The misuse of the freedom of speech can cause much damage. There are many complicated laws dealing with defamation, copyright, ect.
Should we deny people their freedom of speech until they take a class?
You are sort of correct. However, as strange as it may seem, many people are comforted by the idea of a government that tells them what to do. I don't understand it. So, bottom line, many people actually agree with the many infringements on our freedoms imposed by the idiots whom we idiots have elected.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, and if so, let me know,
[you posted "That is wrong - Article ump-tee-squat Section so-forth-and-so-on be damned."]
but you seem to be saying that you don't care what the Constitution literally says. I gotta disagree.
The Constitution IS important. It is, among other things, why we are right and they (the Sarah Bradys) are wrong, in BOTH a legal and moral sense. Those little clauses are what our president and military swear to uphold and defend.
If some enforceable concept of right and wrong exists outside the constitution, and makes it irrelevant (as you seem to argue), then there goes the Bill of Rights -- out the window. That's the problem with the "living constitution" crapola -- usually advanced by liberals (though some shortsighted conservatives seem to want to apply it to the fourth amendment, as well). It is an excuse to ignore what it actually says.
Without a textually enforced constitution, the president is no different from a dictator, and congress no different from the Court of Star Chamber.
At the end of the day, Strimling wishes the second amendment wasn't there. It sounds like you wish the Article 1 section 8 provisions weren't there.
I can't. I took this oath, and I believe in it.
Â§806. Attorney's oath
Upon admission to the bar, every applicant shall, in open court, take and subscribe an oath [b]to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State,[/b] and take the following oath, or, in the case of an applicant conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, such applicant shall make appropriate affirmations to the same effect: [1975, c. 66 Â§ 5 (amd).]
"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God."
rnelsen, the reason for the anger is simple to understand and, in my opinion, reasonable. When someone like Strimling proposes a bill like this we get angry, but when someone like Jeff - who is supposed to be a gun rights advocate proposes a bill like this that erodes those rights and could help him line his pockets we feel betrayed and get furious. He sought to have this bill introduced under the guise that gun owners supported it (because of his position). That's plain wrong.
You fall into the same trap that Jeff does. You believe in the program you teach (that's fine) but then take the next step and propose that the government mandate that people take it.
If the information that you teach is that important and/or valuable, why not make it available either on the web or in printed form? That way we can all read it without having to take the course. How far would you require someone to drive to get the course? Since you're in favor of mandating it, how many should be given each year in how many locations? How about folks living on the islands - how many courses a year will be given there? How many courses are available in St. Agatha? Will they all be free? Will you guarantee that they're available?
I again went back and read all your posts pertinent to the point you are trying to make with respect to Consititutional powers and the right of the States to regulate our use of firearms and I still think you are misunderstanding that portion of Article 1, section 8 you are quoting.
I think where you draw incorrect conclusions is where you make the leap between citizens being members of unorganized militias and the right of the States to organize and train orgnaized militias.
I think you also err when you consider that those powers to organize and train militas necessarily extend to private citizen's behavior. As you correctly state, that militia references in Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution are subservient to the Second Amendment, not the reverse.
O.K. - Knucklehead tapped out on lawyer speak - someone tag Knucklehead so he can hop the ropes and sit down.
I've not read all of this thread, so don't know if this has been addressed, I have a permit to carry, but I don't carry expressly for the human threat. I carry mostly against animal threat, the 4 legged kind, meaning canine.
I spend a good amount of my time in the woods and fields working and find it comforting to carry a pocket pistol. I need to carry concealed because some clients would find it offensive if I was visibly packing.
Dogs have confronted me and why I have yet had to even pull my pistol on a dog, I've come very close on several occasions. I am positive that the fact that the dog knew I was not to be trifled with saved my sorry butt. I did at one point shoot at a coyote that was a bit too socialized.
I've read the laws necessary to carry concealed, they are not that complex, I don't need to take some course about concealed carry, nor do 99 percent of the people who have cc permits. Just like I do not need to take a course on trapping, hunting, tree arboring, electrical home wiring, motorcycle driving.
