Wednesday, June 4, 2014

They must must be solid citizens--they have guns!

Think about it--isn't the premise of open carry that this becomes acceptable behaviour?  People should see someone walking around with a weapon and assume that everything is OK.

Isn't the idea that people are in a state of code yellow?
No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself". You are simply aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place and that you are prepared to defend yourself, if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and realize that "I may have to shoot today".


Open Carry Explained

A hat tip to a source who will remain nameless as he has already faced the gun loons' ire.

I realise this is insulting to people with Down's Syndrome.

Guy Heinze Gets Life Without the Possibility - Georgia Style Justice

Guy Heinze Jr. Sentence
In this file photo released on Aug. 30, 2009 by the Glynn County Police Department, Guy Heinze Jr. is shown. Glynn County Police Chief Matt Doering said two new pieces of information led authorities to charge Heinze late Friday Sept. 4, 2009. After a week working a case so murky they could not say whether a killer was on the loose, police said Guy Heinze Jr. was responsible for the slayings he reported and charged him with eight counts of first-degree murder. Among the dead were seven of his rel | AP

Huffington Post (old news but I missed it last year)

Dressed in orange jailhouse garb rather than the suit he wore at trial, Guy Heinze Jr. bowed his head as a judge sentenced him to life in prison with no chance of parole. A quirk of legal maneuvering had spared Heinze from a possible death sentence for the 2009 beating deaths of his father and seven others.
Relatives of the victims said they never wanted to see Heinze executed.
"That's the easy way out," said Diane Isenhower, whose ex-husband and four children were among the eight people beaten to death four years ago inside a cramped mobile home they shared with Heinze.
"From day one, we told them, 'No death penalty,'" said Hazel Sumner, who identified herself as a cousin to Isenhower's family.
Heinze, 26, was sentenced Thursday afternoon in Glynn County Superior Court less than a week after a jury convicted him of malice murder in the Aug. 29, 2009, slayings. Prosecutors dropped the death penalty as an option last week as part of a last-minute deal with defense attorneys that allowed them to avoid a hung jury.
Prosecutors said Heinze had been smoking crack cocaine when he killed his father and the other victims, all members of an extended family. They said he killed the first victim in a dispute over a bottle of prescription painkillers he wanted to steal, then killed the others to avoid getting caught.
Each of the victims died from multiple crushing blows to the head from what police believe was a shotgun barrel, jurors heard. Autopsies showed they suffered a combined total of more than 220 wounds. The murder weapon was never found.
Although the attack happened in the night and most of the victims were found in bed, defense attorneys argued a single assailant couldn't possibly have inflicted such carnage. They insisted that Heinze would not kill loved ones over a bottle of weak prescription pills and that police ignored evidence and alternate suspects in a rush to accuse him.
Heinze had told police he found the victims' bodies after returning from a late night away from home.

Three supreme court justices on the Second Amendment

That famous quote from Chief Justice Warren Burger


Let's not forget Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972).  Don't forget that Douglas was actually on the court at the time of US v. Miller (you did actually read the decision--didn't you?).



Douglas' successor on the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens:
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”
When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.
Sorry, but saying the Second Amendment is not related to the militia is not only textually incorrect, it is historically and legally incorrect.

As I said in another post, if you want to exercise your Second Amendment right, you can get all the gear paid if you join the national guard, which is the Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 militia.  That also points out the silliness of asserting that the Second Amendment right is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

You've got to pay for one (and go through the legal procedures) to be able to own a firearm if it is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

That clause in the US Constitution is what makes a militia "constitutional", not quotes from the founding fathers.

OK, even though  I think the Heller and McDonald "decisions" are complete bullshit--I should at least quote them as well:

Scalia from Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Alito from McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
I know that Heller held that registration and background checks were A-OK.

No matter how you look at it--an unfettered right to personal arms is a fantasy.

It will be even more of a fantasy as Heller and McDonald are dissected in law journals and found to be composed of horseshit.

Hypocrisy

Gitmo Prisoner Release

Norfolk, Virginia - Shooting Spree Leaves 3 Dead, 1 Wounded - Not a Gun Free Zone


James Andrew Brown, the suspected gunman

Hampton Roads

It unfolded in a flash.
Gunfire, a Jeep racing through the streets, a series of shootings that left three crime scenes.
In twenty minutes Friday night, three people were dead: A Norfolk police officer. A 17-year-old Norfolk Christian Upper School student. The gunman, killed by police after a struggle.
Another officer was wounded.