Thursday, January 07, 2010

No Right

Americans have no right to carry guns in public [More]
Who's going to stop us, David Randolph Smith?

You?
Posted by David Codrea at 1/07/2010 10:30:00 AM

11 comments:

David Randolph Smith said...

In New York, Illinois, Wisconsin or D.C. it would be the police. The 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms, as interpreted by the Courts, presently allows states to "stop" carrying in public--AR; FL; TX,, etc.

1/07/2010 11:09 AM
jon said...

so someone's son or daughter can die for your beliefs, just not you personally, or your own son or daughter. that's an unfortunate outlook.

perhaps if i run some numbers, you'll understand.

there are 220 million firearms in america. there are 80 million gun-owning households. only about 2% of the population is licensed to carry in public.

that's 2 million people.

that last figure alone is bigger than the number of active duty soldiers in the people's republic of china, the largest military on the face of the earth. each of them are effectively slave labor, earning nothing. to the contrary, a typical gun owner is well-to-do, earning perhaps 50k/yr or so.

there are approximately 2,220 BATFE field agents.

you can write all the "laws" you'd like, you can't violate human rights without repercussions. what you are asking for is there to be no police, save those appointed by the victors of total civil war.

will you win?

1/07/2010 11:27 AM
Pat H. said...

I wrote a brief comment on the Tennessean on this editorial and the whiner who wrote it, enjoy.

1/07/2010 11:40 AM
Sean said...

I do not consider lawyers to be anything more than facist enablers, so what this meat-sack has to say is irrelevant.

1/07/2010 12:18 PM
Mike Gallo said...

DRS, you should stick to law practice in your own state; WI does not prohibit carry, and the constitutionality of the CCW prohibition (Sate Constitution, so Heller is moot) is based only on the fact that OC is legal (a dubious claim at best). The police do not have the legal authority to stop someone in WI for carrying a firearm under JL v Florida and Terry v Ohio unless in one of a few very specific areas.

You're really not too bright, it's unfortunate for your law practice that you opened your mouth (quill) and let everyone in your area know that.

1/07/2010 12:27 PM
Carl said...

The state of Missouri says open carry is OK, but does not restrict municipalities from outlawing it. The problem is with those that fear firearms, not just in the hands of citizens, but a fear of the tool itself. The best description of their problem is: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."~~Sigmund Freud
Now we understand what is wrong with those people.

1/07/2010 12:47 PM
straightarrow said...

He must be a horrible lawyer and an even worse teacher. The number of things he got wrong would embarrass an intelligent man. The fact that he isn't embarrassed settles an unnecessary question though, doesn't it?

1/07/2010 10:42 PM
Defender said...

This is why I carry concealed, whenever, wherever, and my PERMIT expired over 10 years ago.
You'll never know when we're armed, Mr. Smith. I wear shirts with collars, even a tie sometimes, and loafers, like a lawyer, not "cammo," as you misspell it, or gang colors. I held an office job for 30 years and have never even had a speeding ticket. I don't drink to excess or use drugs, or tell my neighbors how to live.
I listen to what the FOUNDERS said: To preserve liberty, it is essential that every free citizen be armed, or at least have the OPTION to be armed; the unorganized militia whose right to own and carry firearms is sacred and protected by those arms themselves as well as some 1789 words on paper ... is the whole of the people. What frightened you so much that you can't trust your neighbor, your wife, your children ... yourself?
Some things just aren't open to interpretation. If the Supreme Court ruled that Muslim shari'a law was to be the official law of the land, what would you as a lawyer do? Your clients would have no rights other than what the imams say they have. THAT'S the consequence of putting too much credence in elected and appointed officials.

1/08/2010 12:29 AM
AgPilot60 said...

I left this over there. There wasn't room for more. "Smith,why are you living in Tenn.? Why are you not living in a gun free paradise like NYC? Just think, in NYC you could take a walk in gun free Central Park at night and be perfectly safe. I'm sure NYC would welcome you with open arms just like any other gun free utopia would, The VPC is a den of eniquity for being untruthful & inaccurate. 107 deaths from CHL carriers: are the self defense shootings grouped in with the criminal killings? Most VPC statistics are manipulated to get the answer they want. Texas has zero tolerance for alcohol while CCW, and that's the way It ought to be. Smith, why bring the scourge of crime to Tennessee when you could live in rapture somewhere else. Texas has been gleefully happy with CHL. Child accidents in TX went from almost the worst to almost the safest in 2 years & the state Troopers allowed as how the CHL instructors were doing a superb job of teaching safety to get those results. Best not come to TX though, we only want liberty lovers here."

1/08/2010 2:18 AM
Defender said...

I bypass modern statists and go straight to the Founders for the definition of MY rights.
Shall not be infringed.
I carry concealed, when and where I feel the need, and my permit expired over ten years ago. It's a misdemeanor, sadly, even here in "the most conservative state in America," mhome of George Mason and James Madison, where they know better. Many, many criminals arrested for MURDER are also charged with unlawful concealed carry. They simply don't care abou the laws, and, seeing the abuses of those laws by government officials over many decades, I'm inclined to believe criminals will be the last truly free people in the world...

1/09/2010 11:17 AM
AvgJoe said...

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

1/09/2010 10:35 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)