The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

It is in Portland.

JIMV
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 9 months ago
Joined: 03/22/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="MikeL"][quote="landry"]If your neighbor was arrested for concealed carry without a permit, had otherwise committed no crime of any type, would you as a juror, convict him?[/quote]
Suppose your neighbor discharged a weapon out his kitchen window to dispatch a rabid skunk. So far it's just a [b][i]crime against the state[/i][/b]. Suppose further that another neighbor's small child was playing outside near by, was terrified by the shot, ran into the road and was taken out by an innocent driver, not speeding or otherwise breaking any laws. In this [b][i]hypothetical[/i][/b] scenario, would you continue to be eager, as a juror, to absolve your neighbor of any responsibility for this [b][i]victimless[/i][/b] crime?[/quote]

A person should not be held liable for the hysteria of others. If the act of shooting the skunk was legal, then the subsequent actions of the kid were the result of the kids hysteria...

In the real world such things seldom happen. The hysteric is usually an adult who expects others to be liable for protecting the hysteric from his own level of psychosis.

That the unreasonable might become offended is not enough reason to ban an activity. Instead, educate the hysteric.

JIMV
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 9 months ago
Joined: 03/22/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="thejohnchapman"]"If it wasn't for lawyers there would be no such a concept as the 'collective right' "

If it wasn't for lawyers, the local cop would just backshoot you if he, in his uncontrolled discretion, didn't like you carrying a gun. There would have been no attempt at justification, because it wouldn't have been needed. I have had a few law enforcement clients who have experienced jurisdictions without the rule of law. They tend not to like it, if they encounter it as citizens, and not as wielders of governmental power.[/quote]

Only in a place whre only the cop had the gun. In most locations cops shooting folk for sport would eventually result in target practice on the cops.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

I have no problem with ownership,cc,and militia thing.

But it appears in this day and age that these things are more reasonably
suited to those who are reasponsible enough to carry out the responsibilities
associated above.

How do we get to determining a person meets a the responsible requirement and
is not a lunatic ala VT scenario without infringement?

And folks the Hitler quote is getting a little old and thread worn. A study of post WWI
Germany will provide more insight into why this worked /happened than can be illustrated
here in this thread.

MikeL
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/13/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Change "to dispatch a rabid skunk" to "at a target on a tree", and further suppose it all happens in a municipality with an ordinance prohibiting discharging firearms within its limits. Is the shooter now responsible for the kid's hysteria?

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Mike, you did not answer my question. Do you always answer a question with a question? You answer my question and I WILL answer yours.
Bud

MikeL
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/13/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="landry"]You answer my question and I WILL answer yours.[/quote]
Yowzah, boss. This question?
[quote]If your neighbor was arrested for concealed carry without a permit, had otherwise committed no crime of any type, would you as a juror, convict him?[/quote]
Yes.

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Mike, and I will answer yours. If this child was small enough and able to be frightened this easily, he or she should have been supervised or in a fenced in yard if not supervised. I would acquit. I found your answer to as expected. The driver is another story. Though he may not have been exceeding the speed limit, he must have been going to fast for the terrain. The law says you must have your car under control at all times. Evidently, his car was not under his control.
bud

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

My neighbor shoots skeet from his back deck attached to his house. Obviously that would not work in Portland. That's a good example of why one size does not fit all. On the same road a new resident from CT called the sheriff's office when a kid was walking down the road with a shotgun. The deputy said, "Lady, It's hunting season."

I was in the Navy and living in Florida when some kids started yelling about a snake. A hog nose snake is harmless and looks a little like a diamondback rattlesnake. The deputy who lived next door came out with his .357 magnum and was going to shoot the snake which was curled up on a paved shuffleboard court. The snake was surrounded by kids and the snake was not going to stop a bullet. Some kid would have been hit by the ricochet. All the deputy could do was focus on the snake and he's terrified of snakes. I picked up the snake and put him over in the woods. The deputy was indignant that I told him not to shoot, but he got over it.

