Should New York tourists have their lives destroyed because of concealed carry l

[powermd]

I really don't envy you guys.

To feel the need to travel around carrying a concealed weapon you must either be in constant fear for your lives, or be hoping the opportunity arises to "stand your ground" and kill someone. Or maybe it gets your rocks off to walk around feeling the power of being armed. It's all kind of sick, and I'm glad I don't feel this deep need to walk around strapped. I've lived in lots of different cities and spent plenty of time in the dangerous areas. I got attacked exactly once- by a 14 year old with a bag of oranges trying to mug me in the 168th street subway station in NY. I doubt blowing his head off or pistol whipping him would have made me popular with his friends.

I realize this is blasphemy in the anesthesia forum, so go ahead, light the barbecue under my *****.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[doctor712]

Dude, Midnight Run is one of my ALLTIME favorite movies!!! Except Jack Walsh is so righteous he can carry a gun ANYTIME as far as I'm concerned. I left it out on purpose!

Classic film.

"Marvin!!!!!"

"Johnny Mardukis, da Duke."

"The Litmus Configuration Test."

"See ya in the Next Life...!"

"Alonzo Mosely, FBI."

Classic, classic film. While making, the river scenes shot in New Zealand, DeNiro was game and hopped into the rapids. Charles Grodin, on the other hand, required the crew to move to tamer waters, more than once.

 

[doctor712]

Has there been a better movie than this one? Really???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_tWmEfrJcs

you'll be happy to know they are making a sequel/remake. cannot remember which, but I heard about it.

D712

p.s. what's with the new look of SDN? All white and weird...

 

[doctor712]

mug me in the 168th street subway station

I often wondered, in that 168th Street station, would you survive a nuke blast up above? I mean, it's SOOOOOO far underground,...

Hijack over.

D712

 

[periopdoc]

Kind of like seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and a good nearby OB at the time of delivery. You don't need any of them until you really need them and then it's a little to late to decide to go looking for one. Wearing a CCW is like wearing a seatbelt. It just becomes second nature and you don't even think about it except for that occasional awkward uneasy feeling when you don't have one on.


-pod

 

[Narcotized]

To feel the need to travel around carrying a concealed weapon you must either be in constant fear for your lives, or be hoping the opportunity arises to "stand your ground" and kill someone. Or maybe it gets your rocks off to walk around feeling the power of being armed.

Or maybe it's as simple and less sinister as wearing a seatbelt. You aren't in constant fear of a serious wreck but you wear one, right? I don't go around strapped... yet.... but I don't blame those that do.

Edit- OK, I see I was just beaten to this response.

 

[periopdoc]

The fact that you successfully navigated dangerous cities multiple times without getting assaulted is irrelevant because people are frequently assulted and you happened to be lucky enough to avoid it. Doesn't make it safe or right. We know the risks.

That is as legitimate an argument as the guy who says "I have driven for 20 years without a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet, I think me and my friends will be fine without them" or the women who says "birthing is natural, all my friends have had unassisted childbirth so it will be safe for me to do the same." Both are blinding themselves to real risk.


-pod

 

[Apollyon]

I often wondered, in that 168th Street station, would you survive a nuke blast up above? I mean, it's SOOOOOO far underground,...

Hijack over.

D712

191st St is 180 ft below ground. 181st is 120. I can't find how deep 168 is, but 181 is deeper. However, I think that all would be protective from a nuke, except for the collapse aspect. Since 191 has a lower ceiling, that would be my choice.

 

[JohnQP]

I am pro gun and a CCW permit holder myself but the logic here is flawed in the NYC case.

One of the first things you are taught in CCW class and is even on the BS written exam is that it is YOUR responsibility to understand, know and research the laws related to states you may travel to.

Saying it was OK for her to carry her gun because she didnt know the laws in the state she travelled to is like telling a cop you didnt realize the speed limit was 50 and you were going 70. Personal responsibly, learn it or pay the price.

She deserves what she gets b/c ignorance (and in this case sheer stupidity) is not a defense in the eyes of the law.

 

[powermd]

The fact that you successfully navigated dangerous cities multiple times without getting assaulted is irrelevant because people are frequently assulted and you happened to be lucky enough to avoid it. Doesn't make it safe or right. We know the risks.

That is as legitimate an argument as the guy who says "I have driven for 20 years without a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet, I think me and my friends will be fine without them" or the women who says "birthing is natural, all my friends have had unassisted childbirth so it will be safe for me to do the same." Both are blinding themselves to real risk.


-pod

It's your assessment of the risks that I find questionable, provided you don't live in or frequent very bad neighborhoods. Do you? I'm not going to look up the risk of being in a scenario where your seatbelt saves your life vs the risk of being assaulted with a deadly weapon walking down the street in a reasonably safe area, but I'd guess the former is considerably higher. Wearing a seatbelt is also merely added safety without added risk. Carrying a loaded gun exposes you and other innocent people to range of additional risks that weren't there before you came on the scene with your piece.

With all you gun-toting guardians of the peace walking around I haven't yet heard of a case of one of these gun rampage mass murderers begin taken out by an armed citizen. Fear of that happening doesn't seem to stop these people either.

There's nothing wrong with a can of pepper spray, and whipping one out is probably less likely to involve anyone getting killed, even if the other guy has a weapon too. I'd bet pepper spray could have stopped 9/11.

 

[BLADEMDA]

NEWS RELEASE

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 •

www.saf.org



SAF FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST BLOOMBERG OVER GUN PERMIT FEES


For Immediate Release: 4/5/2011


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that alleges New York City's $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in the home is "excessive and…impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."



SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and five individual New York City residents. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.



"Under state law," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "the maximum fee for issuing a New York State handgun license is $10, but the law exempts citizens living in New York City. That exemption allows the city to charge an exorbitant fee for the license, which discourages city residents from exercising their civil rights while violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



"For decades the City has charged its residents exorbitant license fees that far exceed the fees charged by other states and cities that impose them," said attorney David Jensen, who is representing the plaintiffs. "The effect of this is to force a punitive tax on New York City citizens who choose to own firearms in compliance with the law. But people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and the City cannot simply impose fees for the sake of burdening law-abiding gun owners."



