The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 8, 2013, 12:09 PM   #76
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
I have thought about compromise quite a bit.

The problem is the starting point. One might argue that a subsection of the gun world wants absolutely no restrictions on anything. As argued that isn't true now and not viable. Do we want 10 year olds to buy 1911s in an unsupervised manner? Those are the examples that make some regulations reasonable.

On the other side - the problem is that their majority starting point is the elimination of the private ownership of firearms and carry. The only exception would be some sporting gun such as a double barrel shotgun which if used as a weapon is a side effect of its sporting use. Just as I might bean you on the head with a croquet mallet. Gun folks who buy into the sporting argument - the idiotic modern sporting rifle - implicitly buy into a very strict regulation regime.

If the 'anti' starting acknowledge the right to own 'reasonable weapons - debate can start on that - and shall issue carry (maybe with negotiable training) - then there could be some dialog. How do we deal with mental health issues - for example? Felons? Age limits?

But if you start with everything gone except some limited sporting usages, there's no debate possible. You have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2nd Amend for defense of self, defense against tyranny and even a call out for when the Martians land. If it is just for ducks - then no debate is possible.

Metcalf (as in his GA TV piece) bought into a weak position without real thought - or maybe he did believe what he said.

Legit gun opinion surveys (not political ones) indicate most of the country supports owning guns as a right but wants them out of the hands of criminals (and is open to ways to control it - like some kind of background checks). The problem with background checks (are there reasonable ones) is that for the anti gun - that is not the goal but the first step to getting rid of all and only having rich guy duck guns in burbs for VP wives.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 12:55 PM   #77
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Metcalf has responded to his firing here.

I have to say, it's no more coherent than his original column. Notice this chestnut:

Quote:
I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions.
First off, let me thank Mr. Metcalf for turning our attention to the vast and rich history of 3rd Amendment regulations, which...which...aw, I got nothin'.

Second, I'm dismayed and mistrustful of the idea that he hopes the regulations are "appropriate." There's a blind trust in the government there.

But he makes a point we have to consider:

Quote:
Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?
Some of this is self-pity, and freedom of speech generally applies to the government when we go putting it all in capital letters like that. Still, I worry about the way in which we circled the wagons and brought out the pitchforks.

Out of all the online rants, I saw very few attempts at rebuttal, and even fewer at argument. This whole situation shows a very disturbing facet to the gun culture. Rather than open a debate, we stormed the town square and demanded he be burned at the stake for articulating an unorthodox viewpoint.

The gun culture has become a dogmatic mob. Yay for us.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 12:59 PM   #78
RX-79G
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 609
Glenn,
Your post sketches the philosophical unease that 2a folks approach gun laws: Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

The reality is that laws are individual bundles of action that don't sit on a good/bad continuum. A well crafted law can better define a type of regulation while simultaneously affirming the greater right and protecting it.

Such a law can only be written and passed by gun people. Such a law could be passed in place of a right damaging one.

But if we are forbidden from even discussing regulation, the only laws to vote on will be our opponents. And you can't win by only playing defense.
RX-79G is online now  
Old November 8, 2013, 01:05 PM   #79
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eghad
Mr. Metcalf made his mistake as mentioned in other posts here when he tried to mix the well regulated militia argument into the individual right to own a firearm... The Supreme Court ruled that we have a individual right to defend ourselves and that owning a firearm to do so is a legitimate individual right.

My argument for the AR15 would be that it is the weapon our military uses and it is in use in police departments nationwide for defense of citizens and officers. If it is good for this purpose then it should be able to be owned by law abiding citizens...end of story...

The founding fathers intended the militias to be as well armed as any invader and to be able execute the laws of the nation. The AR15 or other modern military rifles would fit that purpose.
<emphasis mine>

If Mr. Metcalf was mistaken in mixing the militia collective-rights argument and the individual RKBA argument, and ownership of an AR-15 is justified by the individual RKBA, "end of story", why bring up the militia at all? To many, you would seem to be conflating the two concepts as well, just in a subtly different manner from Mr. Metcalf.

