Friday, December 9, 2011
Is "Constitutional Carry" Coming to Georgia?
The guy in the video says there have been NO negative reprecussions in Arizona, Alaska and Vermont where they enjoy such freedom. But, what about the most infamous incident of 2011? Wasn't Loughner availing himself of this very "right?"
Why are the gun-rights folks so blind to the facts?
Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"But, what about the most infamous incident of 2011? Wasn't Loughner availing himself of this very 'right?'"
ReplyDeleteSo your position is that had Loughner been forced to get a concealed carry license that would have prevented him from committing mass murder?
Because surely someone that was hell bent on murder would not dare want to be charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a license. He has a reputation to uphold after all.
Fats... I guess the point is that PERHAPS it might have. It should not be easy to buy and carry weapons... I would not endorse banning guns...but what is wrong about CONTROL?
ReplyDelete"...but what is wrong about CONTROL?"
ReplyDeleteControl only works on the law abiding.
By definition, criminals do not follow laws so I don't see concealed carry laws affecting criminals in any significant way. In fact the only way licensed concealed carry could possibly help avert another Loughner event is if:
ReplyDelete(1) The personal had no criminal record, and
(2) The police just happened to stop him/her on their way to their intended crime scene, and
(3) The police officer that stopped him/her happened to have some "articulable reason" to search the vehicle, and
(4) The police officer managed to execute the search without the person attacking the officer.
And someone might say, "Well, that could happen." Then we have to balance that remote benefit with the danger that people face suddenly and unexpectedly. If someone suddenly starts stalking you for example, waiting two to three months to complete a concealed licensing process could guarantee your death.
In a free society, there is no way to stop a person with no previous criminal record from hurting people. They could make gasoline bombs, set buildings on fire, turn freeways into multi-hundred car accidents, drive cars and trucks into buildings, use bulldozers to level occupied houses or other structures, etc. etc. etc.
If your argument anonymous is that criminals do not obey the law, so we shouldn't have laws at all, you would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn countries with more restrictive firearms regulation, criminals have a much harder time getting their hands on guns, and there are far fewer crimes committed using guns.
By definition, criminals do not follow laws so I don't see concealed carry laws affecting criminals in any significant way.
ReplyDeleteOK, a person drives drunk, yet shall issue allows him to keep his permit to carry despite the fact he can't drive for the next 20 years--Is he law abiding?
But, if one needs a permit and it is illegal to carry without one--that is one more charge the government can use against the criminal.
In fact, since you all point out that criminals don't register their firearms--their unregistered firearms are easy to pin to them as a crime.
Why make it easier for them?
Do you keep leave your keys in your cars? Your houses unlocked? Your valuables in plain sight?
Come on--make it tough for them--not easy.
Anonymous also wrote:If someone suddenly starts stalking you for example, waiting two to three months to complete a concealed licensing process could guarantee your death.
ReplyDeletewrong again Anonymous. You can get a restraining order issued same day you file for it. It doesn't take two to three months either to get a permit.
The remote possibility is that someone will randomly involve you in violence.
I have proposed here an eye exam and a mental health check for prospective gun owners, of the type similar to what is sometimes used for certain kinds of employment testing. Loughner should have been stopped; Arizona has an excellent mental health law that was not used. It is less likely to be used because the conservatives in AZ cut the funding for it.
Your points are addressed, extensively, in our archives.
The entire argument of FWM and the anonymous one rests on this.
ReplyDelete"Control only works on the law abiding."
I doesn't take a genius to see that it's just not true.
Gun control laws the way I envision them would directly impact on the criminal's ability go get a gun because gun availability would go way down. Why is that so difficult for you guys?
"Gun control laws only work on the law abiding." is pretty much nonsense. Gun control works to limit the number of firearms in circulation, if for no other reason than that people can't be bothered to get a permit if it's going to take longer than 10 minutes or cost more than a few bucks.
ReplyDeleteTS trotted out the false "gunz and carz are equivalent" meme, incorrectly, earlier today.
I'll give you one that works.
Guns and cars both, when used by irresponsible shitheads or criminals result in injury, property damage and death to others. When you buy auto insurance ALL of the costs of casualty are used to determine rates. That is why comprehensive insurance is expensive in areas where there is a lot of theft, arson or vandalism of automobiles. Doesn't matter if you make a claim or not, you're going to be paying a certain base rate*.
Teh gunzloonz are not willing to buy liability insurance against the possibility of accidentally shooting someone or deliberately shooting someone who they have no justification for shooting.
