"Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime" - Page 2

"Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime"

This is a discussion on "Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SFury ...Unless we as a nation bring back the importance of family over everything else, that will not change........ How do you ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: "Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime"

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    ...Unless we as a nation bring back the importance of family over everything else, that will not change........
    How do you intend to do that? Not that I disagree with you, I don't. I'm just wondering what your plan would be.


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    Governments' degeneration into lawlessness throughout our history has been a constantly recurring theme in the study of governance. In the old days government just did what it pleased. In this modern age they must at least have the appearance of obedience to rule-of-law. So they use obfuscation instead. The ruling class has a vested interest in making laws vague, ambiguous, and hard to understand; it makes it more difficult to challenge their position of privilege and authority. It also opens the door for governance through policy rather than law. In other words, it allows interpretation by those enforcing the laws: cops, prosecutors, judges, and finally, juries. Unfortunately, juries have given away their power to the judges and thus are not able to act as the bulwark against abuse they were intended to be. To persevere in the quest for justice in the face of these obstructions takes energy, time and money. The working class, in general, hasn't the time or energy to educate themselves (a never ending process) on the legal and political issues affecting their lives, they are too busy just trying to survive. Some of us try but it's hard to keep up. The required time alone can expand to take up all of your day This leaves precious little for having a real life; work, relationships, or raising the next generation. I personally know of at least one person who has fought the power structure to a standstill time and again to the accolades and well-wishes of neighbors and other concerned citizens. I watched as this person's personal life strained to the point of breaking and was destroyed by the required dedication. Things can change but not by the efforts of the few. Maybe it's time we all raise our kids to be lawyers; God help us!
    You definitely hit the nail on the head. I am a firm believer that laws should be in black and white, and not in shades of gray. I want to see laws written in plain English that are not subject to interpretation by lawyers, law enforcement, judges, ect. Misuse and abuse of power, ideology, and personal opinion should not punish the public because of poorly written and intentionally vague laws. I also firmly believe that it is the utmost importance that a person who enforces the laws of their state and country know the most important laws that they are enforcing. Firearms are on the constitutional level of law. Officials who do not know, understand, or simply choose to ignore laws such as these, should be seen as a slap in the face towards the public that these people are sworn to protect.

    I'm glad my state is still (for the majority) sane- er... I mean... conservative.
    Tzadik and baren like this.

  3. #18
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,617
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    Problem is, not everybody carrying openly is you: Mr Middle Class White Christian guy.

    How would you like to be dining at your local Waffle House and have a gang of 16 chollos come rolling in, with handguns, shotguns, and AKs held at port arms? Same thing with your friendly neighborhood Bloods and Crips. Hey - it's legal - right?

    But nobody ever thinks about that. They just imagine it's only good ol' Bud from the Chamber of Commerce who will be sporting a Glock in a Serpa holster on his hip. As I've said before, out in rural Idaho, Montana, places like that, OC is natural for ranchers and such, and unobjectionable.

    Concealed carry makes a lot more sense in dense urban environments, where you don't want to be unnecessarily alarming and frightening people.
    Your argument fell apart at "dining at your local Waffle House." There you get what you deserve...

    Sorry, couldn't pass that up. One must realize that no man is "reasonable."
    shockwave likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  4. #19
    Member Array Mr7point62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    Well, schools don't really "liberalize" anyone. Children tend to believe as their parents do irregardless of what others say. The imprinting of the parents is greater than anything else in the K-12 years. Don't mistake the natural naive nature of youth for brainwashing. A lot of them say one thing, but actually believe something else which is evident in how they handle situations and through what they do.

    I see a lot of that working in IT at one of the local high schools.

    You mention crappy parents. Seeing as parents influence their kids more than anyone else, how can you deal with that? Unless we as a nation bring back the importance of family over everything else, that will not change.

    Besides that, how do you reconcile the fact that many conservatives and liberals are avid hunters who don't necessarilly believe in concealed carry? There is a divide even amongst us gun owners that many posting here have shown to be true. The real fight is to get people to stop treading on other people's right to make choices that don't effect other people in all reality.

    Statistics show otherwise, that peer pressure influence and schooling thought overrides what children are taught today. A child growing up with parents that are let's say "conservative christians" should himself be a conservatice christian, but we know this isn't true, because of the liberality he is taught is todays society. Which would be the schools and their peers.


    Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
    Magnum and baren like this.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    7,072
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Been their.
    Done that.
    Litigated it as defense counsel.

    Unless you want to pay lots of cash, don't mind being a defendant in a court facing criminal charges of threatening 2nd, breach of peace, creating a public disturbance and going through the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners appeal procedures...

    Keep it covered and be discrete.

    CT is not a gun friendly state.

    It's not what we wish it would be, but it is what it is, and anyone who wants to buck the trend can deal with the fall out.

    Do I agree with it? No.

    But it's the way it is right now.

