute would make them a laughingstock.

Well, not reaching at all, just offering an interpretation of the law based on the intent of the law as you go on to explain so well.

Thank you...

 

[WCrawford]

You mean like Leonard carrying in Library where it's illegal to carry? Is that what you're talking about?

I must have missed this one in all my training classes on prohibited places. Please cite from the TCA that makes carry in libraries illegal.

 

[deadpool2]

I must have missed this one in all my training classes on prohibited places. Please cite from the TCA that makes carry in libraries illegal.

he is talking about the Brentwood Library that is posted by the city prohibiting firearms.... the one that leonard bragged about open carrying in.

 

[RussP]

he is talking about the Brentwood Library that is posted by the city prohibiting firearms.... the one that leonard bragged about open carrying in.

Correct...