I know that many in the gun community are infatuated with the argument that the prefatory clause justifies civilian ownership of military-style weapons- an argument seemingly supported by the U.S. v. Miller decision. (I say "seemingly" because, asides from Justice James McReynolds, I don't think anybody can truly discern what the Miller decision actually says. ) However, any gun-rights argument that involves the prefatory clause is IMHO a really slippery slope, because the historical U.S. militia operated under very strict government control, including regulations that most modern gun owners would find abhorrent and outrageous- e.g. public musters at which all firearms were registered, seizure of individual militia members' firearms for use by other militiamen, etc.

I would rather just stop talking about the prefatory clause altogether, unless someone comes up with a truly serious proposal to revive the state militias.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old November 8, 2013, 02:28 PM   #80
Flfiremedic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2013
Posts: 10
Mr Metcalf's basic premise seems to be that he is the injured party and did no wrong. He was just following in Col Cooper's footsteps. I am certain the Col is spinning in his grave.
__________________
Unreconstructed to the End.
Dum Vivimus Vivamus
Death smiles at us all...but only FMF Corpsmen smile back

Last edited by Flfiremedic; November 8, 2013 at 03:43 PM.
Flfiremedic is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 02:55 PM   #81
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
Wonder if this will make the national media. Politico mentions it:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...nt-177036.html
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 03:21 PM   #82
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
Wonder if this will make the national media.
It's also on the CNN, Fox, and CBS. A Google news search for "gun control" returns several hits at the very top.

If it hadn't been for the scope and vitriol of the backlash, I wonder if that would have happened?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 04:06 PM   #83
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
I'd bet getting fired did that. Is this a bad thing?

It might give pause to politicians who think they might pander to gun control if they weren't an anti already.

As I said, until we get reasonable acknowledgment of 2nd Amend rights from people negative to all aspects of guns, discussing compromise among ourselves seems to produce little game.

A long time ago in Oregon (and I don't remember the details ) when the CCW bill came up, it passed along with some mild anti measure that had no real impact. It made the antis happy. Some purists said no and local GOA opposed the bill as the Constitution made carry legal, etc. But it passed and the state had concealed carry before TX.

Does such middle ground exist now? I don't see it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 05:48 PM   #84
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
The problem is that you can't base every decision on doing the opposite of what your opponents want. It is okay to sometimes agree about some things. That isn't weakness.

Never agreeing isn't strength. It's failure in the making.
It is okay to disagree, but in order to have a reasoned discussion (which is what the editor claims he was hoping for) there has to be some basis for the discussion -- a starting point. Metcalf's starting point was so far off the mark, factually, legally, AND historically, that it could not possibly have served as a starting point for a reasoned discussion. The only reasoned discussions that can possibly grow out of it are like this one -- not a debate over whether his position was right or wrong, but just a debate over exactly HOW wrong he really was.

Further, after skewering the language of the Second Amendment by totally misconstruing the meaning of "regulated," he then segued into defending Illinois' training requirement, and even went further by saying that he didn't think 16 hours of training was unreasonable, but that it had to be "good" training. As I posted above, using Texas and Pennsylvania as examples, there simply are no statistics to support the hypothesis that 16 hours of training as a prerequisite to issuance of a carry license (a la Texas) makes the world any safer than just taking the applicant's fingerprints and running a background check.

In short, Metcalf was indulging in editorial elitism. There is no provision for elitism in the Second Amendment.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 06:40 PM   #85
RX-79G
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 609
Aguila,

I have read here more than a few times that you feel that any regulation is an illegal infringement.

I think it is disingenuous for you to say now that Metcalf's argument was merely poorly made - you aren't going to agree with any sort of firearms regulation, no matter how well crafted the argument.

Same with probably 90% of those who had him fired - it wasn't what he said; it was that he said anything at all in that vein.
RX-79G is online now  
Old November 8, 2013, 06:44 PM   #86
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
Does such middle ground exist now? I don't see it.
That's what worries me. Let's say we have a situation similar to the one you mentioned in Colorado. Say...reforming the NFA.

A proposal comes along that says we're repealing most of the thing, but you do still have to send in a registration certificate to let the Feds know you have it. Will the hardcore take-no-prisoners crowd pillory me for supporting it even though we have a net gain?

If so, we're allowing a situation in which nobody wants to advocate for incremental gains in fear of being called a sellout by the true believers.