"The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association was founded 141 years ago in New York City and we are proud to participate in an action to help restore the Second Amendment rights of all New York City residents," said NYSRPA President Tom King.



In its lawsuit, SAF notes that the $340 fee is not used to defray administrative costs, so there appears to be no purpose for it other than to discourage people from applying for a permit. The excessive fee, according to Gottlieb, puts the exercise of a constitutional right solely within the financial reach of the wealthy class, essentially turning a civil right into a privilege for the rich and well-connected.



"New York is one of only two states that require a permit just to keep a handgun in one's own home," Gottlieb said. "Citizens in the other 48 states would consider that an outrage. The city's ‘residence premises' handgun license amounts to a charge of more than $100 annually to keep a handgun in one's home, which is ridiculous. Mayor Bloomberg is essentially taxing the fundamental right to defend one's self in his or her own home. We cannot think of anything more egregious than perpetuating a fee structure that puts a financial obstacle in the way of citizens who want to protect their homes and families.



"We believe the only recourse is to take this issue to the federal court," he concluded. "Billionaires like Mayor Bloomberg can be cavalier about a citizen's rights, but we can't, and we won't."



The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-

 

[doctor712]

For the record, I don't begrudge those - at all - who want to apply for their weapon, and pack some heat. I simply don't find NYC laws unconstitutional.

D712

 

[doctor712]

191st St is 180 ft below ground. 181st is 120. I can't find how deep 168 is, but 181 is deeper. However, I think that all would be protective from a nuke, except for the collapse aspect. Since 191 has a lower ceiling, that would be my choice.

Inneresting.

 

[doctor712]

Except for the civil right protected by the 2nd Amendment. On that count, you guys are not our friends.

Incidentally, Hollywood actually enjoys special protection of its own firearm ownership rights. Check out the CA DOJ applications for various permits ... there's always an exception for film studios - it's explicitly listed as an acceptable 'good cause'. And said permits are simply unobtainable for people outside of Hollywood.

Of course we love 2nd amendment rights - Charlton Heston, the biggest pro-NRA kevlar-bullet-piercing-proponent was the NRA chairman.

I would imagine those firearm ownership rights protections for the studios have to do with filming and keeping guns on set and all that... I could be wrong, didn't read the app.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

It's your assessment of the risks that I find questionable, provided you don't live in or frequent very bad neighborhoods. Do you? I'm not going to look up the risk of being in a scenario where your seatbelt saves your life vs the risk of being assaulted with a deadly weapon walking down the street in a reasonably safe area, but I'd guess the former is considerably higher. Wearing a seatbelt is also merely added safety without added risk. Carrying a loaded gun exposes you and other innocent people to range of additional risks that weren't there before you came on the scene with your piece.

With all you gun-toting guardians of the peace walking around I haven't yet heard of a case of one of these gun rampage mass murderers begin taken out by an armed citizen. Fear of that happening doesn't seem to stop these people either.

There's nothing wrong with a can of pepper spray, and whipping one out is probably less likely to involve anyone getting killed, even if the other guy has a weapon too. I'd bet pepper spray could have stopped 9/11.

Gun Owners are, as a whole, a responsible group. The use of a firearm is the last thing any responsible gun owner wants. Most gun owners will do everything possible to avoid a confrontation. However, if you try and rob somebody in Florida be aware that "victim" has a 1:10 chance of being armed.

In this state a robber who gets shot and killed won't be mourned by the liberal media. Florida still has Capital punishment and the majority of its citizens believes (including Blacks and Latinos) lethal force is justifiable in most "threatening" situations in order to stop a felony from being committed.

 

[doctor712]

NEWS RELEASE

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 •

www.saf.org



SAF FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST BLOOMBERG OVER GUN PERMIT FEES


For Immediate Release: 4/5/2011


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that alleges New York City’s $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in the home is “excessive and…impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”



SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and five individual New York City residents. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.



“Under state law,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “the maximum fee for issuing a New York State handgun license is $10, but the law exempts citizens living in New York City. That exemption allows the city to charge an exorbitant fee for the license, which discourages city residents from exercising their civil rights while violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



“For decades the City has charged its residents exorbitant license fees that far exceed the fees charged by other states and cities that impose them,” said attorney David Jensen, who is representing the plaintiffs. “The effect of this is to force a punitive tax on New York City citizens who choose to own firearms in compliance with the law. But people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and the City cannot simply impose fees for the sake of burdening law-abiding gun owners.”



“The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association was founded 141 years ago in New York City and we are proud to participate in an action to help restore the Second Amendment rights of all New York City residents,” said NYSRPA President Tom King.



In its lawsuit, SAF notes that the $340 fee is not used to defray administrative costs, so there appears to be no purpose for it other than to discourage people from applying for a permit. The excessive fee, according to Gottlieb, puts the exercise of a constitutional right solely within the financial reach of the wealthy class, essentially turning a civil right into a privilege for the rich and well-connected.



“New York is one of only two states that require a permit just to keep a handgun in one’s own home,” Gottlieb said. “Citizens in the other 48 states would consider that an outrage. The city’s ‘residence premises’ handgun license amounts to a charge of more than $100 annually to keep a handgun in one’s home, which is ridiculous. Mayor Bloomberg is essentially taxing the fundamental right to defend one’s self in his or her own home. We cannot think of anything more egregious than perpetuating a fee structure that puts a financial obstacle in the way of citizens who want to protect their homes and families.



“We believe the only recourse is to take this issue to the federal court,” he concluded. “Billionaires like Mayor Bloomberg can be cavalier about a citizen’s rights, but we can’t, and we won’t.”



The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-

Blade,

Looks like you may get your test case. I mean, look it's the SECOND AMENDMENT foundation, seems like this is sort of their job. They are using the argument I thought you'd be using all along and the one that I thought would be called into question. The fee that makes getting a gun somewhat inaccessible for residents. (though they could easily take out a loan against their 1,000,000$ NYC homes for that 340$ fee). Anyway, the state LAW exempts NYC from the 10$ fee. Let's see if this goes anywhere. The state will argue they have a reasonable right to charge this in the name of public safety, though I'm sure they will add that NYC has 8,000,000 residents and get inundated with applications and that the cost for processing a NYC app is much more than in BFE upstate NY. Which it does, but 330$ more I'm not so sure.

