Thursday, May 8, 2014

Old Common Law treatises on carrying of firearms and arms

Think the common law gave people the right to carry weapons or that walking about with a weapon is in someway not something the cops should investigate?

Here are some old legal texts about carrying weapons in public:

The Country Justice, by Michael Dalton, from a facsimile of the 1655 edition, as produced in 1996 by The Legal Classics Library, Special Edition Copyright, Division of Gryphon Editions, New York.
So of such as shall carry any Gunnes, Dagges, or Pistols that be charged; or that shall go apparelled with privy Coats or Doublets, the Justice may cause them to finde sureties for the Peace, and may take away such weapons.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26 1829 (2d ed.)
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
By the way, the First Amendment right is:
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
I know that the term "conservative" has come to have a meaning of something along the lines of being out of touch with reality, or just plain off insane in United States usage, but that shouldn't have changed the meaning of the term peaceably to mean people who are armed.

I don't care what planet you are from or what universe you inhabit in your diseased minds, but carrying weapons and peaceably are incompatible.

As for people calling the cops on open carriers, people are immune from prosecution if 
you have a valid belief that a crime might be committed. As one site said, criminals feel free to commit crimes, damaging more communities and individuals if no one reports suspicious activity or reports a crime.

If anything, these idiots are a godsend for a mass shooter since they will hope that people will not notice them and do anything.

I think most police departments would rather investigate a person with a gun than have a massacre.

If anyone should get shit for wasting police time, it's the open carriers. But, they want to attract police attention.

And the actual standard would be that the activity "Raises a reasonable concern for public safety."  In other words, the cops would be justified in checking out the open carry person in Georgia where he was intimidating the people at a little league game would not be based upon his merely carrying, but because he was acting in a way that was disturbing the peace.

After all, wouldn't you want to be certain that someone you didn't know who was carrying
a gun wasn't a threat?

Or would you prefer that you are enabling someone who slaughters in a mass shooting?


See also:


21 comments:

  1. "An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."

    So if the assembly is for a lawful purpose then it would not be an indictable offense even if weapons were present? Doesn't that imply that indeed people do have the right to bear arms publicly as long as they are not breaking any laws? Further, if the individual is doing nothing to give "just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them (guns)" then he is free to carry those weapons in public? See the way most anyone with common sense would read your quote is that guns themselves are not illegal nor is it illegal to carry them in public. It is only illegal if you intend to use them for illegal purposes. Is it your contention that anybody carrying a weapon is automatically intending to use that weapon illegally? If so, did you turn yourself in when you were carrying a gun?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know what the intentions of a person carrying a gun is? If they are peaceable, why do they need to carry guns? It would be stupid to treat a person carrying a gun the same as a person not carrying a gun. Part of being prepared and on the defense of possible danger, is to judge the people you come into contact with.

      Delete
    2. "How do you know what the intentions of a person carrying a gun is? If they are peaceable, why do they need to carry guns?"

      Its quite simple Anon, if they aren't threatening you, then you treat them like any other person. Just as you would a person not carrying a gun. If you aren't comfortable being near the person you are quite free to walk away.

      Delete
    3. " If they are peaceable, why do they need to carry guns?" There are plenty of reasons a peaceable person would carry a gun. Hunting, self protection, protecting someone else, target shooting, law enforcement...

      Delete
    4. One of the ways I protect myself is not letting strangers approach me with a gun. It would be to late to find out his intentions were not good, if I let him get the drop on me by allowing him to be so close, that I couldn't do anything about it if he decided to become evil. I'd be stupid to give a guy the first shot.

      Delete
    5. That's a bit dismissive, ss. Anonymous brings up a good point. Lawful and well-intentioned guys with guns appear exactly like criminals up until the moment of misbehavior, which by then it's too late to prevent. This is what's wrong with open carry and why most cops, and reasonable people, don't like it.

      Delete
    6. The challenge of course is one of perception. The easy fix of course is to permit concealed carry. But of course, the guns are still there. I'll have to look and see if there has been any brooha about open carry up my way. I seem to recall some events, though no one seemed freaked out about it.
      I prefer to conceal for purely tactical reasons, though I have open carried on occasion.

      Delete
    7. "One of the ways I protect myself is not letting strangers approach me with a gun. It would be to late to find out his intentions were not good, if I let him get the drop on me by allowing him to be so close, that I couldn't do anything about it if he decided to become evil. I'd be stupid to give a guy the first shot."