Metcalf screwed up. No doubt about it. But does the punishment really fit the perceived crime?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 08:19 PM   #87
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
I think it is disingenuous for you to say now that Metcalf's argument was merely poorly made - you aren't going to agree with any sort of firearms regulation, no matter how well crafted the argument.
Why is it "disingenuous" to point out an obvious fact? Frank Ettin, a moderator here and a respected attorney, doesn't agree with me on this, and I don't agree with him -- but we nonetheless understand the other's position and we can debate it civilly (as we have done, on more than one occasion).

Metcalf didn't HAVE an argument. He proposed an unpopular idea, tried to back it up with misinformation (if it wasn't disinformation), and then demonstrated his essential Fudd by advocating that the strictest pre-licensure training requirement in the entire country (I believe that's correct -- hasn't Texas finally dropped it to just one day?) might be sufficient training -- but only IF it's "good" training. That's just another way of saying, "I support your right to carry arms, but I don't trust you to do so until you're as good as I am."

There is nothing disingenuous about my position. Merriam-Webster On-line defines disingenuous as ": lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness." There is nothing about my position that is lacking in candor. I state my position, I explain it as clearly and plainly as I can, and there it sits. Others are free to agree with me or not (as Frank does not). I'm not trying to con anybody with my statements.

As for my agreeing "with" any sort of firearms regulation, you can't possibly know or predict with what I might agree or disagree unless and until it has been proposed and I have responded. My point is simply that I do not believe the Second Amendment allows for ANY regulation of possession or carry of "arms." Period. That's simple, and it's based purely on the language of the Second Amendment itself, read in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment, in which the Founders demonstrated clearly that where they wished to allow for "reasonable regulation" they were fully capable of saying so.

I have also acknowledged the reality that we have regulation of the RKBA, and that we probably always will. The fact that we have it does not require that I (or anyone) believe this is correct and proper, but we must accept reality. Then the question becomes one of how much regulation is "reasonable," and whether or not any particular regulation succeeds in accomplishing its purported purpose while being the least intrusive on the exercise of the RKBA as possible. That is open to debate, and I am willing to debate it.

I am NOT willing to enter a debate that has a profound misreading of the Second Amendment as its starting point, and an elitist statement as its ending point.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 8, 2013 at 08:39 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 09:12 PM   #88
dustind
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 26
Way too many "moderates" get upset when people on their side disagree with them and then resort to name calling and overly patronising remarks. That is what most of the gun owning, yet gun control supporting persons are doing. Metcalf like many others starts off with an insulting patronising tone, and the insults just keep coming. Then afterward they talk about how mean everyone is based on the worst few examples, and often go into a long drawn out "whoa is me for being the only reasonable person around" speech. All the while being very light on any actual debate and not responding to their opponents arguments, or ignoring most of it (such as disagreements with the premise or setup) and constantly dragging in red herrings and straw men.

There is also a heavy amount of "I am sure I will get in trouble for saying this, but..." false bit of martyrdom going around.

If people have something to say they can just say it without the insults and drama.

Metcalf was rude, among other faults, and now he is whining as if his opinion is (only) what got him into trouble.
dustind is offline  
Old November 8, 2013, 09:17 PM   #89
RX-79G
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 609
Aguila,

I'm not insulting you, but I do think it 'lacks candor' when you make it sound the problem is the argument, when no argument would ever sway you.

It's like telling a chef you don't like his steaks, but you're actually a vegetarian.
RX-79G is online now  
Old November 8, 2013, 10:12 PM   #90
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
I'm not insulting you, but I do think it 'lacks candor' when you make it sound the problem is the argument, when no argument would ever sway you.
The fact that I am not likely to concede that the language of the Second Amendment admits of any regulation does not in any way change the fact that Dick Metcalf badly misstated both what the Second Amendment says and what the courts have said with respect to same, and then went on to magnanimously proclaim that 16 hours of training "might" be sufficient, IF ...

The fact that I am not likely to concede that the language of the Second Amendment admits of any regulation doesn't mean that I am unwilling to engage in a meaningful debate regarding what a "reasonable" degree of regulation should or could be ("if" it were countenanced by the Second Amendment). I accept that we have to live with a Supreme Court ruling that has held that the 2A IS subject to "reasonable" regulation. But the SCOTUS expressly declined to tell us what the threshold of "reasonable regulation" is, so in order to live under Heller and McDonald we MUST have that debate. I won't stay aloof from the debate just because I don't personally believe we should be having it.