Somehow the gunzloonz have convinced themselves that their freedom is personal but their liability is shared across society. They're bums looking for a free ride.
* If you do have a claim, that rate will likely go up.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you go for permits, but my carry license took the bureaucratic time. It all depends on who's processing the forms and how many there are to process.
You do mention countries in which gun control works, but remember, those countries had many fewer guns to start with, and those guns were often registered already. Here in America, you have to overcome the hurdle of hundreds of millions of privately owned and unregistered firearms.
okjimm,
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with control? How much control do you support? Where does it end? What's wrong with freedom?
but my carry license took the bureaucratic time. It all depends on who's processing the forms and how many there are to process.
ReplyDeleteApparently you are unaware of some authorities fast tracking permits where there is a reasonable expectation of being in actual danger rather than someone just kinda hoping and being really scared they might.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with freedom?
Nothing is wrong with freedom. I'm sure those kids in North Carolina who were shot and killed would have liked to be free from gun violence.
The reality is that there is a balance between the freedom of gun ownership and the harm done others by those firearms.
The statistics make it clear that a lot of people are harmed by those firearms. Therefore that freedom gets reasonably limited to prevent that. That's where the balance needs to be determined between the dead and injured people being denied their freedom from the damned guns.
And yet you only seem to care about your personal freedom and offer no useful solutions to reduce the number of gun violence incidents.
That we have a lot of guns is simply part of the problem, not a reason to skip a solution.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHere we go again: The statistics don't make anything clear. You say that they show a need for greater control; I say that they don't. It's a matter of interpretation.
We need lots of control because right now the situation is out of control.
ReplyDeleteGreg, your interpretation is usually one which is out of line with reality.
ReplyDeleteIn fact,Greg,you have yet to provide any solid evidence to back up your assertions.
Call mean elitist, but if one of your students came in and wrote a paper which demonstrated they had not read the home work.
Didn't understand the home work if they actually did read it.
And didn't back up their assertions with any evidence?
Would you give them a passing grade?
Greg,you have done all the above.
I can't give you a pass.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteWe've been presented with statistics here time and time again. Must I repeat what we've already seen? I'm saying that in all the ones that I've been shown, nothing says to me that we're out of control or in need of increased control.
Now, if you'd like to discuss statistics, name which ones you want included, and we can go through them. You want me to back up my assertions with facts. The claim that I'm making here is that none of the facts tells me that gun control is needed. I don't find any of the numbers that challenge my position. If you have numbers that you think should challenge me, show them to us.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteWe've been presented with statistics here time and time again. Must I repeat what we've already seen? I'm saying that in all the ones that I've been shown, nothing says to me that we're out of control or in need of increased control.
That is only because you are unwilling to be intellectually honest.
We have more gun deaths and injuries than countries which are more restrictive.
Being restrictive CLEARLY works. You are against anything which is reasonable - like denying firearm permits to people who are blind, and who are therefore clearly unable to implement the rules of firearm safety.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI am being intellectually honest. I don't hold the same values that you hold.
Being restrictive only works in countries where there weren't so many guns to begin with. But I don't agree with the basis of those societies. Yes, there are costs to freedom. The question for me is not whether a restrictive system would work--it might--but whether such a system is right for a free society. I don't think that it is.
You don't have to agree with me, but I do get tired of you calling me dishonest or a bad thinker. Can't you see that we come at the problem from different positions? Can't you see that we value different ideals? If you could see that, you'd understand how my side thinks.
I am being intellectually honest.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you are incapable of being intellectually honest from my dealings with you.
You pretend to have legal knowledge, yet I more than consistently demonstrate that you know fuck all about the topic.
Yet, you keep foisting your ungrounded opinions upon me.
Intellectual honesty is knowing when you are out of your league in a topic.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou want a source that is a recognized expert in the law? How about Laurence Tribe? How about Sanford Levinson, whose ideas about a broad reading for the whole Bill of Rights are the ultimate source of what I said.
Consider this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/us/07firearms.html?ref=laurencehtribe
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of it and of Tribe's conversion.
Greg says, "Being restrictive only works in countries where there weren't so many guns to begin with."
ReplyDeleteI would like to know where that comes from. I thought I was the only one around here who made stuff up out of my own head. I don't object to it, mind you, I just wondered if that's what you did there.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed Great Britain here before. Handguns are nearly impossible for a private citizen to own legally, but there weren't as many in that country as we have, so getting rid of the registered ones wasn't too difficult.
We have more than 300,000,000 people in this country and hundreds of millions of guns. That's far outside the raw population numbers and the numbers of guns in any other country, so far as I've seen.