Up here at a yard sale you are likely to see the usual dishes, old transistor radios and a .357 magnum on the picnic table. Nobody blinks an eye. The same thing is legal in Portland, but I wonder how many in Portland would exercise their rights.

MikeL
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/13/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="landry"]I found your answer to as expected.[/quote]
I find your questions as loaded as ever. (No pun intended.) Lets drop the hypothetical camouflage. Is there any situation where Bud Landry would vote to convict a defendant charged with a [i]victimless[/i] gun crime?

The Distributist
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/15/2005 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Clearly we need legislation that addresses every conceivable possibility. We can not allow for these open-ended exchanges without having someone ultimately culpable for every eventual malady in society!

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Mike, If there was no one injured or threatened and there was no property injured or threatened it would be hard for me to imagine one. Maybe you can come up with one. See Mike, I am able to answer your questions in a respectable manner.
Bud

MikeL
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/13/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="landry"]If there was no one injured or threatened and there was no property injured or threatened it would be hard for me to imagine one.[/quote]
So, IYNSHO, you are willing to judge and reject [i]a priori[/i] any law that establishes a crime whose only victim is the state. I don't recall voting for you to represent me in any capacity, nor that you were appointed to any such judgmental position by anyone I did vote for. I conclude that you attempt to derive your authority from FIJs which, IMNSHO, are an obsessive end-run around republican (small r) government by establishing rule by ridiculously small minority.

[quote]I am able to answer your questions in a respectable manner.[/quote]
Bud, do you know who [b][i]Fonzi[/i][/b] was? To paraphrase the master: [i]If you have to tell other people you're cool, then you aren't.[/i]

JIMV
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 9 months ago
Joined: 03/22/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="MikeL"][quote="landry"]I found your answer to as expected.[/quote]
I find your questions as loaded as ever. (No pun intended.) Lets drop the hypothetical camouflage. Is there any situation where Bud Landry would vote to convict a defendant charged with a [i]victimless[/i] gun crime?[/quote]

For me it would depend on the accused. If the perp was a felon, had an arrest record, or had been committed for mental problems, yes I would. If he was just a normal citizen victim of liberal hysteria, I would aquit.

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Mike, your post is more hysterial than most are. I claim no authority of any sort whatsoever. I am merely putting forth historic constitutional information which seems to cause a panic among you would be bureaucratic wannabees. You are unable to deny this information about the people's RIGHTS so you resort to the only tactic you have in your arsenal, riducule and defamation of character, but it will not work. The word is out there and it WILL spread. It frightens the judicial system to realize "WE THE PEOPLE" are the masters of OUR government. Your government is NOT the master of "WE THE PEOPLE" If I may humbly give you one peace of advice, Mike, get used to it, you are vastly outnumbered. I now have this information in two schools and two librarys, one in Piscataquis and one in Penobscot counties. This information will be coming to a town near you.
Bud

thejohnchapman
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bud:

This post is just as hysterical and fear-laden as Mike's.

The attribution of fear, raving, and the like to one's opponent is not only ineffective, it is laughable when his posts are cheek by jowl with yours, and are visibly, obviously NOT.

It is a frequent tactic of yours. I hope you don't mind that many consider it silly.

PS: Why are your fear-laden posts so obviously motivated by abject, drooling terror of the frequently anonymous posters here?

:P

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

TJC, I do consider it rather comical that you believe Mike needs your help to explain his position, this from a man that admits the people, as jurors have the right to judge both the law and the facts. Do you also admit that this is a Constitutional RIGHT found under Article 9, of our Bill of Rights? Do you also admit that the PEOPLE have a RIGHT to know about this RIGHT? If this RIGHT does not exist, can I be arrested for spreading FALSE this information? Can I be arrested for sedition? If not, why not? Why, when I was passing out FIJA information in front of a court house on a court day, and a court officer came out to see what I was doing, and showed him the FIJA leaflets I was passing out, did he not do something to stop me. Could it have been because I was on a public sidewalk and the information was true? Do you also find this hysterical?
Bud

thejohnchapman
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Bud:

Mike is doing just fine. It is YOU that needs the help, you fear laden, hysterical ranter, you. Why are you so afraid of my posts? Why are you driven under your covers, howling in terror, by a few words? Why does even the slightest hint of disagreement with what you say provoke you to tears, standing on a stool with a rope over the sprinkler pipe, contemplating the end of existence?