However, for Mr. Metcalf to write that the militia clause of the Second Amendment means modern day gun regulations was just plain silly. For him to argue that to "regulate" is NOT the same as to "infringe" is even sillier. Regulation IS "by definition" infringement. And for him to magnanimously proclaim that 16 hours of training is enough, IF it's "good" (meaning, of course, "What I consider to be good") training is downright insulting. The NRA "Basic Pistol" class (which I am certified to teach, and which is accepted or required by a great many states requiring safety training as a prerequisite to issuing a carry license) is only eight hours. According to Mr. Metcalf, then, the NRA's course is chopped liver because it's not twice as long as many states think is necessary.

It's simply not possible to engage in a debate with someone whose views are as muddled as Dick Metcalf's apparently are. That's not being disingenuous -- that's being as candid as I know how to be.

By the way: I don't think one can be "disingenuous" by accident. "Lacking in candor" is politically correct speech for "liar." And when someone calls me a liar, I do feel insulted.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 9, 2013 at 08:59 AM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 12:18 AM   #91
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,112
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?

Metcalf's response asks if 2A supporters still believe in the 1A. Yes, Dick we do. No one asked for a law to ban stupid editorials. However, the 1A says nothing about people having to like what you spout off about, or even listen to it. Sometimes you have to have real stones to exercise your right in the public square, meaning doing that is more important to you than being liked.

Your comments reflect just as much muddled thinking on the 1A as you fid on the 2A.

BTW, since we have compromised and been rewarded with 20,000+ gun laws, what was your point anyway? Why did you not lament the gun grabbers' unwillingness to acknowledge some fundamental aspect of gun ownership in the 2A?
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 12:42 AM   #92
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPilgrim
...BTW, since we have compromised and been rewarded with 20,000+ gun laws, what was your point anyway?...
We keep seeing this perspective on compromise. It's as if some people believe for some reason that all we would have had to have done is say "no", and none of these laws would have been enacted.

Such a view is fantasy. Sometimes we've been able to completely block some bad laws. Sometimes we simply don't have the political clout to do so.
__________________
Formerly known as fiddletown
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 01:39 AM   #93
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,112
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?

I keep hearing that we "have to have a seat at the table." Over and over. Was it wringing our hands for a seat that got more CCW laws passed? Or stand your ground or castle doctrine laws? Are the gun grabbers scared to try even more anti gun laws because we are at the table with them, or because they lose elections?

The only time I hear gun grabbers ask us to sit with them to discuss the matter is when they need more pro gun politicians to support more anti gun laws. I fail to see what "the table" accomplishes versus voting the bums out.

The fantasy is believing our opponents want reasonable regulation, and thinking we just need to sit down with them and work it out. Ha!
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 01:42 AM   #94
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,846
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?

Conversations like these are important, but they always make me want to start buying the guns I really want while I can.
LockedBreech is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 01:52 AM   #95
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPilgrim
I keep hearing that we "have to have a seat at the table." Over and over. Was it wringing our hands for a seat that got more CCW laws passed? Or stand your ground or castle doctrine laws? ...
Actually, yes. There were compromises leading to "shall issue" laws. How it worked out depended on the politics in the particular State, but sometimes is was a matter of training requirements, or background checks, or cost, or prohibited areas, or permitting business to post "no guns", etc. These were features necessary in some places, but not necessarily everywhere to get such laws enacted. In each State it was a matter of making the best deals we could.

Same goes for Castle Doctrine and other laws. There will be opposition, and what might be necessary to overcome that opposition will depend on our political strength and the political strength of the opposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPilgrim
...voting the bums out...
That's nice when you can. You can't always count on doing so, however.
__________________
Formerly known as fiddletown
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 02:00 AM   #96
RX-79G
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 609
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is going to be some sort of meeting of the minds with the antis.

But those aren't the people who need to hear something useful from our side. Our behavior does not get those in the middle off the fence and it embarrasses sport gun people into silence because the threat to their hunting rifles is not great enough to side with people who insist that anyone over 18 can carry an Uzi to a bar.