Once again Greg Camp reveals himself to be dumber than a fucking stump.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying, jerk-off, is that nothing can be done about the problem we have in this country with insufficiently trained gunzloonz and their hoards of gunz so we should just let it go. Deep thinking is not really your strong suit. Well, thinking at all, appears not be your strong suit, either.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the kinds of gun laws that exist in countries such as found in Europe won't work here. I didn't say that there's nothing that we can do to reduce gun violence.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI'm still interested in seeing what you have to say about Laurence Tribe, et al. I'm not being facetious here. There are recognized experts in the law who agree with my side. I'd like to know what your analysis of their positions is.
HAve you read tribe, greg?
ReplyDeleteHow about they are full of shit--it has become a cottage industry these days to write revisionist history.
I believe he started out as a "collectivist", but changed.
www.saf.org/TribeUSA.html
The nice thing is that people like you, Greg, won't bother with challenging it.
Of course, if you want to play fast and loose with the law you can say it's about anything.
That doesn't give it backing or any real basis.
Tribe is not very convincing to me--he is probably very authoritative to you since you point out that you agree with him.
Greg, do you know what argumentum ad verecundiam is?
To be quite honest, I have looked deeply into the topic--the issue was the State's Militias v the Federal Army, not personal arms.
The issue that the Second Amendment relates to is how the military would be organised, not personal weapons.
If you are getting into living constitutions, then you have to admit that some things become dated and obsolete--the second amendment is one of those.
Reading it in a modern context takes it from its real meaning.
I should also add, greg, that I have written quite a bit on the Second Amendment. And provided a bibliography on the topic.
ReplyDeleteYou can read my view. My view is my own personal one, based upon my personal research and knowledge of Anglo-American-commonwealth military history.
I find that the individual right does not stand scrutiny. Many of the people who promote it do so because it is popular--not because it is correct.
You can cite that popular opinion supports this view and that there are "scholars" who promote this view as well--but my opinion is based upon reading the actual sources.
As I said, I have posted things I have found in my research under this tag:
mikeb302000.blogspot.com/search/label/Second Amendment HIstory
Furthermore, while Tribe has argued before the Supreme Court, I am not sure of his actual law practise.
ReplyDeleteAnyone with a knowledge of law should know that one must take the ENTIRE text of the law AS WRITTEN.
The individual right interpretation requires too much additional information, otherwise it does mean that we have a right to own WMD.
I know that you have your extratextual reason for saying that WMD is not what was intended.
But, if you are going to use the text to find the limit--then the right is limited to the militia.
As William O. Douglas pointed out:
Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143 (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall)
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteTo understand what "arms" means, we do have to look at extratextual sources. To find a right to privacy and abortion, we do have to interpret principles, not just the literal text. What the document meant originally is important, but it's also important what we understand it to mean today. The principle of individual liberty is at the core of the Constitution, and that's the basis of how we have to read it for today.
Laurence Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, and he's arrived at the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment in the same way that I did. But because you disagree with him, he's easy to dismiss.
Greg, please do not lecture me on the practise of law--it is a topic on which you are ignorant.
ReplyDeleteDespite what you may believe, one cannot go outside the statute for meaning.
Greg, have you actually studied military history and the institution of the Militia in Anglo-American tradition? I seriously doubt it.
Both you and Tribe are entitled to your opinion, but it is not based in fact or reality. It is highly unpersuasive.
I can tell that you have not read what I have posted.
You can cite all the pretended "experts", but nothing in the Constitutional context implies that the right to bear arms was meant for individual purposes.
The question that raises is why isn't the verbiage present in the text of the second amendment as it is in other state constititional clauses dealing with the right to arms?
Next, the Constition says that one of its purposes is to address the common defence--not personal defence.
Thirdly, there is more than enough contemporary sources saying that the issue was standing army--not personal arms.
And, as I said, when the topic of standing armies arises--the militia is given as a counter to the threat of such a force.
Greg, I seriously doubt that you could present a valid refutation to the above--especially if I give you the quote in its entirety to show that I am correct.
If you want my proof, please look at the posts I have made here--I will not bother reposting them since I know you are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Furthermore, the only way that Miller can be properly overturned is to provide evidence that the decision was clearly in error.
ReplyDeleteOr Amend the wording of the statute.
Neither has been done, Heller only pretended that Miller was unclear in its interpretation of the Second Amendment, which Justice Douglas (who happened to be on the Court at the time of Miller) demonstrates is incorrect.
