The right to bear arms : Seattle man , 44, makes his case

at 23:20 on November 14th, 2009

ACP: I have to disagree with you. It's not out of control . . . at least not yet! lol!

at 16:12 on November 14th, 2009

In the picture the man appears to be carrying a concealed weapon. Here is some information about concealed carry from wiki. States are given considerable latitude to interpret the Constitution.

Under current federal legal precedent, it is considered "constitutional" under the Second Amendment for states to have concealed carry licensing that permits concealed carried weapons, or even not to require any permits for concealed carry weapons; for example, any legal gun owner in the state of Vermont may carry concealed weapons with no permitting required.[1][2] It is likewise "constitutional" under the Second Amendment for states to have laws that prohibit concealed carried weapons, although only two states have done so.[3][4] Laws governing concealed carried weapons vary from state to state. Some states restrict concealed carried weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or martial arts weapons to be carried.

at 00:03 on November 15th, 2009

a211423: There are numerous restrictions contained in "concealed weapons" permits. One of those restrictions are the places in which private citizens are permitted, by law, to carry concealed weapon. For instance, in Florida, it's against the law to sit down at a bar with a concealed weapon, however one can sit in the dining room 20 feet away with a concealed weapon. You can't carry a concealed weapon on school property, or in a post office, or government building, etc. The weapon has to be completely concealed. In other words, no "print through". And if the weapon is displayed for any purpose other than in a legitimate self defense situation, it's a felony along with mandatory jail time. In Florida, and some other states there's no restriction on the amount of concealed weapons that one can carry. However, it's difficult and often uncomfortable to conceal even a single weapon if the weapon is a standard size handgun such as a Glock 22 or SIG P226. I wouldn't worry about those people who carry weapons legally--it means that they are among the most law abiding citizens. Indeed, many throughout the country have concealed weapons permits and millions more own guns--and they haven't shot anyone yet. There has always been paranoia (indeed a phobia) on the part of those that find the concept of gun ownership repugnant and frightening. Especially those that live in places such as New York where it is virtually impossible for a law abiding citizen to obtain a concealed weapons permit. In my opinion, those that want to restrict private gun ownership and the availability of concealed weapons permits are completely irrational owing, in large part, to their ideology.

smkovalinsky

at 16:19 on November 14th, 2009

But, A, then what case was he making. :( ?

Thanks for all that great info, you are a professorial-assistant-dream. ;)

at 16:24 on November 14th, 2009

smk

Apparently Washington law makers have outlawed concealed carry in these specific areas, and he is challenging the right to bear arms; however, he did not state the reason, and he didn't get arrested. His reason would be part of his defense, which could be a whole multitude of things.

Babel-Fish

at 16:20 on November 14th, 2009

The wild west rules

at 16:20 on November 14th, 2009

cowpoke

I agree, but the gun advocates believe any restrictions compromise their right to bear arms. If the information here is correct, restricting guns in areas where children are present does not seem to be challenging gun owners to the rights. On the contrary, it is a provision to protect children in public.

There was one unfortunate incident years ago with a man carrying a gun in backpack riding a bus. The man took the backpack off and dropped it on the floor of the bus and it discharged killing the child sitting next to him. I know this isnt the same thing as this man carrying a concealed weapon, but accidents do happen with guns, and keeping them in safe places or at the gun range is not asking too much.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/concealed.weapons/

at 16:30 on November 14th, 2009

The Senate rejected a law that would allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state.

Of note here is that the gun lobby was able to get an attachment to the credit card legislation that allows people to carry guns in national parks.

albertacowpoke

at 17:35 on November 14th, 2009

I have never understood the gun culture in the U.S. There are lots of legitimate reasons for gun ownership, such as hunting, farmers in remote areas and those that participate in shooting competitions.

The argument to use a weapon for self-defence eludes me. The fact that so many citizens carry guns that they haven.t been properly trained on scares the poop out of me.

The example you quoted with a guy carrying a gun in his backpack that then goes off when the pack is dropped is very telling of lack of knowledge of gun safety.

