Your opinions: Where is it improper to carry?

[stealthyeliminator]

Skimming through the constitution the other day, I got to the [strike]11[/strike] 9th (corrected by Nightmare) amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and thought to myself, that might be the most important of them all. Yet, in full disclosure and honesty, it isn't one I had particularly memorized. And, I bet, if I were to go around town, I could probably manage to find a perfect 0% of people that are aware of that amendment.

As a side, another thought I had when reading through the main body of the constitution, was that it read like it was written by a bunch of statists. Outside of the bill of rights, there's very little in the constitution that I'd consider fundamentally critical to the success of the nation. But, I was only skimming, and that was just an impression I had, not a conclusion post-muse.

On the original topic, I had a hard time figuring out if we were talking about where it'd be appropriate to prohibit the carry of weapons, or if we were simply talking about where it would usually be a better idea to decide not to carry. Most of the examples given seemed like places it'd be a good idea for one to decide on their own not to carry. IMO goes to show plenty of gun owners are indeed perfectly reasonable people and will make these sort of rational decisions on their own, opposition to carry and controversy over it being very unnecessary.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

That would be the Ninth Amendment and part of the Bill of Rights.

Personally, I differentiate among The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the various amendments.

Oopsie, I was reading a joint resolution of proposed amendments and not those actually ratified.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I've met people who about a thousand times as dense as myself...

Thank you for your post. (sincerely) It was controversial and insulting and opinionated and exactly what I was hoping for when I made the thread.

 

[Citizen]

Skimming through the constitution the other day, I got to the [strike]11[/strike] 9th (corrected by Nightmare) amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and thought to myself, that might be the most important of them all. Yet, in full disclosure and honesty, it isn't one I had particularly memorized. And, I bet, if I were to go around town, I could probably manage to find a perfect 0% of people that are aware of that amendment.

As a side, another thought I had when reading through the main body of the constitution, was that it read like it was written by a bunch of statists. Outside of the bill of rights, there's very little in the constitution that I'd consider fundamentally critical to the success of the nation. But, I was only skimming, and that was just an impression I had, not a conclusion post-muse.

On the original topic, I had a hard time figuring out if we were talking about where it'd be appropriate to prohibit the carry of weapons, or if we were simply talking about where it would usually be a better idea to decide not to carry. Most of the examples given seemed like places it'd be a good idea for one to decide on their own not to carry. IMO goes to show plenty of gun owners are indeed perfectly reasonable people and will make these sort of rational decisions on their own, opposition to carry and controversy over it being very unnecessary.

A few years ago I came across some info to the effect that the 9th Amendment was a dead letter historically, but was then revived in a (SCOTUS?) case in the 1960's. Then a few more cases followed.

I'll have to see if I can find again the source of that info.

ETA: Oh, jeez, that was easy. Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard Levy. Yale University Press 1999. I'll come back and comment further. Got a few things to take care of first.

 

[Citizen]

On the 9Th Amendment

SNIP ETA: Oh, jeez, that was easy. Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard Levy. Yale University Press 1999. I'll come back and comment further. Got a few things to take care of first.

Just paraphrasing and summarizing Levy here.

1965. The first SCOTUS case to use the 9th Amendment was a case that declared unconstitutional a state law that forbade contraceptives even when advised by a physician to a married couple. He doesn't go into detail, and doesn't name the case, but it looks like this was also maybe the first case that mentioned a right to privacy, and maybe even "penumbras" and "emanations"--its not clear from the text of the book.

Within fifteen years, over 1200 state and federal cases then mentioned the 9th Amendment.

Levy seems to criticize judges who find rights in the 9th Amendment by using the adjective activist judges. I wouldn't agree with that personally, having a very wide view of rights, but you get what he means.

 

[skidmark]

Personally, I differentiate among The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the various amendments.

Why? They are all the same document. Just like any other contract where the parties have agreed to add or delete clauses.