As I said, you can bring in all the "experts" you want, Greg, but I have read them and found them unpersuasive.
Only someone who is both legally and historically ignorant, such as yourself, would be swayed by their arguments.
By the way, greg, it was once held that the planets revolved around the earth by scholars and laity. Scholars can be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt takes a lot to hold your opinion in the face of popular belief in a false idea.
Ask Galileo.
Furthermore, I find that any of the legal leaps made in Roe v. Wade had some validity based uppon previous Supreme Court precedent.
ReplyDeleteHeller-McDonald was completely from left field and without any proper constitutional basis.
But, you wouldn't understand that last comment.
Despite what you think, Greg, you have no real understanding of the issues and how this topic REALLY plays out.
In fact, you have no real understanding of either decision--other than what you have been told to think.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou're using the heavy artillery here, trotting out Galileo. Scholars can be wrong, or they can be right. Heller and McDonald found an individual right to firearms. That's the current ruling. Miller is questionable, since the defense never presented its side, but the other two rulings are the current ones. All of this surely will be argued in the courts over the next few years.
Still, I've given you a respected legal expert, someone who is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, and you just dismiss him without analysis.
GC wrote:You're using the heavy artillery here, trotting out Galileo. Scholars can be wrong,
ReplyDeleteAh, you poor stupid sod.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR FAILURE AT CRITICAL THINKING!!!!!!!!!!
Galileo provided proof he was right.
The opposition did not successfully oppose that proof - you know, like you don't provide credible proof.
Even the POPE acknowledged Galileo was correct, but could not support his view because it was unpopular.
Like gunloons don't support what is obviously and demonstrably proven, because they don't LIKE IT. Not because it is lacking in being factual.
So NO, your claim that scholars can be wrong does not apply here. Why? Because REAL scholars - not like you - adjust their views so that they conform to the best available data and require proof for those beliefs.
The Pope - and the gunloons - disregard that proof and make their decisions on other less legitimate criteria that ignore facts, particularly anything that disagrees with what they WANT.
Like you Greg - inherent intellectual dishonesty on a regular basis.
Greg, if you have read what I have written, you would have seen how extensively I have covered this topic.
ReplyDeleteHeller found an individual right to firearms, yet you are neglecting Justice Stevens' dissent--which I found very good.
On the other hand, I found Scalia's creative writing exercise extremely tortured like any supporter of the individual right--they have to demonstrate that a clause of the constitution was clause intended to be without effect. It was mere surplusage --that is entirely without meaning.
The right they created is not the one you claim it is, Greg, but I know that you haven't actually read, or understood Heller.
McDonald only applied the newly created right to the states, despite the fact that the actual power of the Federal Government is not one constitutionally held by the States.
I did not dismiss Tribe without analysis--you do not understand English if you believe that.
In fact, I gave you several reasons why no one claiming "an individual right" could be correct.
Tribe is only persuasive to someone like yourself, Greg, who has no understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation. In this comment, I have given yet another reason why Tribe is incorrect.
BTW, Professor Tribe penned an op-ed urging that the decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed; he argued that the Second Amendment guarantees a real individual right (not militia-men while in militia service), but declared that a complete ban on handguns passes "any plausible standard of review."
So, Greg, while tribe may believe in an "individual right", he demonstrates that such terminology does not give you the scope of such a right.
Yet another absurdity you find when you listen to people who expose the blather that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with militias, or standing armies.
Greg, I seriously doubt that you have read what I have written, if you have read what I have written you haven't understood it, and if you have understood it--you refuse to accept its validity.
You can be presented with as much factual evidence as I can muster, yet you will deny what I say.
So, Greg, I can indeed compare myself to Galileo.
And you fit in very well with the ignorant masses.
BTW, Greg, Aztec Red kindly admitted that the term "individual right" is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteIt is only intended to portray the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment as having nothing to do with the militia.
That, in and of itself, is incorrect.
The right is specifically tied to the militia service.
Again, that is something I have addressed quite extensively, but you would deny since it does not fit your cosmology.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that you don't fit into my cosmology. You aren't the center of the universe, and I refuse to believe that you are.
GC
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that you don't fit into my cosmology. You aren't the center of the universe, and I refuse to believe that you are.
Laci's relationship as a syllogism does not require your belief. Laci made a comparison to Galileo, not to being the center of the universe.
You are too stupid to teach; you yourself clearly need the most elementary level of remediation in your reading,and thinking skills.
There is oo one as stupid as the willfully stupid.
That would be YOU.