Results with Lunatics running around with handguns has recently been demonstrated. The NRA argument wears thin.

at 18:55 on November 15th, 2009

"I have never understood the gun culture in the U.S. There are lots of legitimate reasons for gun ownership, such as hunting, farmers in remote areas and those that participate in shooting competitions."

It is not a "gun-culture" it is a culture of Rights. I agree with what you call "legitimate reaons" and they are all part of our Right to bear arms that include the Right of Defense and should not only be rights given to special citizens such as hunters, farmers and sporting enthusiasts but I suppose the perception depends whether or not one lives in a remote jungle or a concrete one.

"The argument to use a weapon for self-defence eludes me. The fact that so many citizens carry guns that they haven.t been properly trained on scares the poop out of me."

Please see my reply to Rory's comment below. Additionally, most citizen are trained. When do you ever hear of the average law-abiding citizen intentionally mis-using a firearm.

"The example you quoted with a guy carrying a gun in his backpack that then goes off when the pack is dropped is very telling of lack of knowledge of gun safety."

Accidents do happen and this incident is obviously out of the norm. The driver who gets in an automobile and then goes off and crashes into a tree or person can also be assumed to be very telling of lack of knowledge of vehicle safety.

"Results with Lunatics running around with handguns has recently been demonstrated. The NRA argument wears thin."

The "thin" NRA argument is that only "Lunitics" run around with handguns killing and committing crime, while responsible law-abiding citizens respect their right to bear arms.

Just my opinion......

at 17:31 on November 14th, 2009

The NRA believes--my opinion--that any limitations leave the door open for outlawing all gun ownership. Perhaps some of this fear has been generated by anti-gun folks who would like to see all guns outlawed; therefore, they have fueled the debate and consequently given the NRA the latitude to confront ALL gun laws. I am personally not against gun ownership for the reasons you have stated are legitimate reasons.

This man who is challenging concealed carry into a community center where children frequent is not helping his cause; furthermore, he is debilitating his cause. He will ignite the backlash, and the publicity will paint him as part of the lunatic fringe gun owners.

albertacowpoke

at 17:36 on November 14th, 2009

Agreed:)

at 17:52 on November 14th, 2009

I find this story lacking, slanted and misleading.

Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Although many of the "reasons" quoted from Wikipedia regarding "the right to keep and bear arms" have become commonly accepted, nowhere in the Amendment does it provide for or limit... for which purpose(s) as alleged or assumed in the above story, except that the right to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free State" and the reasons/purposes quoted from an unreliable Wikipedia source should not be regarded as the only reasons/purposes or as law, constitutional or otherwise.

I'm happy that the U.S. Constitution (what's left of it) and "Constitutionalism" is finally becomming "all the rage" once again in American culture and history. It's long overdue.

This I will defend.

at 01:22 on November 15th, 2009

aurealeus: HA! You've got that right! The gun phobics and "progressive" ideologues will not feel safe until the only guns left will be in the hands of the police, military, and the criminals. The gun "phobics" have a completely and totally irrational fear of guns being in the hands of law abiding citizens and it's not even worth the effort to debate them on the issue. Their ultimate goal (and most of them will never admit it) is to completely ban all law abiding Americans from owning any gun whatsoever. Personally, I don't want a gun for purposes of shooting Bambi. I want a gun for purposes of defending myself and my family from little Johnny down the block if he smokes too much crack and decides to break into my home. I'm getting too old to break heads with my bare hands! I guess I'm just not a man anymore that can duke it out with a bunch of cracked out thugs and disarm them like you see the actors in the movies do. They make it look so easy and clean, don't they? Especially when they use those jumping/wheel kicks to knock a weapon out of their attacker's hand. Have you ever been in a knife fight and called 911? HA! By the time those sorry SOBs arrive on the scene, you'll be bled out and the perps will be long gone. It takes only a second to be descended upon by thugs and die. However it can take up to a half hour for the cops to arrive upon the scene--and that's after ten minutes or so of explaining the situation to the idiot 911 dispatcher. God forbid that anyone ever has to use a gun in self-defense. It's a scary and extremely stressful situation.And after it's all over (if one is lucky enough to survive) you'll look down at your hands because they're shaking. And for anyone that has ever been in that situation, it only takes a moment or two of reflection to realize that were it not for a means to defend yourself, you and perhaps others would be dead. It happens all the time . . . .