Society always wants to make things idiot proof while all the time it forgets that most of the idiots are making the rules and making idiots of mankind as a whole with their rules.
We don't need no friggen classes, get off our backs.
for all intents and purposes...
[size=24]THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THE WAY THEY WERE!!![/size]
WEINXXXXX WENT AND STUCK HIS DUMB ASS OUT WHERE THERE WAS NO NEED TO!!!
I HOPE THERE ARE 100 PRO SECOND AMENDMENT PEOPLE THERE TESTIFYING
AGAINST THIS WHEN THEY HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment II 1.The power to bear arms is not delegated to the United States, 2.The power to infringe is PROHIBITTED to the States( 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right, clearly documented and upheld by many courts), therefore the power to infringe is also not granted to the states. That only leaves the power to the people. Bearing arms cannot be infringed upon by the state OR federal government. They do not have the power under the Constitution. That power is passed to the individual under Art. X. Your entire argument is true if and only if, the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right. If it isn't, then the power to "infringe" on bearing arms is a power reserved for the states. If it is an individual right, then the manner of bearing arms is left solely to the individual. There was never any discussion, tho weapons were clearly carried concealed, prior to concealed weapons law, because back then , We the People knew, without any doubt, the meaning of the term "infringed", and that the right to bear arms, any way the individual chose, was an individual right that was not granted to the Federal or state government. You ask me to find historical documents, from the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, to prove that concealed weapons are allowed under the Constitution. I can find none because none were necessary. I ask you to find documents from the time prior to the writing of the Bill of Rights, where banning concealed carry was what the writers meant.
[b]Maine Constitution Article I. Declaration of Rights.
Section 16. To keep and bear arms.[/b] Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Dan, you took the words right out of my mouth...
...---..., Hey SOS, be sure to alert us all as to when the pbulic hearing on this bill will take place. With plenty of advance warning that is. :)
I'll keep checking thestate web site and will post it under a new thread.
Would you prefer being sniped at over being sniped at? Dan was running an apples & oranges line & you fell for it.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to posess. One concerns action, one concerns potential.
What rnelsen said.
[quote]You ask me to find historical documents, from the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, to prove that concealed weapons are allowed under the Constitution. I can find none because none were necessary. I ask you to find documents from the time prior to the writing of the Bill of Rights, where banning concealed carry was what the writers meant.[/quote]
You ask me to prove a negative..no one spoke of the issue so ones one view of it applies. I worked from the other direction.
The founders DID hold long and often contentious discussions over both the militia and the 2nd. The history is full of quoted, papers, debates and later legislation on those issues. They defined the militia and they specifically wrote of the nature of the right outlined in the 2nd, an individual right.
They said nothing about concealed carry. No debate, no discussion, nothing...later, perhaps 20-30 years later, they DID write state laws over the issue. They debated thos laws and almost universally dismissed the 2nd as having any effect, as (1) the 2nd was a resgtriction on the feds, not the states, and (2), they never intended it or the similiar provisions in their state constitutions, to allow the practice. Almost all the early courts agreed.
It is so hard for me to see why gun owners cannot get behind a movement to educate their friends, families and neighbors to a plan that would allow them to defend their friends, families and neighbors in court when they believe they were being persecuted unfairly, unjustly or unconstitutionally. It could be done free of charge and take very little time. Just bring the subject up when speaking to other people. You would be able to educate yourselves by going to only two sites. Google Fully Infformed Jury and http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.jurquotes.htm It would be that easy. Rep. Rod Carrr told me in an E-mail that you as jurors are so senile and simple minded that you would decide a case," not by the evidence, but by which side told the saddest story." Is this true? Is this what you fear? Are your friends, families and neighbors really that senile that they would turn murderers, rapists and child molesters loose to ofend again? Would you? If the courts cannot convict, those laws will be repealed, as was prohibition repealed. Protect fellow gun owners, educate yourselves. Be a freedom fighter.
Bud - Flies....honey. Please.
You are right in the bull's eye but you make my eyes bleed - I can't imagine what it does to those with weaker constitutions.
