Comments on: A.C. Courthouse wants to take your guns away, brrrrrother!

By: Cathy

Cathy — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:27:48 +0000

Uh-oh. They’re gonna go crazy in your comments now.

By: Netmom

Netmom — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:33:44 +0000

This does seem like a reasonable accommodation… if you can’t carry it into the liquor store or the local tavern, why carry it into the courthouse (where seemingly normal people can fall prey to irrational emotions under certain circumstances).

I should be able to take Dog anywhere someone else can carry a piece… unlike a weapon, no one can turn Dog against me.

By: Matt Hearn

Matt Hearn — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:04:20 +0000

“Maybe, but the way I see it, no matter how many tests, drills, permits these people have to carry a piece, the fact that they have one out in public is infringing on my piece of mind, and thats a right I deserve to have, more than whatever piece of mind you get by carrying Mssr’s Smith and Wesson on your person.”

Why, exactly, does your right to piece of mind trump mine? Particularly since my carrying a gun, for a variety of reasons, actually makes you SAFER?

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:10:18 +0000

Uh oh…
and so it begins!
Good luck AT!
(I’m with you!)

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:34:09 +0000

I don’t see how you carrying a gun makes anybody safer, Matt.
Fact is, you’re carrying a weapon of destruction. Sure, you might be safe with it, but frankly, I’d appreciate you keeping it at home.
I don’t trust you.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:49:53 +0000

Coincedentally (Sp? Is that a word) We had lockdown training here at school yesterday. Practicing what to do with the kiddies in case an intruder comes into the building with a …
(not a banjo…)

It was surreal. We have to get out of sightlines and have them sit on the floor curled up into balls.

This is in response to all the school SHOOTINGS that we have had to deal with as a nation since Columbine.

I can’t believe that this is part of my job as a teacher.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:59:53 +0000

Coincidentally

That’s better!

By: VA Bluebelle

VA Bluebelle — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:07:37 +0000

Dear Matt-
Strangers with guns do not make ME feel safer. Ever.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:19:07 +0000

“Particularly since my carrying a gun, for a variety of reasons, actually makes you SAFER?”

LOL!

Unless you are a police officer or a member of the military, I don’t believe armed amateurs like you make me safer, Matt. Your unsupported assertions to the contrary hold no water with me.

By: impy

impy — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:24:49 +0000

even if I trusted Matt,,,,,possibly he’s extremely trustworthy and a great shot,,,,,doesn’t mean a fruitloop doesn’t take his gun FROM him,,,,then the fruitloops have the guns,,,. I don’t want them around me either. We have them in our home, for hunting only, locked in an enormous safe in the closet, with a combination that even I don’t remember. If someone broke into my home, I’d have to say, “Please excuse me, while I find/call to get the combination to this gun safe, and while you wait for me to open it, assemble a gun, and load ammunition, could you please refrain from killing me or my children? Thanks ever so kindly,,,,,,,,snoooooooort. Totally NOT going to happen that way is it?

By: impy

impy — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:26:28 +0000

however I do love to shoot the BB gun at the out house at our family cabin, while someone is in it. It never goes through the wall, but usually scares the poo out of someone. Which should be ok since it’s an outhouse and all. But still I think that makes me a fruitloop with a gun. Oh dear.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:30:13 +0000

Just glad it’s you and not me this time, AT.

You’re absolutely right, though. I don’t trust anyone’s marksmanship or judgement if I can’t see a badge.

And if you don’t have peace of mind being out of the house because you’re not carrying a piece…I don’t imagine you’re going to have peace of mind that much anyway…

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:50:42 +0000

See, thats the irony, is that I’m a full on supporter of the right to own guns, and bear them in appropriate places. I think the NRA has been shooting itself in the foot with its knee-jerk unwillingness to concede any points whatsoever. Nobody needs an ‘assault rifle’. Nobody needs a semi-automatic pistol in Walmart. If you’re that afraid that its going to be high noon out in public, you’re better off not leaving the compound.

By: Joan

Joan — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:09:07 +0000

I agree, AT. Skip the animals too, unless you’re going to eat them.