It'll be interesting and I hope the Federal Court, and perhaps SCOTUS finds for NYC.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Gun Owners are, as a whole, a responsible group. The use of a firearm is the last thing any responsible gun owner wants. Most gun owners will do everything possible to avoid a confrontation. However, if you try and rob somebody in Florida be aware that "victim" has a 1:10 chance of being armed.

In this state a robber who gets shot and killed won't be mourned by the liberal media. Florida still has Capital punishment and the majority of its citizens believes (including Blacks and Latinos) lethal force is justifiable in most "threatening" situations in order to stop a felony from being committed.

You know I'm down here too Blade, and you make some decent points in relation to a predominantly rural state. Now, apply what you wrote to NYC...it's a different beast requiring different laws. Do you at all agree with that? I don't think you replied directly to my responses yet and I'm curious to know your take on what I've written...

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

Judge: NYC Pistol Licensing Fees Are Legal
Gun rights advocates sued last year, saying a $340 handgun license fee every three years is unconstitutional because it burdens a basic right.

Monday, Mar 26, 2012


A New York judge says it's Constitutional for the city to charge an application fee for a handgun permit.
Federal Judge John Koelt Monday rejected a lawsuit brought by guns rights advocates including the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. They sued last year, saying a $340 handgun license fee every three years is unconstitutional because it burdens a basic right.
The judge says there's no evidence the fee has stopped anyone from exercising their rights. He says the city showed the fee helps cover administrative costs.
City Attorney Michael Cardoza says the ruling upholds the city's ability to conduct meaningful checks into applicants' qualifications. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

 

[doctor712]

Judge: NYC Pistol Licensing Fees Are Legal
Gun rights advocates sued last year, saying a $340 handgun license fee every three years is unconstitutional because it burdens a basic right.

Monday, Mar 26, 2012


A New York judge says it's Constitutional for the city to charge an application fee for a handgun permit.
Federal Judge John Koelt Monday rejected a lawsuit brought by guns rights advocates including the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. They sued last year, saying a $340 handgun license fee every three years is unconstitutional because it burdens a basic right.
The judge says there's no evidence the fee has stopped anyone from exercising their rights. He says the city showed the fee helps cover administrative costs.
City Attorney Michael Cardoza says the ruling upholds the city's ability to conduct meaningful checks into applicants' qualifications. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

Bravo for this ruling.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You know I'm down here too Blade, and you make some decent points in relation to a predominantly rural state. Now, apply what you wrote to NYC...it's a different beast requiring different laws. Do you at all agree with that? I don't think you replied directly to my responses yet and I'm curious to know your take on what I've written...

D712

Florida is Rural???

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

My view is those shootings have nothing to do with gun laws and I don't see a trend here.
Also, I thought Arizona was the best state to own a gun followed by Texas and Florida. I guess Utah is the Best per my liberal friends from the Brady Foundation.

 

[doctor712]

Florida is Rural???

To me, mostly, yes. I mean, obviously what I mean is outside the 4 or 5 major cities, it's rural/suburban etc. The vast interior and north of the ENTIRE state is rural. Maybe we have a different definition of rural. It's certainly not Montana, but shall we compare it to Metropolitan NYC?

Even FSU down here has a rural track to their medical school. So I stand by the vast majority of Florida being rural. This comes from having traversed the state in every direction by car.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

Alaska,
Vermont,
New Hampshire,
Utah (some cities even demand people to own guns- now that's pro-gun!)
Arizona
Idaho
Montana (one of the few states that allow ppl to make their own suppressors and MG's for personal use WITHOUT federal approval. aka FFA)
The Dakotas (SD, ND)
Wyoming (like Montana about NFA items)
Oregon
TN
OK
Maine
Florida

 

[doctor712]

I feel strongly about this Blade. And the only way I can say that is shame on your for posting this picture which doesn't mention the 1,000,000 VARIABLES that go into crime and criminal behavior. To tie gun laws into a red and white map is preposterous and ridiculous. As a scientist, who thinks empirically and analytically when considering variables and cause/effect when it comes to Anesthesia, how could you even sum shooting someone with a gun as an outcome here????

Furthermore, I could throw up a map surely that details the gun-related killings in NYC, LA Metro, Philly and how they probably amount for more than 50% of the gun deaths in the US. Yet, they are in LENIENT states. But I wouldn't do that because that argument is a foolish one. Like the red map, foolish on its face.

d712

 

[doctor712]

My view is those shootings have nothing to do with gun laws and I don't see a trend here.
Also, I thought Arizona was the best state to own a gun followed by Texas and Florida. I guess Utah is the Best per my liberal friends from the Brady Foundation.

Wait I just saw that, are you saying this in regard to the RED map you posted...? If so, why did you post it?

I think we have to be careful to go down this road as the thread was initially about Constitutionality, and not deaths/etc.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

I feel strongly about this Blade. And the only way I can say that is shame on your for posting this picture which doesn't mention the 1,000,000 VARIABLES that go into crime and criminal behavior. To tie gun laws into a red and white map is preposterous and ridiculous. As a scientist, who thinks empirically and analytically when considering variables and cause/effect when it comes to Anesthesia, how could you even sum shooting someone with a gun as an outcome here????

d712

Complain to the Brady Foundation Slim. They did the map. I'm just posting it for discussion.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Florida is Rural???

Population per Square Mile is noted on this map. Florida ain't rural.

 

[doctor712]

Complain to the Brady Foundation Slim. They did the map. I'm just posting it for discussion.

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/workforce/ruralhealth/PDFs/Rural_Urban_County_Map_2010.pdf

40% is rural. Would you agree with that? Also, I'd say the VAST portion of other interior sections, and even some coastal is probably borderline RURAL.

For example, even a county that is not rural on my map... has the following website...

http://www.lakecountyfl.gov/pdfs/LP.../Rural_protection_areas_policies_111408KS.pdf

D712

 

[doctor712]

Population per Square Mile is noted on this map. Florida ain't rural.

Disagree. Florida, aside from huge city centers, is pretty damn rural.