If anyone wants to develop some callouses I suggest wandering over to the homosexual thread du jour and trying to ask common sense questions.
The restriction placed on the Feds under the 2nd are no less than the restrictions placed on the states in the 10th. I believe it is you who is asking to prove a negative. I still have 2 questions. Is the 2nd an individual right? What was the meaning of the term"infringe" during the writing of the Bill of Rights?
One entry found for infringement.
Main Entry: inÂ·fringeÂ·ment
1 : the act of infringing : VIOLATION
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
One entry found.
enÂ·croach Listen to the pronunciation of encroach
Middle English encrochen to get, seize, from Anglo-French encrocher, from en- + croc, croche hook â€” more at crochet
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another 2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
Knucklehead, your post above is the most inane answer I have ever recieved. Will you please tell me just what a Fully Informed Jury has to do with homosexuality. I completely fail to get the connection or is this just more of your ignorant sarcasm?
Democrat - I was posting my opinions. I am not actively trying to change the law but believe what I said. I do understand the anger but still feel it is somewhat misplaced.
As to your questions - I believe very strongly in the right to bear arms. I also cannot find anywhere in the Constitution, Federal Law, or Maine State Law any right to carry concealed weapons (arms). This is a privilege just the same as a drivers license is a privilege. Most people are able to get to a limited number of State Offices to renew or apply for a driver license and I believe they could do the same for a training course for a concealled carry permit. The class that I am advocating does not have to encompass the whole NRA training class that I teach, the 3 or 4 hour block regarding the laws effecting concealled carry could be done separately.
I do not know how many classes would be needed a year nor where they would be, but if made mandatory I believe they would be available. Maybe I have more faith in the system than you do. I doubt that they would be free but the cost can be minimal. The last I knew Atty Chapmans class was $15 it may be more now.
I am aware that this is a sensitive issue, and I am not advocating for a law change even though I believe it would be in the best interest of everyone carrying concealed. I understand that you probably have a differing opinion and support your right to have it. I don't support most liberal philosophy and I would not advocate anyone not being allowed to have their own opinions.
Fortunately firearm abuse by CCP holders is rare, where it has been allowed crime rates are down. I believe that by giving the people carrying a better background in what the law allows as concerns use of force we make sure there are not inadvertant problems. If that is falling into a trap so be it.
It's nice to hear from an ol' Compadre', especially now that we've moved away from our home of nearly 30 years in Cumberland Co. up here to Monmouth.
Hope to see a lot more of you in here, Sarge!
I've been meaning to take johnchapman's course for years, but never seem to get "a round tuit".
$15 seems most reasonable to me, and i'd be glad to enroll if I could find one held up this way (between Lewiston & Augusta).
Defending oneself in Court can be nearly as daunting as doing it in the street.
Being "Tried by 12" might not be quite as final as being "Carried by 6", but it ain't no cakewalk either, Podnahs - especially if you muffed up and LOSE!
Although no substitute for the course, I would highly recommend Massd Ayoob's excellent book "In the Gravest Extreme" for anyone contemplating the defensive use of firearms at home or out and about.
It's a great primer, even for those who wish to arm only for home defense and have no need or desire for a CWP.
Is there a web site somewhere that lists the dates and locations of upcoming firearms safety and "firearms and the Law" courses?
Since the move, I've joined the Monmouth F&G Club on Rt. 202 which is nearly within walking distance of the house, and the dues are a princely $30 a year. The range facilities are not "quite" what they are at Scarborough, needless to say, but they'll do for the time being.
We recently had a gun show there which was most successful, and may well be interested in hosting one of those classes if there was enough interest in the area.
The Board has been casting about for some way to get some of us qualified as Instructors - any suggestions?
Probably won't be renewing long time membership in SF&G this year, as I am not likely to be getting down that way often enough to justify the dues. But I'll certainly miss all the good folks there and the terrific range facilities. Hopefully, we might pop down there for a rifle match or some such just for old time's sake now and then.
Member T.L. remains in my thoughts & prayers; if you get a chance, drop me a PM and let us know how he's doing, won't you?