many of us here are gun people. like 'em, own' em, shoot 'em. in a lot of circumstances we all see the same issue in the same way. the previous post brought an interesting question to my mind. one that i think gets bounced around gun lobbyists offices and legislatures desks pretty frequently. on one hand shooter has correctly called out all those gun owners and ccw carriers who are not prepared in any way to act should the need arise. there's a complete lack of initial training as well as ongoing practice and maintenance of techniques for most ccw holders. this can be completely attributed to the words, "shall not be infringed". required training and knowledge? an infrigement. there would be a test right? and if you fail the test does that mean you shouldn't/ won't be allowed to defend yourself? shooting qualification? infringement. what exactly are the standards by which this would be judged? and what happens to the poor sap who can't hit the ground with spit but want's to be able to fend off an attacker who in many cases will be literally on top of him? it's a slippery slope, one where you can't alienate potential gun owners, nor can you deny citizens the right to protect themselves based on educational knowledge or technical ability. it's very synonomous with denying the illiterate the right to vote. and "shall not be infringed" suggests to me that i be allowed to buy any firearm ever manufactured including those manufactured right now. why can't i walk into wal-mart and buy an m-16? we've decided that maybe full auto is a little much for most citizens to own. as such they have become very expensive and the background check is analogous to a senate judiciary commitee hearing. should it be this way? it does say "shall not be infringed". i don't recall an execption for full-auto. on the other hand ministerofdeath suggests we all have florida's protection from civil suit. i, as a potential victim who thwarts my attacker see this as an absolute must. it's completely unacceptable that someone could threaten my life, cause me to defend my life at the expense of theirs, whereby I am held liable for the ATTACKER'S death. not the victim's death. i'm the victim!!! but now we have an interesting situation. do we extend civil suit immunity and release duty to retreat rights to ccw holders who have no training or knowledge? hmmm... what could this mean? on the other hand you've protected the guy laying down suppresive fire in the parking lot. when he misses the single attacker but kills soccer mom and her cargo because he was shooting with his eyes closed, shouldn't he ultimately be held accountable. if someone had a negligent discharge that resulted in a death, would it be enough to say, "i thought he was attacking me." and get off scott free? because it would be hard to prove otherwise. should we have mandatory training? how intense should it be? yearly qualifications? the ability to carry any gun or just the one we qualiy with? it has been suggested to me by an anti-gun friend (yes, anti-gun. friend none-the-less.) that if the gun owners and lobbyists don't do something to regulate ourselves, we will be subject to new laws no matter their ineffectiveness at fighting the real problem, which is negligent gun owners, not the guns themselves. we all know cars are involved in many more deaths than guns. we don't see a cry to ban cars, but we do see improvements in them that are effective at saving lives. anyone who has hit both a windshield and an airbag (separate crashes) can attest to that. we're freeing up gun laws while britain is banning guns and basically anything capable of inflicting death including knives that end in a point. "this just in, british people agree to have the fingers severed due to the fact that they could be used to stangle someone to death." where does gun control end (which it should)and people control begin?(this would include ccw as a group of people too) where do ccw rights and obligations meet? long post, sorry!! thoughts?
somewhere I will dig up the analysis of the new FL law, it is no where even close to the blanket immunity some seem to believe it is. The use of deadly force still requires that you have reasonable cause to fear imminent death or great bodily harm. You can and will still be booked if it is not IMMEDIATELY clear to the responding officer(s). The current issues regarding this new law have yet to be proven out in court, and depedning on which courts (and prosecuters) it goes to first will have an effect on legal precident. I believe (this part is from memory, again I'll find the info later) that the protection from civil suit is only if your claim of self defense is accepted, and even then you are still responsible for your errant shots.
everyone carries. chances are that the person not knowing what they are doing will kill themselves first. Also, I think you should be held liable for your shots. Police are, hunters are, all other fields are. Now if you drop the perp without any other injuries, you should be proclaimed a hero. If you drop soccer mom and her kids, you go to trial for negligent murder. I think that would make people train much harder and aim their shots much better. On a side note, about the cars; you kill a person with a car, you are tried also. Negligence, assault w/deadly weapon. If its truly an accident, then you go. I think it should be the same with a gun. Train hard, train often. If its called upon, you will have it to rely on. As far as being tried for the death of the badguy, I think thats bull spit, and wont hesitate to say that to anyone. Even if it is a lucky shot :wink:
This is just my opinion but... I have a guaranteed right under the Constition to free speech. That cannot be infringed. I also, under that right have responsibilities in the free excersize of that right. Failure to understand these responsibilities and properly execute them can leave me open to consequences. Not infringement of the right, rather a penalty to me personally for me failing to live up to my responsibility under that right. Same holds for the second ammendment. I have the right, but with it comes the responsibility. Training in the use of the firearm and understanding when it can be legally and properly deployed are my responsibility. Failure to do so can lead to personal negative consequences.