Hugh Askew

at 07:48 on November 15th, 2009

I'll thank you not to take my intitials in vain, Mr. Cripps. ,)

at 10:29 on November 15th, 2009

HA, ha, that's funny... yep, no Rambo, Terminator, Karate Kid here either.

"However it can take up to a half hour for the cops to arrive upon the scene--"

Not to mention, the time some Police wait until the perps are long gone so as not to place their own life in danger.

rng

at 17:52 on November 14th, 2009

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

That guy in a militia in his dreams.

Some guys with masculinity problems buy big cars..some guns.

This is an anachronism, Ann Coulter wrote a piece, believe it or not, defending the US medical system outcomes on life expectancy by saying more Americans die from gun shots than Europeans. The kicker? If there were more guns good guys could shoot more bad guys. It is a communal insanity to think more guns make things better.

at 17:55 on November 14th, 2009

Not better.... but safer and Free!

rng

at 17:58 on November 14th, 2009

safer and Free

Actually, statistically neither but I appreciate the optimism

at 18:24 on November 14th, 2009

I suppose it would depend upon what statistics are referred whether historically or present, of which I care not to debate except to say that I wonder what kind of nation America would be today if the early settlers and those who came after, were not able to defend themselves.

at 05:37 on November 15th, 2009

aurealeus:

"I wonder what kind of nation America would be today if the early settlers and those who came after, were not able to defend themselves."

A sensible and valid thought. However, the argument would be that America is no longer a frontier and that weapons for self defense are no longer necessary because the local police can defend us. This is extremely naive thinking at best, and anyone that has ever had to dial 911 knows it. But the deeper issue is really what's in the minds of those that have an aversion to guns. Namely, they're uncomfortable with the concept of self defense and would rather see innocent victims succumb than for those victims to defend themselves. It sounds crazy and completely irrational (and it is) however after growing up in New York City and living there for forty years, and knowing the people that I knew, I have no doubt that this is, in fact, the case.

at 10:08 on November 15th, 2009

While I understand the opposing argument, I do not agree with it. Although I do agree with your further analysis regarding the opposition's rationality or lack thereof. I also grew up in a large metropolitan city, (the frontier of Boston) and knowing similar people.

I have also been a victim of crime on many occasions and have been confronted with a gun and other weapons more times than I care to remember but I won't bore anyone with details here.. thankfully I survive!

In my opinion, the preservation of the Second Amendment is necessary (as stated therein) to preserve the security of the State (ref: the People) and the right of a free sovereign People (State) to defend their security by their own hand without total reliance on (many times) ineffecive policing by governments that have potential for tyranical tendencies when given "absolute power" over citizens.

As the old saying goes... If the right to own a gun is ever outlawed, then only the criminals will have the guns... is true. Taking away this right will make all of us more susceptable to both crime and tyrany and ultimatly victims and slaves with no possible way or hope to keep, stop or regain freedom should we ever lose it to foreign OR domestic enemies. The founding-fathers knew this. It is just as important today as it was then. The frontier hasn't changed... only the cowboys.

at 00:26 on November 15th, 2009

rng: While you're on statistics, why don't you come up with some comparative statistics in terms of pool drownings, motor vehicle accidents, etc.?

marianmo

at 21:56 on November 14th, 2009

i guess he got his 15 min of fame

master_jim2008

at 23:36 on November 14th, 2009

Wasn't there one city in Michigan I believe, that required everyone to own, be trained with and carry a handgun at all times? And didn't I read somewhere that the crime rate bottomed out there?

I for one, believe that if everyone carried a gun, and it ended up being a case of "if someone draws down on you, whoever has the quickest reaction time is going to die" that would certainly give the American government the attrition rates they want. Currently they get those rates by failure to supply adequate and affordable health care. More people currently die from that than gunshots. If the government released the cure for AIDS, Cancer and a host of other things I firmly believe they know the cure for, then we can all carry guns and shoot or be shot!!

master_jim2008

at 23:40 on November 14th, 2009

OH and btw, wikipedia isn't a credible source on most things. This is why most colleges and universities don't allow you to site wikipedia as a source for any research for any kind of class.