:)

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

TJC, you amuse me, but you answered none of my questions. Is this the best you can do when defending clients? Will this be the best you can do when and if you give a seminar on the Constitution for the Constitution Party? If it is, I will pass on that one.
Bud

thejohnchapman
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Bud:

I view my responses as kinda like telling somebody that he has something hanging out of his nose. When you are a paying customer, or you are my opposition, or rachet down the silly, ineffective rhetoric, you will be taken more seriously by me.

If you search this website, you will come upon a word that I believe I coined. It is "Snowmanian". Think upon this, after looking it up.

MikeL
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/13/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Whoa! Take a morning off and see what happens.

[quote]... bureaucratic wannabee...[/quote]
I'm just an aging engineer looking forward to retirement.

[quote]If I may humbly give you one peace of advice, ...[/quote]
You've never done that before. What a refreshing change! (Must ... not ... criticize ... spelling.)

[quote]... you are vastly outnumbered ...[/quote]
Tell us again, Bud, what was the score in the Judiciary Committee back in March on LD 308? Oh, yeah, 14 to zip. [img]http://www.smileyhut.com/sleep/yawn.gif[/img]

[quote]Why, when I was passing out FIJA information in front of a court house on a court day, and a court officer came out to see what I was doing, and showed him the FIJA leaflets I was passing out, did he not do something to stop me.[/quote]
He took a quick court-look and court-thought "It's just old Bud. Leave him alone. He's harmless."

[quote]Do you also admit that this is a Constitutional RIGHT found under Article 9, of our Bill of Rights?[/quote]
The 9th amendment is the [i]Alice's Restaurant[/i] of the Constitution. [b][i]You can get anything you want ...[/i][/b]

[b]Hysterial[/b]ly yours, MikeL

PS to TJC: Thanks. I looked up "snowmanian" - very apt. What do you think of my "landryfication"?

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

It is hard to take either one of you very serious. You both seem to have a problem answering questions. I do not believe either of you have any answers, except, TJC did admit that jurors have the right to judge both the law as well as the facts in controversy. He just does not want the people to know about that right. WHY? Do you not trust the people?
Mike, as to your last post, I know you can do better than that. You are a past planning board bureaucrat.
with experience in that sort of thing.
Come now.
Bud

thejohnchapman
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Mike:

We are getting FIJed. So is this thread.

-- Yours in hysterical fear

John Chapman

MikeL
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/13/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="landry"]You are a past planning board bureaucrat.[/quote]
Yup, '91 thru '96. Then I went into rehab. I'm OK now. Thanks for your concern.

At almost every meeting during those 5 years, some old fart would slam his fist on the table and bellow: [b]Nobody's gonna tell me what I can do on my land!![/b] The answer was always a variation on the same theme.

[b]We are going to tell you. You elected representatives, at all levels, who created victimless rules and regulations, the administration of which requires boards like this to remind you constantly of what you voted for. It does no one at all one bit of good to whine that you personally are not guilty and therefore don't have to abide by the same rules everyone else has to follow.[/b]

John, yours in ever deepening FIJ-ity,

Mike

landry
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2002 - 12:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

Well, for all of you two gentlemens high mindedness it is apparent that you believe the power lies in the benevolent hands of the state. That is understandable and acceptable, but I do not believe that to be so. You believe the juries are a branch of the judiciary and under the directions of the court, and you have that RIGHT, I do not believe that is so. I believe, as do people such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Justice Byron White, Justice Thurgood Marshall, William Blackstone, Clarence Darrow, Judge David Baselon and many other knowledgeable and respected people that juries are regular "Americans" picked from the "people" to judge others, accused by the state, and to judge the law under which they have been accused as well as the facts in controversy. They are picked so as to prevent the application of unjust, unconstitutional and oppressive laws being forced on WE THE PEOPLE. They are now picked in a manner directly opposed to the system as established by our founding fathers. They are now picked in a manner so as to stack the jury in favor of the court, often in cooperation with the defending attorneys. Many defending attorneys today have been educated to believe the LAWS of the state are always right. You two seem to believe the odds should be on the side of the state in that the state should have direct control of the jury. That is the beliefs that lead to tyranny.
Bud