    I think this makes perfect sense and is worth repeating.
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post

    Unfortunately, juries have given away their power to the judges and thus are not able to act as the bulwark against abuse they were intended to be.
    Thats because every educated person who can get out of jury duty does so, leaving the nutless and the brainless to serve.

    Think on that next time you get a jury summons and say "How can I get out of this?"

    You may be the jury on a case in which the defendant had a carry permit from AZ, was driving cross country and didn't know his permit wasn't valid in MA, defends himself at a truck stop in a 100% clean shoot...and the prosecutor says "Yeah, no dice. No permit - go to jail..."

    Wouldn't it be cool to be on that jury?

    Well...

    You have to risk showing up and being on the jury for the insurance claim over amortization of office supplies in storage too.

    It's part of the system people claim to love, then brush aside.
    baren likes this.

  7. #22
    Member Array WIright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    se wisconsin
    Posts
    38
    More dangerous CRAP from the libs!

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Thats because every educated person who can get out of jury duty does so, leaving the nutless and the brainless to serve.

    Think on that next time you get a jury summons and say "How can I get out of this?"

    You may be the jury on a case in which the defendant had a carry permit from AZ, was driving cross country and didn't know his permit wasn't valid in MA, defends himself at a truck stop in a 100% clean shoot...and the prosecutor says "Yeah, no dice. No permit - go to jail..."

    Wouldn't it be cool to be on that jury?

    Well...

    You have to risk showing up and being on the jury for the insurance claim over amortization of office supplies in storage too.

    It's part of the system people claim to love, then brush aside.
    Yes, but we could make it work a great deal better if our legislators and many of our jurists showed a little more respect for the folks who wind up summoned and a little more creativity toward selection systems which would actually avoid seating those with nothing between their ears. We could make the system work better with some pre-trial training and civics lessons for prospective jurors; G-d knows the schools don't do the job.

    I know it would take a constitutional amendment, but I think we need to start looking more toward the UCMJ trial format instead our present approach. By all accounts I've read in recent years, that system works exceptionally well. In contrast, our civilian system suffers from the problem Mitchel just pointed out. Only the dolts get stuck.

    I had a boss one time who was especially arrogant and thought he was the smartest person on the block. One day he bragged that proof of how smart he was could be seen from the fact that he was seated for a capital murder trial. I couldn't say to him out loud what I was actually thinking, which was, "big dummy," if you had any brains you wouldn't have been on there and you wouldn't be bragging about it."
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    You definitely hit the nail on the head. I am a firm believer that laws should be in black and white, and not in shades of gray. I want to see laws written in plain English that are not subject to interpretation by lawyers, law enforcement, judges, ect. Misuse and abuse of power, ideology, and personal opinion should not punish the public because of poorly written and intentionally vague laws. I also firmly believe that it is the utmost importance that a person who enforces the laws of their state and country know the most important laws that they are enforcing. Firearms are on the constitutional level of law. Officials who do not know, understand, or simply choose to ignore laws such as these, should be seen as a slap in the face towards the public that these people are sworn to protect.

    I'm glad my state is still (for the majority) sane- er... I mean... conservative.

    The constitution was written in the plain English of the day... How many thousands of cases have been adjudicated since the Supreme Court came into being?

    Poorly written or intentionally vague laws... are for the most part neither.... at least in their intent. Unfortunately, in trying to be very precise, laws seem to tend to exclude some actions that may come under it's jurisdiction... so, interpretations must be made... they aren't all as we would like them to be.

    For years (no, decades. . . no, centuries) there was dispute over the meaning of the 2nd amendment... just on where the comma was supposed to be... (two versions)... And it took over 240 years to determine that the right is an individual right. What may seem as plain English to you is gobbledygook to someone else...

    Even if the 2nd read: Every citizen of the U.S. shall have the right to keep and carry arms, and no laws of any sub-jurisdiction of the United States shall alter that right.

    There would have been arguments over what is a citizen, is a woman a citizen, is a black a citizen, is a felon a citizen, and so on... what are arms?

    You cannot make law simple enough to never need interpretation.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  10. #25
    Guest Array Guest1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    home-astan(FINALLY)
    Posts
    1,125
    Well if he wants to get all technical about it ,he should know that it is the bullet that does the damage,i.e. case-powder-primer-bullet(usually copper jacketed hollow points will suffice) that actually kill,the gun is just a mear tool.And guns don't kill,Husbands that come home early do.the guns just laying there.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Thats because every educated person who can get out of jury duty does so, leaving the nutless and the brainless to serve.

    Think on that next time you get a jury summons and say "How can I get out of this?"

    You may be the jury on a case in which the defendant had a carry permit from AZ, was driving cross country and didn't know his permit wasn't valid in MA, defends himself at a truck stop in a 100% clean shoot...and the prosecutor says "Yeah, no dice. No permit - go to jail..."

    Wouldn't it be cool to be on that jury?

    Well...