Reference:
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/workforce/ruralhealth/ruralhealthhome.html


What is Rural Health in Florida?
Although Florida is the fourth most populous state in the U.S., it has substantial areas that are rural both by definition and use. Florida is the ninth largest producer of farm commodities in the nation with 30% of its total land area in farmland. An additional 10% of the state is set aside for recreation and preservation in the form of state and federal parks, forests, wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, and national seashores.
As of the 2000 Census, 33 of Florida's 67 counties (emphasis: HALF) are considered rural based on the statutory definition of an area with a population density of less than 100 individuals per square mile or an area defined by the most recent United States Census as rural. In area, these 33 counties cover just over 42 percent of Florida's nearly 54,000 square miles of land area. Rural counties are located primarily in the Florida Panhandle, north central Florida, the south central portion of the state, and the Florida Keys. Approximately 1.1 million of Florida's 16 million citizens live in those rural counties. Portions of other Florida counties also contain large, rural areas but are not classified as rural. Many of the counties bordering on the Atlantic and Gulf have populations concentrated near the coast, but thinly populated interiors (e.g., Collier, Palm Beach, or Escambia counties.) To take these rural populations into account, several of the statutory Rural Health Networks include them in their service areas.

I don't know where you live, but perhaps I might suggest a road trip to Northern Florida or somewhere in the interior of Florida? It's an eye opening experience.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Look up at my recently edited posts (a couple of them).

Florida = rural.

D712

 

[pgg]

Carrying a loaded gun exposes you and other innocent people to range of additional risks that weren't there before you came on the scene with your piece.

This is, simply, incorrect. I don't know how else to put it.

Mind you, we're not speaking of Plaxico Burress, cruising nightclubs with a gun tucked in his sweat pants.

With all you gun-toting guardians of the peace walking around I haven't yet heard of a case of one of these gun rampage mass murderers begin taken out by an armed citizen.

First, that's because people carrying guns for self-defense aren't the police. I don't know where you get this idea that permit holders are vigilantes or delusional peacekeeprs (well ... that bonehead Zimmerman, I guess). Almost every permit holder would exit the scene if possible before getting in a shootout or playing hero. Remember, except for tools like Zimmerman, people get permits and carry because of their keen sense of self-preservation. Hearing gunshots and deliberately going toward that noise looking for the source is not plan A for us.

Second, these mass-shooting events are extradordinarily rare, despite what hand-wringing gun control advocates would have you believe. Very few people actually exercise their right to carry. Even among those few % who have permits, most do not actually carry most of the time. Even I, as vocal as I am about the importance of routine carry, don't actually have mine most of the time because I work on federal property.

Third, the great, great majority of self defense incidents involving lawfully carried guns END the instant the attacker sees the gun, or sees the person carrying the gun change posture and reach for it - without any shots fired. You don't hear about these events because they are, well, non-events. But it's a violent altercation avoided.

In my lifetime, I've been robbed and assaulted. It's tremendously naive to think over the course of my lifetime it won't happen again. I don't walk in dark alleys at 2 AM, I don't go to seedy bars, I don't go to drug dealers, I don't hang out with felons - but my risk isn't zero. I personally know people - my own brother included - who've avoided being assaulted simply by non-subtly letting the attacker know they were armed (in some jurisdictions this may be considered brandishing, so care is warranted).


If you choose to accept whatever risk you perceive and feel safer unarmed, that's totally up to you and I don't fault you for it. Everyone's risk assessment and comfort with active self-defense is different. Someone mentioned upthread that everyone should be required to carry a gun; this is crazy.

But - before you get all worried, dismissive, or contemptuous of people who do carry guns, take the time to look beyond the Brady propaganda. Actual facts, actual data, and decades of carry right expansion have not shown any correlation, much less causation, between gun ownership / legal carry and more crime or (non-suicide) gun deaths.

Fear of that happening doesn't seem to stop these people either.

Acknowledging that violent criminals still commit their crimes despite the nonzero risk to their own safety would seem to be an argument for being prepared for self-defense.

There's nothing wrong with a can of pepper spray,

Except it's laughably, totally ineffective against an attacker. The sale of pepper spray is the sale of security theater to gullible people. The only thing pepper spray is good for is discouraging a dog looking to pick a fight. Some dogs, anyway.

This is like saying there's nothing wrong with harsh languange or fists as self defense tools. Once you've recognized that carrying a tool for self defense is both rational and a good idea, you ought to carry that train of thought to its logical conclusion, and choose to carry the correct tool, not a security blanket. Or choose to carry no tool, if you'd prefer.

and whipping one out is probably less likely to involve anyone getting killed, even if the other guy has a weapon too. I'd bet pepper spray could have stopped 9/11.

The passengers didn't need pepper spray to stop 9/11. All they needed were the psychic powers to know that the multi-decade trend of hijackings resulting in diversion to Cuba and a standoff with ultimate hostage release had suddenly changed, and that they were going to get crashed into buildings.

The hijackers had box cutters! They didn't need pepper spray. They needed a divine voice to tell them that 5 guys with 1/2" blades were going to kill them all in a few minutes.

 

[doctor712]

Here's the reality...

Sorry 'slim', that's florida for you.

Reference: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/ruraldefinitions/FL.pdf

 

[doctor712]

Mind you, we're not speaking of Plaxico Burress, cruising nightclubs with a gun tucked in his sweat pants.

But why aren't we talking about Plax? It's the gun tucked in the pants idiots cruising nightclubs (alcohol, genius) that worry me. Not Dr. Dockerson
who just wants to protect himself that I fear. I fear idiots.

. Almost every permit holder would exit the scene if possible before getting in a shootout or playing hero.

Baseless datum. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Second, these mass-shooting events are extradordinarily rare,

Agreed.

I don't go to seedy bars, I don't go to drug dealers, I don't hang out with felons

New York City has lots of seedy bars, drug dealers and felons. More per square mile than any other
city in the US I would argue. At least more than rural florida.

Acknowledging that violent criminals still commit their crimes despite the nonzero risk to their own safety would seem to be an argument for being prepared for self-defense.

