Disarming citizens during traffic stops

[fightingquaker13]

That still doesn't make the decision completely right ...in many ways it was a cop-out by the court....they ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment in general terms of an individuals rights, but still said DC could use 'restrictions' on said ownership and bearing of arms, which in my opinion contradicts their own decision. Kind of like the old 'having your cake and eating it too' saying.

If you are an American citizen, free of criminal conviction, you should be able to buy, own, and bear said arms at any time or place in this country.

Peg you're half right. It was a cop out, BUT that kind of cop out is how any smart and concientious appellate or supreme court justice does business when setting a new precedent. There are three rules.
Rule one: Rule only on the issue before the court, not hypotheticals (such as concealed carry) that the ruling may imply.
Rule two: Rule as narrowley as possible. This gives time for legislators and lower courts t hash things out on the ground  and produce some results you can look at. That way you're not flying blind when something like a ccw issue does come up.
Rule three: The SCOTUS is not in the business of doing justice. It is in the busines of making rules so that lower courts know how to rule. It will only (in theory, in a perfect world) take a case if the lower circuits are in conflict or there is a new area to be deat with (like the internet) or if there is a clear constiutional issue. Don't be upset that Heller didn't go further. It was an almost perfect ruling. It told the state no, you can't abridge cerain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.
fightingquaker13

[PegLeg45]

Peg you're half right. It was a cop out, BUT that kind of cop out is how any smart and concientious appellate or supreme court justice does business when setting a new precedent. There are three rules.
Rule one: Rule only on the issue before the court, not hypotheticals (such as concealed carry) that the ruling may imply.
Rule two: Rule as narrowley as possible. This gives time for legislators and lower courts t hash things out on the ground  and produce some results you can look at. That way you're not flying blind when something like a ccw issue does come up.
Rule three: The SCOTUS is not in the business of doing justice. It is in the busines of making rules so that lower courts know how to rule. It will only (in theory, in a perfect world) take a case if the lower circuits are in conflict or there is a new area to be deat with (like the internet) or if there is a clear constiutional issue. Don't be upset that Heller didn't go further. It was an almost perfect ruling. It told the state no, you can't abridge cerain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.
fightingquaker13

That would be fine if the lower courts ruled by the same standards instead of the usual self-satisfying agendas (of the judges). Many judges (including SCOTUS) rule based more on their political affiliations instead of the reading of the letter of the law.
What good did it do for the citizens of DC to have the SCOTUS rule that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right, only to then allow DC to continue to restrict that right with so much red-tape regulations that they might as well have left it alone to start with. Sure they can sue DC and it'll be tied up in lower courts for the next ten years (hashing it out). Like you said, "It told the state no, you can't abridge certain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.", but they are still doing so in spite of the ruling.

I understand your point on narrowing and pinpointing the exact nature of the area being ruled on by the court (like leaving out CCW as you mentioned) and agree to a large extent, as to the nature of how the court should conduct hearings. But if the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was read as intended (IMO) then the issue would be rendered moot. Shall not be infringed means just that. Which is what DC and most other 'civilized' big cities have been doing all along, infringing on a God-given right that is merely 'guaranteed' by the Constitution.

I think we're somewhat on the same page (or at least the same chapter) just reading with different light.      



Maybe it's just a 'pipe-dream' of what should be...... and then we wake into the real world.....

[PegLeg45]

Thought this story from this past weekend would be kind of pertinent to this thread since it involves a routine traffic stop and two officers being shot. I think it reaffirms the idea that the CCW folks are the 'good guys' and are generally not to be worried about in this situation. It's usually the bad guys that just start shooting.
The shooter ran, but turned himself in sometime Sunday.



Sammy Coleman and James Mock were attempting to make a routine traffic stop that turned into anything but, after Tells Junior pulled into 235 1st Street. That was where he opened fire, hitting both officers in the head.

"It's very seldom that we have a shooting, or something like that." James Mock is the former police chief of Cuthbert and was treated and released. He even went back to the crime scene later that night.