By: Kuni

Kuni — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:12:06 +0000

Okay…I have to say…as a Canadian, even the fact that it’s legal in the first place to carry a gun in public blows my mind, let alone carrying it into a COURTHOUSE…

But, I suppose I don’t have the right to judge, do I? It isn’t my culture, and I shouldn’t get all ethnocentric…

By: AT

AT — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:11:53 +0000

Hey hey, I’m a Canmerican, so you’re welcome here. Just don’t bring the cold.

By: daco

daco — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:27:27 +0000

So AT, you’re okay with limiting constitutionally protected rights?

Come on, I’m not a member of the NRA and I agree with your “shooting themselves in the foot” analogy to a degree, but the NRA is certainly no more wacko than the ACLU. They just happen to support different amendments.

If you don’t like the second amendment work to get it changed.

By: AT

AT — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:44:21 +0000

The point of amendments is that they aren’t changed, but interpreted.
I don’t think there is an interpretation of the thing that considers yea or nay towards a right to conceal firearms, or a right to own particular types of firearms.
I agree with the right to private citizens owning guns, as much as I think its a bad idea for most private citizens to own guns (statistically speaking, seems like the bad outweighs the good, tho I have no numbers to back me up)
And I won’t argue with you on the ACLU argument, but, I feel like by and large, the ACLU tends to have a wider scope, in that it doesn’t cater to an industry (unless you count the legal industry). The NRA is obviously only out to protect the gun industry’s interests.
Speciality bullets that penetrate kevlar, which the NRA has fought tooth and nail to protect, have no benefit to anybody who isn’t interested in piercing bullet proof armor.
I’d prefer that person not to be around my neighborhood, thanks.

By: daco

daco — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:09:45 +0000

Like I said, I agree that the NRA is at times politically their own worst enemy. The second amendment doesn’t grant you the right to mearly own firearms, it guarantees you the right to “keep and BEAR” those firearms. You are more than welcome to interpret those two words any way you like.
As for the NRA “obviously” protecting the gun industry’s interests…I could use that same logic to argue that the ACLU “obviously” protects the porn industry’s interest.

You say tomAto, I say tomaato.

By: sumgirl

sumgirl — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:10:51 +0000

gutsy post, AT.
{ahum … i don’t trust them either.}

By: Kuni

Kuni — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:29:23 +0000

::Hey hey, I’m a Canmerican, so you’re welcome here. Just don’t bring the cold. ::

I was going to make a smart-arsed comment about how it never snows in Vancouver, but then I realized that snow is falling outside. For the third time this winter.

You win this round…

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:34:59 +0000

Uh, daco, the 2nd Amendment very clearly links the right to keep and bear arms to a “well-regulated militia.” Yes, I’ve read the NRA bafflegab, but ultimately the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and so far, the Supreme Court has permitted limitations on the right to bear arms.

Only wingnuts believe the 2nd amendments implies unlimited right to bear arms–the right to own mortars, howitzers, tanks, hand grenades, thermonuclear weapons . . .

By: daco

daco — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:19:39 +0000

Uh Joel, only a wingnut would argue that anyone has suggested that “the 2nd amendments implies unlimited right to bear arms–the right to own mortars, howitzers, tanks, hand grenades, thermonuclear weapons…”

Of course the second amendment addresses “A well regulated militia…” It also clearly states that “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I certainly am not, and have not suggested that the second amendment refers to thermonuclear weapons.

By: Jacket

Jacket — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:21:25 +0000

I commented on this at Manland. In short, there are inmates in court, convicted felons, and such. The attempt to take guns from officers, it they will attempt that move, I sure as hell do not want a rank amateur running around with a gun for one to grab. The second amendment is not the only one involved here are the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th. All relating to a fair trial, and doing business with the government in a safe manner.

Tempers (in Court)+ guns= tragedy for two families.

By: Jacket

Jacket — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:22:43 +0000

Oh, and Matt, I don’t feel any safer because you have a gun. In fact, it is kinda creepy that you think that thought. Maybe you might want to get that psychological done on a do over.

By: MSueS

MSueS — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:24:32 +0000

Fayetteville Arkansas is having a trial right now that follows this subject. I find it very scary…Lots of protestors.. And how many are carrying?

By: Jacket

Jacket — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:27:10 +0000

daco says,

“So AT, you’re okay with limiting constitutionally protected rights?

If you don’t like the second amendment work to get it changed.”

So Mr. Strict Constructionist, is it unconstitutional to ban Convicted Felons from owning firearms or ammo? After all they are citizens, they just have a record, say for felony possession of Marijuana, non violent. They still can’t possess, own, transport or ship.