Control the public debate by participating in a meaningful way. Bring the undecided onto our side by not being extremists.
RX-79G is online now  
Old November 9, 2013, 09:01 AM   #97
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPilgrim
Metcalf's response asks if 2A supporters still believe in the 1A.
I hadn't heard or seen that Metcalf made any response. Where was (is) this? Is there a link to an on-line version?

{EDIT}Found it: http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/228229

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?
Certainly, Dick. You were free to write what you wrote, and your publisher was free to publish it. Neither you not editor Bequette was arrested, charged, fined, or otherwise acted upon by the government -- and the Constitution is, after all, a set of rules for the conduct of the government. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, does not require that private citizens suffer the ravings of a lunatic in silence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues?
When those different opinions can and will be (and already have been) used as ammunition by our enemies, you bet I fear them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?
In a word, "Yes." Those voices from cyberspace are (were) your customers, Dick. Didn't you ever hear the expression, "The customer is always right"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term "well-regulated," and how they are used and misused.
Then why did you misuse the term yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions.
Which completely ducks the question of whether, given the different grammatical construction and the clear statement in the 2A that the RKBA "shall not be infringed," it is proper that the RKBA has historically been regulated. Isn't THAT part of the "debate"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?
Dick, if you "clearly" understand that one is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the other state granted privilege -- how can you even ASK if we should be discussing them in the same sentence? This is not even comparing apples to oranges -- this is comparing apples to turnips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf
Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.
Wrong. McDonald and Moore both built on Heller. Heller did NOT hold that other firearms laws and regulations pass constitutional muster. Heller, in fact, explicitly and expressly declined to address them. Heller referred to them as "presumptively" constitutional, which basically means "We know they are there but we're not here to talk about them today, so they can stand until they get challenged and struck down." And we now have cases in progress all over the country challenging those "presumptively" constitutional laws and regulations. In fact, Moore is one of those challenges.

Metcalf's questions:

Quote:
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
Yes. If a convict can't be trusted to have the means for self-defense when he is released (and his parole is finished), then he shouldn't be released.

Quote:
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
No. Laws regulating concealed carry are consistent with the Constitution if the state allows unlicensed, unregulated open carry -- such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and a number of others.

Quote:
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
Yes.

Quote:
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
How? My state's carry laws have not (yet) been ruled unconstitutional, therefore I am legally constrained to follow them. How is obeying a "presumptively" valid law in any way a violation of the Constitution?

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 9, 2013 at 09:32 AM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 11:12 AM   #98
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Since no ones linked to it yet...

Dick Metcalf has his Second Amendment beliefs; I have mine. They're not the same. | Second Amendment, Political Action, Personal opinions | GrantCunningham.com

Grant Cunningham makes the argument that should have been made by Dick Metcalf.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 01:05 PM   #99
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/op...xlvbPyRswKsMyQ

NY Times take by a guy who has a running column denouncing guns.

Typical rhetoric.

Thanks for the link, Al. It's a sensible column.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 9, 2013, 01:20 PM   #100
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
I just read the Runner's World ban guns column (discussed elsewhere). The writer wants to ban everything except some hunting guns.

That ties into part of the Metcalf world view. I mentioned before that he did a show on the modern sporting rifle idiocy on G&A TV and then they had another examining the restrictions on ARs in different states. Look at the nutty ones in California. Metcalf and crew go on to discuss how the restrictions don't impact the guns' utility for sport. Like shooting Bambis - what grain bullet to use.

I think that folks like that fail to realize that they have bought into the guns as sporting instruments and that they can be restricted if they are for sports. Joe Scarborough ( a 'conservative') said he didn't need a gun with a hicap clip holding 30 cop killer bullets to take his son hunting.

So Metcalf and crew bought into the idea that an AR is just a hunting semi and restricting it in some ways was no big deal.

That negates the purpose of the 2nd Amend. The Runners World dude is the same class of danger to the RKBA.

I support his right to say anything - but a marketplace evaluation by the customers of such prose is quite proper.

Metcalf isn't as bad as an absolute banner but he missed the point that he gave support to pushing gun bans.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14932 seconds with 7 queries