Yeah, but I cannot live my life worried about that. It's like moving out of NYC after 9/11. I wait, I did that. Done doing that.

Except it's laughably, totally ineffective against an attacker.

Actually, that's laughable. I'm not saying it's as effective as a bullet, and as ineffective as fists of death wielded by Kristen Chenoweth. However, if you think it's laughably and totally ineffective against an attacked, would you allow me to spray you in the face with police issued pepper spray? And then we can't fight and see who wins. Are you game? We can even have 3 fights prior as controls, no pepper spray. Then, see the difference. I'm game if you are. I've seen vids of both my bro and sis get sprayed during training. I could have easily killed either of them in the moments after, while they were feeling the burn. Now, it's not for every situation, but it is for some. And that makes it NOT totally ineffective. Agreed? (mods: the pepper spray in PGG's face challenge is purely hypothetical. shame that i have to write this or face potential action. oy.)

The passengers didn't need pepper spray to stop 9/11. All they needed were the psychic powers to know that the multi-decade trend of hijackings resulting in diversion to Cuba and a standoff with ultimate hostage release had suddenly changed, and that they were going to get crashed into buildings.

Smartest thing you've ever posted on SDN if I may say so. It was a monumental failure of intelligence. Our hijack strategies had been the same since 19sixty whatever, that they'd land the plane and discuss. Caught us with our pants down. thumbdown

D712

 

[doctor712]

Complain to the Brady Foundation Slim. They did the map. I'm just posting it for discussion.

Well, it's been discussed. I don't see you commenting on it though, other than to say it's an irrelevant map. So, was just wondering why post.



D712

 

[pgg]

Here's the reality...

Sorry 'slim', that's florida for you.

Reference: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/ruraldefinitions/FL.pdf

I'm not at all familiar with Florida.

How much of that pale 'rural' area down south is swamp, totally uninhabitable by anything except big toothy reptiles?



Regardless, fixating on how rural Florida is or isn't misses the point. Civil rights shouldn't be restricted or limited based on how loud you have to yell to be heard by your neighbor.

I've mentioned this before, but all gun control in the United States was borne of racism and classism, of the desire to prevent poor people and especially black people from getting all uppity and asserting their rights.

It's a testament to the power of propaganda that the party of poor minorities have been able to convince them that it's in their best interest to restrict their right to self defense at all, but particularly in the urban places where they live in greatest numbers. It's almost worthy of a conspiracy movie script how successful they've been at persuading them to waive their rights. Maybe you could write it.

 

[pgg]

But why aren't we talking about Plax? It's the gun tucked in the pants idiots cruising nightclubs (alcohol, genius) that worry me. Not Dr. Dockerson
who just wants to protect himself that I fear. I fear idiots.

We're not talking about Plaxico because he was carrying illegally.

Yeah, but I cannot live my life worried about that. It's like moving out of NYC after 9/11. I wait, I did that. Done doing that.

Did you leave NY because of 9/11 - or rather, because you made a conscious decision to leave a city that's a likely target?

Actually, that's laughable. I'm not saying it's as effective as a bullet, and as ineffective as fists of death wielded by Kristen Chenoweth. However, if you think it's laughably and totally ineffective against an attacked, would you allow me to spray you in the face with police issued pepper spray? And then we can't fight and see who wins. Are you game? We can even have 3 fights prior as controls, no pepper spray. Then, see the difference. I'm game if you are.

We were talking about pepper spray available to ordinary people, not the 1/2 gallon bear-spray-in-a-police-use-only-marked-can. But that's a minor point. Some places it's legal to buy the same stuff they have.

But the major point is that the ONLY reason police have and use pepper spray and other less-lethal devices is because they ALSO have guns and one or ten of their friends nearby, also with guns.

I've been gassed and sprayed. It was uncomfortable and blurred my vision, but I was not incapacitated. (The whole point of the excercise, beyond practicing with gas masks etc, was to demonstrate how we would NOT be meaningfully incapacitated with it.)

I maintain that carrying pepper spray is a poor idea, if you have the legal right to carry a better tool.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

The sale of pepper spray is the sale of security theater to gullible people. The only thing pepper spray is good for is discouraging a dog looking to pick a fight. Some dogs, anyway.

My dog got out and went for the mailman (she hates him + the UPS guy, Fedex chick and anyone else on my porch). He pepper sprayed her in the eye. She turned, ran back about five feet, circled and charged again. He sprayed her in the other eye and by the time, I'd caught up with her and picked her up. I had to put her in the shower to get it all off. I don't think she'd have bit him, but she likes to keep people away from the house. It's actually quite useful. But you're right about pepper spray. It hardly slowed down my 25 lb doggie.

 

[doctor712]

I'm not at all familiar with Florida.

How much of that pale 'rural' area down south is swamp, totally uninhabitable by anything except big toothy reptiles?



Regardless, fixating on how rural Florida is or isn't misses the point. Civil rights shouldn't be restricted or limited based on how loud you have to yell to be heard by your neighbor.

I've mentioned this before, but all gun control in the United States was borne of racism and classism, of the desire to prevent poor people and especially black people from getting all uppity and asserting their rights.

It's a testament to the power of propaganda that the party of poor minorities have been able to convince them that it's in their best interest to restrict their right to self defense at all, but particularly in the urban places where they live in greatest numbers. It's almost worthy of a conspiracy movie script how successful they've been at persuading them to waive their rights. Maybe you could write it.

Not much surprisingly, PGG.

Here's a map...

That's the Southern tip of Florida. Western Miami-Dade and Broward counties over to Collier I think (Naples). So, tip of the tip. Having said that, there are still residents as you drive across the (rural) everglades. Western Broward is inhabited all the way up to the Everglade border (and I mean up to the border, like to the foot.) One of the western cities there, Weston, used to be Everglades.

Gun control was born out of racism, yes, all the way back to the 2nd amendment providing for right to bear arms? Your point?

D712

 

[doctor712]

Civil rights shouldn't be restricted or limited based on how loud you have to yell to be heard by your neighbor.

SCOTUS disagrees with you PGG. They have made multiple rights rulings based on local communities and how laws fit in there. (porn, guns, speech etc...)

 

[doctor712]

We're not talking about Plaxico because he was carrying illegally.