Please note that Mr. Nixons 1968 Ominbus Crime Control Act prohibits this, and a Ridge was just indicted on this charge the other day. Reference front page of the paper.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:53:40 +0000

“Of course the second amendment addresses “A well regulated militia…” It also clearly states that “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.””

Indeed. It links the two in a single sentence. Accordingly, the right of the People to keep and bear arms is contingent on membership in a well-regulated militia. All other rights to “bear arms” are properly regulated.

It is equally silly to assert that the Constitution protects your right to own a .45 as it is to assert the Constitution protects your right to own a thermonuclear weapon. Both are “arms,” and the literal language of the Constitution doesn’t distinguish between a knife and a hydrogen bomb. What it does do is provide for citizens as part of a well-regulated defense force to operate the weapons necessary to provide for the common defense. Any attempt to extend this to private ownership of firearms is sheer sophistry.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:11:32 +0000

Joel, history and the law tend to disagree with you.
It is interesting how different folks find such very different meanings in the same document.

By: girlfriend

girlfriend — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:07:48 +0000

Matt:

Please pay attention to a trial starting in Atlanta today. Two people killed at courthouse. Although you feel safer I don’t KEEP YOUR GUN OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE. This is not the Wild Wild West and people in the courthouse do not need you to protect them. That is what officers are for.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:42:20 +0000

“Joel, history and the law tend to disagree with you.”

There are and have been laws infringing on the right to bear arms in the US for decades, daco.

” . . . grenade launchers are covered in many of the assault weapons laws, each individual grenade is already controlled . . . registered, and taxed as a “destructive device” under the NFA.”

” . . . the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

“In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms “has a military sense, and no other” . . . “

“At present, with certain exceptions and disputes, the courts generally find it acceptable under the Second Amendment for federal, state, and local jurisdictions to:

. . .
Ban or permit handgun possession
Regulate or not regulate handgun possession
Prohibit or allow the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons
Regulate or not regulate the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons
Ban or permit assault weapons
Prohibit possession of firearms by persons . . .
Ban or regulate bombs, artillery, and explosives
Require or not require the registration of firearms
Ban or permit the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property
Ban or not ban the possession of weapons of any kind on Federal property . . .
Prohibit firearm possession anywhere in licensed liquor establishments . . . “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So, daco, both history and the law, as documented above, agree with me. There are certainly controversies, as there are with many aspects of the constitution (the Administration is currently challenging the right of habeas corpus, for example), there is no question that there is much history and legal precedent showing that the state *can* infringe on the right to *bear arms.*

Hope this helps.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:49:47 +0000

I’m a little disappointed that we didn’t get more of a show of force from the NRA folks.

By: Rangerdog

Rangerdog — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:43:40 +0000

Only one thing to say about this issue, The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect and uphold all the Ideals set forth in the 1st Amendment. Read the 1st Amendment to see what WE can lose if the 2nd was not in place. It was done in Germany when Hitler came to power. The German people had a Government for the people, but one man, one political party overwhelmed and was “Voted” into power. It happened there, it could happen here. Or anywhere a Free People doesn’t have the power to Reject the Idealism of a powerful individual or group of individuals that hold power over the lands and its peoples. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution put in the 1st Amendment what King George would not let the people to have….Freedom. Then they asked themselves “How can we make sure that another King George doesn’t arise in the Future of this Republic. Their answer was the 2nd amendment. That is the Reason for it’s existence.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:21:43 +0000

“Their answer was the 2nd amendment. That is the Reason for it’s existence.”

This is just silly. Your little pop guns don’t stand a chance against the most powerful military on the planet.

More NRA propaganda.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:46:52 +0000

Joel, I think he has some merit. When the 2nd was drafted, I believe that one of the intentions was to protect against a non-mechanized army.
Still, has that niggling ‘militia’ thing. Sure wish they put a footnote on that.

By: Jacket

Jacket — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:19:43 +0000

“Sure wish they put a footnote on that.”

Just one of those intentionally vague statements to allow future generations to adjust to the society in which they face. Thus, it can be interpeted to fit the need of the society.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:15:59 +0000

AT, whatever merit that argument had at one time (and the history is ambiguous on this point), it is just laughably silly today.