      Holy cow Anon, and you accuse permit holders of having a wild west mentality and being paranoid. Physician heal thyself.
      I would think then that you would welcome open carry so you would be able to keep your distance. Most states are "shall issue" permit states and some require the permit holder to conceal, such as Florida.
      In fact, a classmate in my IT program never noticed my empty holster or spare magazines that I wore for the entire two years of the program. So, depending on where you live Anon, there is a percentage of permit holders carrying near you and doing you absolutely no harm. In fact, your unreasonable fear brings to mind a very humorous video,

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1iQODC5OI

      Delete
    8. If you open carry then you invite the negative scrutiny, and rightfully so. If I have the right to defend myself there is no better situation than a stranger coming at me with his gun visable.

      Delete
    9. I have never accused permit holders of having a wild west mentality, but thanks for adding the lie. Maybe you can cite with a url where I said that.
      Unreasonable fear belongs to those who feel they have to carry, like yourself. .

      Delete
    10. "If I have the right to defend myself there is no better situation than a stranger coming at me with his gun visable."

      If you try to use that mindset Anon, you'll likely be written about in Mike's blog here. If someone is merely carrying a holstered weapon, that isn't a reasonable basis for "defending yourself". Lets just say you decide to run away if you see a person with a holstered weapon.
      If its just a permit holder, he'll just watch you run away and shake his head. Lets say though its an undercover cop. You'll likely be hooked up with those pretty bracelets while they check you out to see why you ran away from a police officer.

      Delete
    11. "Maybe you can cite with a url where I said that."

      Sorry Anon, you don't get to do that. Me using a name here means that anyone can search the blog and hold me accountable for what I've posted.
      You have every right to post here anonymously since Mike allows that. However, how does someone find a proper cite for a comment from a particular anonymous commenter? I suppose I might be able to do that if I were the NSA. (wouldn't that be spooky?)
      Or were you stating you were willing to take credit, or blame for every post by any anonymous commenter ever made here. I'm seeing posts here from around 2008. Do you really want to go there?

      Delete
    12. If your fear is so irrational that you have to carry a gun everywhere you go, then it is you the public should beware of. Fear that irrational could be triggered by anything and then someone ends up dead.
      The pictures I see the guns are slung over their shoulders and by the time the gun loon gets six feet from me I would have no chance of defending myself when he swings his gun and shoots, same with a holstered weapon.
      The fact that a person has to carry a gun tells me he is paranoid to begin with. Part of that judgement call you were talking about. Get help for your irrational fear.

      Delete
    13. I agree that Sulu video is really funny, but what in this discussion reminded you of it I can't imagine.

      Delete
    14. "The pictures I see the guns are slung over their shoulders and by the time the gun loon gets six feet from me I would have no chance of defending myself when he swings his gun and shoots, same with a holstered weapon."

      Again Anon, its all perception. Keep in mind that a majority of permit holders elect to carry, even when given the option to carry openly. But since permit holders are more law abiding than the general population, you really have little real risk from them.
      Much like when Baldr attempted to list all of the shootings that occurred in Starbucks, it turned out they weren't people who had carry permits. Trying to put permit holders in the same niche with those that don't carry lawfully might make your decision making easier, it doesn't hold with reality.

      Delete
    15. Hardaway has a fear that somehow someone who is gay being interested in him might speak to his orientation. Much like Anon being so uncomfortable with those bearing arms, he feels he might do violence against them when there is really no threat. I do hope he's only speaking rhetorically in that regard.
      I particularly enjoy Takei's sharp wit when speaking to this issue. You should look at some of his other videos.

      Delete
    16. You really want to compare being gay to carrying a gun? That's why they call you guys gun loons!

      Delete
    17. Oh, so you can just lie. Never stopped you before, and you wonder why you get called liar.

      Delete
    18. There is really no threat? If no one had guns there wouldn't be over 30,000 gun shot deaths a year. Keep believing your delusion.

      Delete
  2. More drivel from a Marxist Extremist

    ReplyDelete
  3. In Minnesota, there is no requirement for carry permit holders to conceal. (I do) So if someone calls in to report a man with a gun, the 911 operator does something wild like ask, "what is he doing?" based on the information given, if an officer is sent, officer asks to see permit, permit holder shows permit, officer returns permit and both go about their business.
    There are bad outcomes on occasion. A couple of years ago, some of Minneapolis's finest tap danced on a guy's head after he told an officer he had a carry permit. Someone even took a video of the encounter, and the lawsuit is making its way slowly.

    "Zachary King says he was walking to his car when police noticed his gun in his waist band. He claims he told police he had a permit to carry, but they still attacked him.
    King suffered a concussion after five officers beat him on Father’s Day night. King says video of the assault was taken by a bystander. He says it all started when police noticed a bulge near his waist band.
    “I have my conceal and carry, and it’s my gun. And soon as I said that he grabbed me by my neck, slammed me against the wall, snatched my gun out the holster, started waving it in the air saying ‘gun, gun, gun,’” said King."
    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/23/mpls-man-police-beat-me-for-gun-despite-my-permit/


    ReplyDelete