You are not a party to the contract, so don't even try to go there. At best you are a distantly connected beneficiary of what happens when the contract is carried out.

stay safe.

 

[Citizen]

Why? They are all the same document. Just like any other contract where the parties have agreed to add or delete clauses.

You are not a party to the contract, so don't even try to go there. At best you are a distantly connected beneficiary of what happens when the contract is carried out.

stay safe.

And, he is often a direct victim when a violation of that contract is enforced.

Rights are rights are rights are rights.

Political history is one long narrative of people fighting back and demanding that government recognize their rights--or examples of government violating their rights.

The enumerated rights are just those rights the people succeeded in getting government to officially recognize--on paper.

Remember well, readers, that the constitution emitted by the constitutional convention completely lacked a Bill of Rights. That's why they're called amendments. The self-styled Federalists argued that no such Bill of Rights was necessary because powers not delegated were withheld and could not be exercised. That was their argument for not needing a Bill of Rights. For example, no express power to restrict the press mean the people didn't have to worry about the fedgov restricting the press. Yet, those same Federalists passed the Sedition Acts a few years later, making it a crime to criticize the fedgov. People actually went to prison for this, even though it was an obvious violation of the First Amendment. That is to say, even with a Bill of Rights, you couldn't trust the bast---ds.

The Bill of Rights was not a voluntary contract on the part of the fedgov. The only reason we have a Bill of Rights is because the anti-Federalists (for example, Patrick Henry) were succeeding at derailing ratification of the constitution. The anti-Federalists correctly foresaw that the fedgov established by the constitution would grow into a monster with numerous tentacles into the lives of Americans.* The Federalists only assented to a Bill of Rights when they suspected that such would shut up enough opposition to undermine even larger arguments against a national government. That is to say, the Federalists pulled a fast one. Patrick Henry and other anti-Federalists argued against the constitution because of the taxing powers and the idea (proven correct by history) that it would grow to swallow up the states. The Federalists decided to provide a Bill of Rights to silence enough opposition so the constitution would go through, effectively undermining the even larger arguments of Patrick Henry and others. The Bill of Rights was grudgingly given. James Madison, often called the father of the Bill of Rights, was a reluctant father: he's on record referring to the Bill of Rights as an "odious affair." As one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers trying to sell the constitution, that comment is telling. The Federalists would have been very happy to implement the constitution without a Bill of Rights.


*Buy and read The Anti-Federalist Papers. Its available in paperback. Its a collection of open letters to the editor/public against adopting the constitution. I kid you not--they were right. Before the constitution was even ratified, they correctly foresaw the federal government described in the constitution would grow into the monster we have today. History proves who was selling a bill of goods (the Federalist Papers), and who got it right (the Anti-Federalist Papers).

 

[nonameisgood]

Except for those who like to tell others or be told what to do. Some people just don't want to be bothered with governance as long as they have running water and electric lights and can go buy a bigger TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yep the federalist pretty much got their asses handed to them in Philadelphia. They didn't get much they wanted. Although I think some of the wording was deliberate and what they wanted seeing that guys like Hamilton directly contradicted himself and his promise of what the wording meant, and guys like Marshall who was very well aware of what happenened and what was agreed upon decided to make stuff up.

Kevin Gutzman's book Madison the Making of America, is a great book on how disappointed he was in the conventions and the constitution, even later trying to distance himself from it not wanting to be know as its writer.

 

[OC Freedom]

It's simple for me. If I cannot carry at a location, then I don't go to that location. For example I have not been on a plane in a very long time and never will again, unless the carry infringement changes in the future,(not holding my breath for that one).

 

[Silvertongue]

Trying to remember the movie where the mob guys get whacked in a Turkish bath. Might not have happened if they were carrying.

Eastern Promises.


Also, just to contribute, I think it's improper to carry where illegal.

 

[utbagpiper]

You would physically assault me, or condone your wife assaulting me, because of words? I'm willing to bet those words will not be defended as "fighting words".