Joe Redneck
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 01/11/2001 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

JIMV wrote
"2. State Constitutions gave the states authority to pass such laws and
Most importantly
3. The second amendment was universally seen as a restraint on the federal government and not the state government"

I must assume that State Constitutions can give states authority to infringe on any of the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights if State Constitutions can give states the authority to infringe on the individual rights enumerated under the 2nd. Would this be a correct assumption?
I never knew that States could pass laws superceding those in the US Constitution. I thought Art 10. pretty much covered who could do what. It certainly doesn't seem to me like infringing on the right to bear arms, in whatever manner we the people choose, is a right OR authority given to any State.

I thought it was universally accepted that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th gave the most rights to the people, not the State or Federal governments.

Of course, I haven't done the reseach that JImV has but it stll makes no sense to me that you can bear arms only a certain was under the 2nd Amendment, open, when so many locales are passing restrictions on even carrying open. How then does one bear arms for self defense, which is the other reason so often spelled out in early America discussions? Overthrow tyrannical governments, self defense. Those are mentioned many, many times. Why else does on carry concealled OTHER than self defense?

JIMV
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 9 months ago
Joined: 03/22/2005 - 1:01am
The 2nd Amendment: Getting Lost in the Fog?

[quote="Joe Redneck"]JIMV wrote
"2. State Constitutions gave the states authority to pass such laws and
Most importantly
3. The second amendment was universally seen as a restraint on the federal government and not the state government"

I must assume that State Constitutions can give states authority to infringe on any of the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights if State Constitutions can give states the authority to infringe on the individual rights enumerated under the 2nd. Would this be a correct assumption?

I never knew that States could pass laws superceding those in the US Constitution. I thought Art 10. pretty much covered who could do what. It certainly doesn't seem to me like infringing on the right to bear arms, in whatever manner we the people choose, is a right OR authority given to any State.[/quote]

You have to separtate any protection of the Bill of rights into the period prior to the spring of 1866 and after. After the ratification of the 14th amendment, the courts gradually have decided that the drafters of the amendment really DID mean that they wanted the states to recognize the first 8 amendments of the Constitution. About every one has been incorporated under the law except the 2nd and the 3rd. State Concealed Carry legislation relied on the 2nd amendment NOT protecting any citizen from restrictions by the state, only the feds. I can quote the court opinions when I have more time.

[quote]I thought it was universally accepted that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th gave the most rights to the people, not the State or Federal governments. [/quote]

The first 8 amendments to the Constitution are individual rights.

[quote]Of course, I haven't done the reseach that JImV has but it stll makes no sense to me that you can bear arms only a certain was under the 2nd Amendment, open, when so many locales are passing restrictions on even carrying open. How then does one bear arms for self defense, which is the other reason so often spelled out in early America discussions? Overthrow tyrannical governments, self defense. Those are mentioned many, many times. Why else does on carry concealled OTHER than self defense?[/quote]

Logic and the law are not often the same thing. I was speaking of the Constitution. The first thing you have to recognize is that the BOR's was seen only as a restriction on the Congress until after the Civil War. Remember, the entire Collective Militia rights theory was only the creation of law schools in the period from 1910 to 1930. The first federal case to recognize such a right was in the 1930's, 140 years after the BOR's was ratified. It would seem to me that in the 140 some years before that court found that right someone might just have mentioned it.

Judges and lawyers have spent 240 years perverting the Constitution. Finding out what it meant to the drafters is not all that hard, it just takes more time and effort than the legal community is willing to devote. Besides, if the effort is made, a lot of existing Constitutional law would look pretty stupid.

For example...how can anyone say, with a straight face, that the founders intended a protected right to abortion when those same founders made the practice illegal in every state?

Courts perverted that one.

Pages

Log in to post comments