Right, so CCW carriers never tuck and drink...? And they never look or act like Plaxico? (that was my point).

Did you leave NY because of 9/11 - or rather, because you made a conscious decision to leave a city that's a likely target?

How are the two different? Leaving after 9/11 was a conscious decision... both looking back and forward. More forward if that's what you mean. I wouldn't do that again. As a matter of fact, when the kids are grown up, I'd like to head back to NYC.

But the major point is that the ONLY reason police have and use pepper spray and other less-lethal devices is because they ALSO have guns and one or ten of their friends nearby, also with guns.

We're not talking about the cops though. Of course they're carrying PGG. We are talking about Mary Jane CCW Carrier. If she wants to carry a gun, apply. If she feels like she'd only need pepper spray to fend off Blind Date boy, also fine.

I've been gassed and sprayed. It was uncomfortable and blurred my vision, but I was not incapacitated. (The whole point of the excercise, beyond practicing with gas masks etc, was to demonstrate how we would NOT be meaningfully incapacitated with it.)
You were wearing a gas mask, or at least, had access to put mask on following being gased, correct? Irrelevent.
Pepper sprayed, I ask again, would you be willing to go up against me wielding pepper spray? I'd take on Jet with pepper spray in my hands. Believe me, I'd do my best to avoid his immediate area, but I've seen peeps go down his size. Muscles don't equate to pain threshold.

I maintain that carrying pepper spray is a poor idea, if you have the legal right to carry a better tool.

Some places you just cannot carry. Unless you're law enforcement, or even FEDERAL law enforcement (aside from emergency situations). If you're going to the Yankees game, you're going to carry your Glock? Nope. Panthers game down here? They won't let you in unless you flash your way in. How about a woman on a date, late at night in the Village, does she REALLY want a gun at hand even though the circumstance deems it may be safe as he/she takes walk of shame home at 2am? My point is, you claim that it's gun or nothing. I think that sounds foolish. You talk about diffusing situations and leaving, but I BET at the same point I'm pulling pepper spray, you're pulling your weapon to kill. So much for using it as a last resort and avoiding situation. Only difference is I will probably live and so will my attacker. If I wanted to carry a gun 24/7 I'd have followed in dad's footsteps. But I chose to rely on my government instead on a day to day basis.

How about going to the post office? You think Blade's scenario of walking into a precinct carrying a weapon to hand over would end badly. Try getting caught with a weapon on US Postal Property. Concealed or otherwise. That's federal property and doesn't need to be provided against by local ordinance That's US title 18 Federal Law. Sometimes, a gun just isn't needed or practical. Or legal. I'll bet that just annoys the heck out of you. Racist US Postal Inspection Service. (oldest federal law enforcement agency in the US, for the record.)

Also, as a side note, writer friend/boss of mine was traveling from CALI to TENN to his vacation home. He has a lot of guns. Anyway, he wanted to bring his rifle to check in with Southwest for the flight to TENN. He didn't know how to bring it to the airport, he had a rifle case, but called to find out the rules (first mistake in med student's journey, but I digress). He asks SOUTHWEST customer service, "How should I bring the rifle into the airport?" Response, "Just bring it in." Writer: "Do I need to put it in a case?" Response: "Nope, you can just walk the rifle into LAX and we will check it." This was post 9/11. Needless to say, Writer buddy didn't follow that advice. He'd be dead had he. #idiots.

D712

 

[doctor712]

One last piece of info/image regarding rural nature of florida.

This is the Bank Atlantic Center, where the NHL Florida Panthers play (what a game last night!) They play in Sunrise, FL (an urban red area on Blade's map). See the picture below. The foreground is Sunrise Florida as developed with Bank Atlantic...

To show PGG because he asked, beyond the Bank Atlantic, that's everglades all the way to the Western coast of Florida. Sunrise, with all its land, and neighboring communities like the horse community of Plantation, heck even Weston has cow land, are SMACK dab in the middle of Blades DARK red "urban" map centers.

D712

 

[pgg]

Almost every permit holder would exit the scene if possible before getting in a shootout or playing hero.

Baseless datum. But you're entitled to your opinion.

The basis of my statement is are actual state laws where I've lived that define pretty explicitly what constitutes acceptable use of non-lethal and lethal force. And every CCW and self defense course I've ever taken, in multiple states. Avoidance, de-escalation, and withdrawal whenever possible are central points to all of them. In point of fact, I've never seen anyone argue or debate this general philosophy at any of those course - it's so obvious that it's accepted as self evident. People get permits for self-defense, not because they imagine themselves protectors of the public. Zimmermans are the exception, not the rule. Additionally, courts take a dim view of vigilantes.

What's the basis of your belief that permit holders would go looking for trouble? What you see in movies? The Zimmerman case (which is remarkable precisely because it's such atypical behavior)?

Gun control was born out of racism, yes, all the way back to the 2nd amendment providing for right to bear arms? Your point?

I thought my point was made pretty clearly:

It's a testament to the power of propaganda that the party of poor minorities have been able to convince them that it's in their best interest to restrict their right to self defense at all, but particularly in the urban places where they live in greatest numbers.

Just that it's disappointing and sad that a group of people who've historically struggled so hard to assert some of their basic human rights have been conned into giving up another.

Civil rights shouldn't be restricted or limited based on how loud you have to yell to be heard by your neighbor.

SCOTUS disagrees with you PGG. They have made multiple rights rulings based on local communities and how laws fit in there. (porn, guns, speech etc...)

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I vehemently disagree - as I think you probably do too, at least on the issue of speech.

The key word in my quote there was "shouldn't" ... believe me, as a resident of California, I am painfully aware of the Supreme Court's failure to rule on the 2nd Amendments applicability to the many unconstitutional restrictions imposed by the state.

I do believe this will change soon ... "soon" being a loose term in the glacial context of our courts.


When I post, I try to not to be ambiguous about what I believe should be and what is. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

 

[pgg]

Right, so CCW carriers never tuck and drink...? And they never look or act like Plaxico? (that was my point).

I'm not sure what you think Plaxico's looks have to do with anything.

But you're making a very basic error here: you're worrying about what people breaking the law will do. The problem there isn't CCW, or firearm ownership. It's that they're breaking the law.