Sammy Coleman stayed in the hospital over night. "We are sad that it happened, and we don't want to look down on our officers."


For the story:  http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10133069&nav=menu37_2

[tombogan03884]

What caliber ?

[fightingquaker13]

That would be fine if the lower courts ruled by the same standards instead of the usual self-satisfying agendas (of the judges). Many judges (including SCOTUS) rule based more on their political affiliations instead of the reading of the letter of the law.
What good did it do for the citizens of DC to have the SCOTUS rule that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right, only to then allow DC to continue to restrict that right with so much red-tape regulations that they might as well have left it alone to start with. Sure they can sue DC and it'll be tied up in lower courts for the next ten years (hashing it out). Like you said, "It told the state no, you can't abridge certain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.", but they are still doing so in spite of the ruling.

I understand your point on narrowing and pinpointing the exact nature of the area being ruled on by the court (like leaving out CCW as you mentioned) and agree to a large extent, as to the nature of how the court should conduct hearings. But if the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was read as intended (IMO) then the issue would be rendered moot. Shall not be infringed means just that. Which is what DC and most other 'civilized' big cities have been doing all along, infringing on a God-given right that is merely 'guaranteed' by the Constitution.

I think we're somewhat on the same page (or at least the same chapter) just reading with different light.      



Maybe it's just a 'pipe-dream' of what should be...... and then we wake into the real world.....

As far as being on the same page we pretty much are. Just remember what I said about the SCOTUS not being in the business of doing justice. (That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact). They aren't worried about citizen X of DC. They are worried about setting up a clear uniform rule of what sort of gun control is ok and what is not. Heller starts the game. We have an individual right to guns and self defense is a good enough reason. The state can impose "reasonable" rules. Now the game proceeds. What restrictions are reasonable? What sort of guns can we own? Who can own them? Can they carry them? Who can regulate them, the city, the state, the feds? You're right sorting all this out will take years. This is what the SCOTUS wants, as it will establish legal precedent and patterns of consensus on what th 2A means on the ground. Its frustrating, but its the way the law, particularly Con. law works. To paraphrase Frost "The wheels of the Court grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding small".
FG13

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

What caliber ?

They have not said yet. I will watch the evening news and see if there is an update. From what they said at the noon report, the shots were glancing shots that did not penetrate into the skull.

(kind of like 'cro-magnon' man from a previous post, or was it 'cro-magnum' man?)

http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,5252.msg61967/topicseen.html#msg61967

[Rob10ring]

It's hard to believe that on this forum, there is an argument over what the second amendment means. As far as anything that SCOTUS decides upon, one vote could have sent Heller the other way and that can happen at anytime in the future. Any decision in the past could also have been influenced by the leanings of any justice placed on the bench by whatever crazy President of that time. This underlines the importance of joining the NRA and other groups that will press for the rights that we believe in.

Tab, regardless of what you believe the second actually means, do you feel that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed?

I feel that rights shouldn't necessarily be enumerated in the Constitution. And that we aren't limited to only the rights that are spelled out. Once a right has been put into words, others will try to box that right in to the meanings of how they interpret those words.

I also feel that this right is as clear as day and that the founders expressed their intent for this right many times.
Example:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

… Oh, and "Don't tread on me!"

[fightingquaker13]

I feel that rights shouldn't necessarily be enumerated in the Constitution. And that we aren't limited to only the rights that are spelled out. Once a right has been put into words, others will try to box that right in to the meanings of how they interpret those words.

+10 fuzzdaddy and it puts you ahead of most of my students. Hamilton raised the same point when he argued against the bill of rights in federalist 84. His fear was that any unenumerated right would be taken as a mere privelege by the state. He was about halfway wrong, but its still a valid point as the ninth ammendment is a dead letter. You are right though, that the constitution doesn't interpret itself and we need to choose people who will protect our rights when choosing judges.
FQ13

[Sgt Z Squad]

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."  George Mason - 1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

[Rastus]

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."  George Mason - 1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

I appreciate the quiet clarity you bring us.