Exactly right. Rights vs. responsibility. There should not be additional legislation to blanket all potential firearm incidents, either to protect or prosecute the gun owner. Should you choose to excersize your right to carry a deadly weapon, you must realize that you open yourself up to certain liabilities. Same goes for a person who chooses to drive a car. Training/testing requirements should never be a federal matter. IMHO they should not exist on the state level either, but that might be a matter for the state to determine. Training is very important though and should be readily available and encouraged to all gun owners, especially those who may choose to carry. An untrained shooter will almost certainly be at greater risk physically during a gunfight (and perhaps a greater risk to bystanders) and also be at greater risk legally afterwards. All of that said, I don't see this as a major issue. How many incidents are there where a legal gun owner has created or contributed to a worse outcome in a gunfight situation? I don't honestly think there are a whole lot of hot-shot morons running around out there looking for an excuse to blast someone. I keep firearms for sport and for protection. Protection basically falls into two catergories. 1) protection of my "way of life" against an oppressive government (foriegn or domestic) 2) protection of my "actual" life against criminals. The idea that I need to be armed because there are other legal, but careless, gun owners around is not really a significant concern.
My Two Cents...Well Ok More Like a Buck and a Quarter A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT Government action that discriminates against (or "penalizes," or "unduly burdens") a "fundamental right"--i.e., a right explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution--is subject to "strict scrutiny" and violates equal protection unless found to be necessary to a compelling state interest [See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)]. As of this date the Supreme Court has refused to recognize the Second Amendment as a "Fundamental Right." I believe this is a serious judicial error in that just as freedom of speech and the right to vote has been held a "fundamental right," so to should the right to bear arms. However, there is no free pass given to the government to impinge upon a non-fundamental right. Where there is impingement on a non-fundamental right the judicial branch will review such law under a “rational basis test” where the law will not be found unconstitutional unless it lacks a rational basis. Unfortunately, this standard of a "rational basis" allows reasonable minds to differ on what is and what is not rational. However, after a long review of the import restrictions, the 1968 Gun Control Act or 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) I find little rational basis within them. A person need only review the Congressional record during the hearings held prior to the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 to see that it (as subsequent restrictions passed on firearms) was based on fear. Violence caused by prohibition coupled with fear of communist movements prompted Congressional hearings throughout the 1930s to review proposed bills that were meant to restrict interstate commerce of machine guns. See Hearings on H.R. 2569, H.R. 6606, H.R. 6607, and H.R. 11325, before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. 1-3, 7 (1930). However, a person need only to review the Criminal Statistics from 1933 and compare them to those of 2005 to see that violent crimes have drastically increased despite such so called "rational restrictions" on firearms. Failing a review of the statistics a reasonable person need only drive through the streets of present day Chicago or Detroit to realize that crime has only increased rather than decreased. Now, I am only a mere law student from a working class background and not a Supreme Court Justice, but I fail to see any rational basis in the restriction on firearms in place by the government. However, I do see a rational basis in the restrictions placed on the ability of someone to carry a pistol in public. A RATIONAL BASIS When any individual has a firearm within their home they pose little if any risk to the general public. However, the risk to public safety becomes apparent when that person ventures outside the walls of their home. This can be applied to the fact that there is no statute (that I am aware of) that forbids owning a car, but all states do have restrictions on who can operate those cars in the general public. The state under the 10th Amendment has the power to pass legislation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. The Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to restrict who can demolish buildings, own dangerous "zoo" animals, etcetera. I believe that placing restrictions on who can carry a pistol among the general public is a rational act. However, I do believe that those restrictions should be narrowly tailored and equally applied. I see no harm in requiring two day basic pistol courses, background checks (the Court has upheld the denial of felons the right to vote), and reasonable license fees. This would all be in keeping with the state's interest in keeping the general public safe. CONCLUSION An American Citizen should be free to possess and purchase any type of firearm as the Second Amendment should be a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Even if the Second Amendment is held to only a rational basis standard the laws that exist today are void of any rational basis that justifies the restriction on a Constitutional Right. On the other hand, the right to carry a concealed pistol is not enumerated in the Constitution and thus should be held as a privilege capable of being licensed by a state under its 10th Amendment powers. As the people control the legislature through elections they should elect politicians that carry out the will of the people in accordance with what should be required for a concealed pistol license. I love firearms of all types, but I also recognize the State's responsibility to insure the safety of the general public
Interesting question. The right to "bear" arms might well include "carry" as well as possess. I think "keep" is possess and "bear" is carry. The final clincher for me on legislaive history and intent would be: "Did any of the Framers carry in public without receiving a notice of priviledge from their respective states?"