Most jurisdictions with legal CCW prohibit the consumption of alcohol while carrying. A person with a permit who goes out and drinks while carrying in such an area is no different than the person who carries without a permit and goes out and drinks. The problem here isn't CCW, it's people breaking the law.

Did you leave NY because of 9/11 - or rather, because you made a conscious decision to leave a city that's a likely target?

How are the two different? Leaving after 9/11 was a conscious decision... both looking back and forward. More forward if that's what you mean. I wouldn't do that again. As a matter of fact, when the kids are grown up, I'd like to head back to NYC.

I was just curious. I used to live in DC. I had an opportunity to go back there for residency in 2006, and declined. Mainly because I was sick, sick, sick of the crowds and traffic and 'city life' ... but a small factor was the realization that it was one of exactly two cities (the other being NY) that are major targets.

We're not talking about the cops though. Of course they're carrying PGG. We are talking about Mary Jane CCW Carrier. If she wants to carry a gun, apply. If she feels like she'd only need pepper spray to fend off Blind Date boy, also fine.

Talking about the cops is an essential point when it comes to discussing non-lethal and less-lethal options. It works for them because they have lethal backup and they travel in packs. The same logic doesn't apply to your claim that pepper spray is an appropriate substitute for a gun for individuals.

I'm totally in agreement with you that Mary Jane should be free to choose to carry whatever she wants, in accordance with her own comfort level and threat assessment.

Some places you just cannot carry.

Yes, we're aware of that. I've mentioned in this very thread that federal property and private property with posted signs are among prohibited areas. I'm generally OK with that, because most people don't HAVE to go to such places most of the time.

In fact, I'm not carrying, right now, because I'm on federal property, right now.

By the way, one of my medical school classmates brought a gun onto federal property and shot a bunch of people at Ft Hood. Makes me wonder what the point of the gun prohibiting laws are since criminals don't follow them.

My point is, you claim that it's gun or nothing. I think that sounds foolish. You talk about diffusing situations and leaving, but I BET at the same point I'm pulling pepper spray, you're pulling your weapon to kill. So much for using it as a last resort and avoiding situation. Only difference is I will probably live and so will my attacker. If I wanted to carry a gun 24/7 I'd have followed in dad's footsteps.

You say you will 'probably' live ... and that's your risk to take. You also seem to care if your attacker lives or not.

But I chose to rely on my government instead on a day to day basis.

This speaks volumes.

I'll bet that just annoys the heck out of you. Racist US Postal Inspection Service.

Yeah, federal property. Park on the street, gun goes in the safe, I go in. It is annoying, but it's the law - and I (like other permit holders) follow the law.

Your irrational fear of us is totally unfounded. Because we obey the laws, even if we think they're stupid.

He asks SOUTHWEST customer service, "How should I bring the rifle into the airport?" Response, "Just bring it in." Writer: "Do I need to put it in a case?" Response: "Nope, you can just walk the rifle into LAX and we will check it." This was post 9/11. Needless to say, Writer buddy didn't follow that advice.

Yeah, a person answering phones for minimum wage probably isn't the person to ask for legal advice concerning firearms.


I called the CA Dept of Justice Firearms branch once with a question and they directed me to violate federal law.

 

[doctor712]

The basis of my statement is are actual state laws where I've lived that define pretty explicitly what constitutes acceptable use of non-lethal and lethal force.

Not that this has anything to do with my initial dog in this fight which was the Constitutionality of NYC laws, and my opinion therein, but I generally think that laws often get overlooked when people are scared. When a gun is involved, you know what's going to happen.

What's the basis of your belief that permit holders would go looking for trouble? What you see in movies? The Zimmerman case (which is remarkable precisely because it's such atypical behavior)?

I'm not really worried about the Zimmerman's or Bernie Goetz's of the world. Having said that, Encore is showing Goodfellas on HD right now, so, ya know, I have it on in the background as I work this morning, maybe it's affecting my decision making. And god willing it'll affect my screenplay.

Just that it's disappointing and sad that a group of people who've historically struggled so hard to assert some of their basic human rights have been conned into giving up another.

See my Clooney quote above. End of discussion there.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I vehemently disagree - as I think you probably do too, at least on the issue of speech.

Can you clarify my view of free speech, seriously, I'd like to know what you're going on here as you've mentioned it a couple times
and I'd like to know if we are, indeed, on same page.

The key word in my quote there was "shouldn't" ... believe me, as a resident of California, I am painfully aware of the Supreme Court's failure to rule on the 2nd Amendments applicability to the many unconstitutional restrictions imposed by the state.

You keep calling them unconstitutional. When SCOTUS says they are constitutional we have to sort of, ya know, listen.

D712

 

[pgg]

Can you clarify my view of free speech, seriously, I'd like to know what you're going on here as you've mentioned it a couple times and I'd like to know if we are, indeed, on same page.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth (really) but my impression from your prior posts, and from knowing that you write for a living, is that you feel that restricting speech should only be done if there is a compelling government interest, and even then the restriction should be narrowly tailored and implemented through the least restrictive means.

You keep calling them unconstitutional. When SCOTUS says they are constitutional we have to sort of, ya know, listen.

This is where you're incorrect. SCOTUS hasn't said these state laws concerning carry permits are either constitutional or unconstitutional. They haven't ruled AT ALL on the subject ... though the very narrowly written Heller and McDonald decisions did have hints about the Court's meaning in that direction.

You are correct that SCOTUS decides what is and isn't constitutional. It's a little disingenuous to say that because they haven't, for example, determined a level of scrutiny for 2A issues or settled a CCW case circuit split yet, that all of these laws are by default constitutional.

They are laws, and they are being enforced, and if we break them we will be prosecuted, but their constitutionality has yet to be determined. Maybe your argument is that all laws are by default constitutional until ruled otherwise in court, but that's a semantic point that I don't agree with.

 

[doctor712]

I'm not sure what you think Plaxico's looks have to do with anything.

I equated looks with where he tucked his weapon, which I think was an example initially of yours re: Plaxico.
I don't watch football and have NO idea what the man looks like.