    You have to risk showing up and being on the jury for the insurance claim over amortization of office supplies in storage too.

    It's part of the system people claim to love, then brush aside.
    I agree. A jury is a very powerful tool that most people are either to ignorant or to lazy to pick up.

    Michael

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,081
    O.K. Back on topic. The issue being raised by the OP, and responded to as well by Mitchel is the fact that in CT OC is not illegal, but law enforcement treats it as illegal. To get past the fact that OC is legal, but the powers that be choose to prohibit it the law notwithstanding, they simply assert that OC frightens folks, is therefore a form of disorderly conduct or breach of peace, or creates a public disturbance, and they use these other charges, to suppress otherwise lawful conduct.

    In short, they do an end run around the state's own laws but there is nothing that can be done about that because Mitchel has pointed out that as a defense attorney, you get nowhere defending such cases.

    Now, look at a somewhat parallel situation; this is a real world example from an experience yesterday.

    Mrs H and I were shopping at a anchor department store at the big mall in town. I saw a well dressed man walking about and he was OC ing (is there such a word). He had a revolver on his hip, external to his belt. It was clearly visible and unquestionably open carry.

    In TEXAS (where this occurred) OC is ILLEGAL, unless you are on property that you own or control, like your own business. I asked a store employee if the man worked there (something not obvious because I had just overheard him ask someone if they would be open on Labor Day). The employee I asked indicated that he did work there.

    Now, quite apart from the utter stupidity of OC ing in a crowded department store-- and I don't really care if he was the owner or security or even plain clothes from the city--- it could easily happen that someone would phone in a man with a gun call. Here, of course, NO officer or DA would dream of misconstruing
    the man's conduct as a breach of the peace, as disorderly conduct, as 2nd degree threatening--- which is what it easily, and very easily, could be construed by someone inclined in that direction.

    Bottom line, in CT OC is legal, and the "futzing" around and rationalizations being made to suppress it are wrong. It would be much better if the CT legislature just added a line to their code outlawing OC except by uniformed officers and security guards or plainclothes detectives. That would achieve the purpose in a clear manner that would leave no ambiguity of situation, or law. Similarly, the authorities need to stop stretching their actions to punish lawful conduct, and the judges need to grow a brain about this and not play along. They may think they are doing public good by suppressing OC, but they are only succeeding in subverting the law
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, but we could make it work a great deal better if our legislators and many of our jurists showed a little more respect for the folks who wind up summoned and a little more creativity toward selection systems which would actually avoid seating those with nothing between their ears. We could make the system work better with some pre-trial training and civics lessons for prospective jurors; G-d knows the schools don't do the job.

    I know it would take a constitutional amendment, but I think we need to start looking more toward the UCMJ trial format instead our present approach. By all accounts I've read in recent years, that system works exceptionally well. In contrast, our civilian system suffers from the problem Mitchel just pointed out. Only the dolts get stuck.

    I had a boss one time who was especially arrogant and thought he was the smartest person on the block. One day he bragged that proof of how smart he was could be seen from the fact that he was seated for a capital murder trial. I couldn't say to him out loud what I was actually thinking, which was, "big dummy," if you had any brains you wouldn't have been on there and you wouldn't be bragging about it."
    This idea scares me. Why would you want to take away my power as a juror to rule not only on a persons guilt or innocence but also rule on the law? Being on a jury give private citizens the power to decide if a law is just and rule accordingly.

    While a professional juror or a government approved juror might have a better knowledge of the law. Would he be less inclined to protect the accused from unjust laws or prosecution than a normal intelligent citizen might?

    While we cannot force qualified people to serve. I have a problem with people who while shirking their duty claim the system is broke because those who do serve are not up to their standards.

    Michael

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    This idea scares me. Why would you want to take away my power as a juror to rule not only on a persons guilt or innocence but also rule on the law?
    Michael
    That was not what I suggested needs to happen. Go back and re-read what I wrote.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    O.K. Back on topic. The issue being raised by the OP, and responded to as well by Mitchel is the fact that in CT OC is not illegal, but law enforcement treats it as illegal. To get past the fact that OC is legal, but the powers that be choose to prohibit it the law notwithstanding, they simply assert that OC frightens folks, is therefore a form of disorderly conduct or breach of peace, or creates a public disturbance, and they use these other charges, to suppress otherwise lawful conduct.

    In short, they do an end run around the state's own laws but there is nothing that can be done about that because Mitchel has pointed out that as a defense attorney, you get nowhere defending such cases.
    I didn't say you got nowhere with the case; I said that unless you enjoyed spending a lot of money, loosing your permit till the appeals board decided your case and being a criminal defendant with the attendant dangers of that - with no assured outcome - it wasn't a good idea to open carry.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

a person legally carrying a weapon court ruling
,
against constitution carry
,
closet gun nut
,
georgia restaurants disallowing weapons
,

open carry

,
states constitution carry crime rate
Click on a term to search for related topics.