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
--Robert Heinlein.

Was Heinlein condoning physical assault up to deadly force in response to mere insults? Or do his words convey something a little more subtle and complex?

I believe it is prudent to ignore and walk away from mere insults. Probably even a good idea to let most instances of what would have been properly recognized as "fighting words" before freedom of expression became the highest standard of society, also slide off one's back.

But at some point words cross from mere insults, through "fighting words", and into the realm of giving reasonable men, reasonable cause to fear an imminent assault. Showing my old-school sexism, I think that line can come much quicker for women who generally have a higher risk of being the victim of sexual assault than do men.

A few dirt bags getting ventilated for home invasions tends to reduce the instances of home invasions. Ditto for mugging little old ladies.

I suspect if a few boors were to get a face full of pepper spray for overly aggressive or vulgar language to the ladies, or for trying to throw their weight around with other guys, there might be a bit of improvement in general social conduct.

The courts have said the Westboros have a "right" to stand outside military funerals holding despicable signs about who they think God hates. Likewise the courts have allowed anti-LDS bigots to line the sidewalks leading into and out of LDS General Conference every six months. Most of the times, this latter group is merely insulting in a general sense, but occasionally one of them gets very personal and very much in the face of an innocent individual.

I can't afford the lawsuits or criminal defense for responding to some of these jack hats the way I think they richly deserve and so will do my very level best to de-escalate and retreat if at all possible if I am the victim of their verbal assault.

But if someone else ever does respond with some mild physical retort, and I happen to be on the jury, I'm likely to give the widest possibly latitude--up to and including flat out nullification--to the target of the fighting words.

I don't care to live in a society where he with the crudest mouth and least amount of couth gets free rein to impose his incivility on everyone around him. Freedom of speech/expression are very important rights. They are not the only rights. If the civil officials and courts are unable or unwilling to maintain some minimum level of civility, I certainly won't be party to imposing punishment on individuals who respond with mild physical contact.

Charles

 

[golddigger14s]

Sky Diving!

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Eastern Promises.


Also, just to contribute, I think it's improper to carry where illegal.

You set yourself up for this, what if "they" made it illegal to carry anywhere?

 

[solus]

piper, et al., sticks and stones...etc. there are truly no fighting words...even when you believe your mother has been disparaged or your heritage, or lack therein, is...

if ppl know which verbal button to push to get you to react, they get the satisfaction!!

if, you fail to react, you do!!

try slapping the big bad verbal brute with a glove to challenge them to a duel...you get arrested for simple assault!! (seems some of the honor has been judicially taken away...sigh :cuss

ipse

 

[Silvertongue]

You set yourself up for this, what if "they" made it illegal to carry anywhere?

Oh I only responded to give the movie for which Skid was searching. However, a reply without adding to the topic at hand might be considered (doom and gloom music) off-topic (lightning strikes while everything turns black-and-white like a horror movie).

 

[HPmatt]

Has anyone suggested the nudist beach? [emoji33]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J_dazzle23]

piper, et al., sticks and stones...etc. there are truly no fighting words...even when you believe your mother has been disparaged or your heritage, or lack therein, is...

if ppl know which verbal button to push to get you to react, they get the satisfaction!!

if, you fail to react, you do!!

try slapping the big bad verbal brute with a glove to challenge them to a duel...you get arrested for simple assault!! (seems some of the honor has been judicially taken away...sigh :cuss

ipse

There are no fighting words?

I can think of quite a few.

 

[solus]

There are no fighting words?

I can think of quite a few.

and yet you failed to articulate even an example...

ipse

 

[J_dazzle23]

and yet you failed to articulate even an example...

ipse

How about: 2 guys with their hands in their pockets walking up to me asking aggressively while intoxicated: "you got any money for us?"

Or "you think you can just cut me off in traffic and not get your *** kicked for it?"

Both happened to me, only words.

Only words.