But you're making a very basic error here: you're worrying about what people breaking the law will do. The problem there isn't CCW, or firearm ownership. It's that they're breaking the law. Most jurisdictions with legal CCW prohibit the consumption of alcohol while carrying. A person with a permit who goes out and drinks while carrying in such an area is no different than the person who carries without a permit and goes out and drinks. The problem here isn't CCW, it's people breaking the law.

And we'll have to agree to disagree. You're making a similar error in making any sort of separation between those who have CCW and those who don't. Assuming that these two groups will or won't break the law at ANY different rate or incidence. People are people. Gun on hip or not. I fail to agree with your argument that because Mary Jane goes to a CCW class that she is any more likely to handle her weapon with more brains. That class only gets you so far. Same with a one-day class on...INSERT RANDOM ANESTHESIA WEEKEND COURSE. Agreed? I mean, my mother was home one day when my sister and I were in cribs, heard someone trying to enter the house, ran upstairs and fired a bullet into the ceiling. Um, I'm QUITE sure that my father had lectured her EXTENSIVELY on how to use a weapon and how not to use a weapon. He was in fact, as assessor/trainer at his Agency's DC office when they brought in new Agents. A couple times a year he'd head down there to teach the ins and outs Yet my mother threw a round into the ceiling...

Next point, oh wait, Joe Pesci is tossing the guy over the railing to the hungry lion.

Ok, moving on..

I was just curious. I used to live in DC. I had an opportunity to go back there for residency in 2006, and declined. Mainly because I was sick, sick, sick of the crowds and traffic and 'city life' ... but a small factor was the realization that it was one of exactly two cities (the other being NY) that are major targets.

Been there, done that. It sucks, right?

In fact, I'm not carrying, right now, because I'm on federal property, right now.

But you sort of wish you were, right? Right.

By the way, one of my medical school classmates brought a gun onto federal property and shot a bunch of people at Ft Hood. Makes me wonder what the point of the gun prohibiting laws are since criminals don't follow them.

I agree. We should abolish all laws in the US!! They are not needed.

You also seem to care if your attacker lives or not.

This speaks volumes.

If I'm in the sandbox fighting the enemy, who just hurled some C4 at me. No. But I'm not, am I.
If some drunken dude comes at me after a Hockey game because the Rangers lost, he's drunk, and pissed at tall Writer dudes. He swings, attacks me, YOURE SAYING THAT I SHOULD WANT HIM TO DIE?
Dude, QUALIFY your statement here before I think you have NO morality in your body.
ETA: Lemme say, if I fear for my life, I will kill. BUT that doesn't mean I don't CARE. And It doesn't mean I'm ready to kill someone EASILY, without care. If I'm attacked by one dude, and we're alone. I'm not shooting. You, carrying, would shoot first. It's not black and white, Doc.

1) Post Hockey Game dude who wants to FIST FIGHT you. Do you care if he lives or dies (this attacker as you call him?) That's a yes or no question PGG.

2) Dude approaches you with a knife, also drunk, and brandishes it because you looked at his girlfriends' ass.
He hasn't approached you yet, but brandishes. DO YOU CARE IF HE LIVES OR DIES?

3) Dude pulls out a gun and takes a shot at you, do you care? (I think we know how you'll answer this one).

4) Non drunk dude tries to steal your wallet. You have 500$ cash in the wallet. Things get heated. According to you, you would kill this attacker, correct? YES OR NO? Do you CARE IF HE LIVES OR DIES?

While I want to go home at the end of the night, I'll kill if I fear for my life. Not every attacker would, or has in the past, made me fear for my life. You just gave CCW carriers a REALLY BAD NAME PGG. You just basically said, if a dude comes to fight you, you're going to kill him NO QUESTIONS ASKED, NO CARE IN YOUR MIND. thumbdown

And you are here arguing for CCW?
This speaks volumes.

Yeah, federal property. Park on the street, gun goes in the safe, I go in. It is annoying, but it's the law - and I (like other permit holders) follow the law.

Another ridiculous comment. That all permit holders follow the law. This reminds me of when Ahmedinijad came to Columbia U and said that "gay people don't live in Iran." I almost fell off my chair then, and now too.

Your irrational fear of us is totally unfounded. Because we obey the laws, even if we think they're stupid.

See the post just above,

D712

 

[doctor712]

I don't mean to put words in your mouth (really) but my impression from your prior posts, and from knowing that you write for a living, is that you feel that restricting speech should only be done if there is a compelling government interest, and even then the restriction should be narrowly tailored and implemented through the least restrictive means.

This is where you're incorrect. SCOTUS hasn't said these state laws concerning carry permits are either constitutional or unconstitutional. They haven't ruled AT ALL on the subject ... though the very narrowly written Heller and McDonald decisions did have hints about the Courts meaning in that direction.

You are correct that SCOTUS decides what is and isn't constitutional. It's a little disingenuous to say that because they haven't, for example, determined a level of scrutiny for 2A issues or settled a CCW case circuit split yet, that all of these laws are by default constitutional.

They are laws, and they are being enforced, and if we break them we will be prosecuted, but their constitutionality has yet to be determined. Maybe your argument is that all laws are by default constitutional until ruled otherwise in court, but that's a semantic point that I don't agree with.

Yes on the free speech issue. But add that if I sign an agreement to obey certain website standards, that I can surely be restricted. (on that website). Wink to the SDN mods.

My post was meant to mean: when SCOTUS says it's constitutional, it's frigging constitutional. And, yes, they've ruled, no? (maybe that was a Fed Court, lost track). The MD case with the gun ban, deemed uncons. I also think that by TURNING down cases, SCOTUS is making a case and setting a precedent and that is historically the case.

So, you're saying that unless a law has been challenged by SCOTUS, it is NOT constitutional? Careful now, that's pretty thin ice you're standing on. Sure, we agree on semantics I think. Until something is found UNCONS, it's cons. At the time it's overruled by SCOTUS, things change. If they're the Institution that deems thins Uncons, there lack of deeming it means it's Cons. I think that's a pretty solid point. Though I think you dislike it. they are, by far, the most interesting G institution to me, always was. I hated Exec and Leg and always studied SCOTUS. Fascinating stuff.

D712