Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:01 AM PDT by rktman
In Oklahoma City last week, a business owner and reserve deputy sheriff named Mark Vaughan shot and injured a man who had beheaded one of his employees and, by all accounts, was in the process of attempting to decapitate another. In doing so, a spokesman for the police told reporters, Vaughan had likely saved the lives of “untold others” and he deserved to be treated as a “hero.” Almost universally, local law enforcement concurred. “The incident was not going to stop if he didn’t stop it,” Sergeant Jeremy Lewis explained to the Associated Press. “It could,” he suggested darkly, “have got a lot worse.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“But, unless one is to wholly rewrite the nature of American constitutional government, these decisions must be reserved to the private sector, and not to local voters or representatives. Like all of the provisions within the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment serves as a check on government and on government alone.”
Too late for that, it’s already been rewritten, or is the author not familiar with the Civil Rights Act, Equal Opportunity Act, OSHA, EPA etc? Government is very much in the business of telling private businesses what to do nowadays. Closing our eyes and pretending otherwise won’t get us anywhere.
—your excellent post needs to be read and appreciated by several others on this thread-——
National Review. ..”Conservative” lol
The Courts, and several States, didn’t WANT it to apply... But it did.
Which was why they tried to “fix” it via the 14th.
William Rawle had a bit to say about it early in the 1800’s.
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm
“In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is
necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few
will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are
confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the
commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia
form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to
suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of
government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A
disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the
enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to
adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least
interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In
this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any
rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm
the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of
inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
appealed to as a restraint on both.”
Unusually good post. Thanks.
Yeah. .. The Holocaust assignment was just to teach critical thinking skills. That’s why the topic wasn’t are blacks naturally violent or is it learned? Was the arrival of the Spanish into Aztec lands the same as allies liberating death camps? Is Obama suffering from too much dope use.
It was just an innocent critical thinking skills assignment.... in California...sure it was.
Beat me to it, and said it better than I was going to.
cheers.
“Private companies are free to invoke any rule they wish....”
As long as it doesn’t involve selling wedding cakes to gays.
Californians have now lost their rights to many handguns, something the politicians have been trying to do since the voters rejected a handgun ban back in 1982.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3208818/posts
People have a right to own dogs. If I own a private concern be it my house or my place of business I retain the right to ask you not to bring your dog onto my premises. I recognize that I may lose you as a potential customer but, if it’s important to me, I accept that risk. You have the right to freedom of expression but I can require you to leave my restaurant or insurance agency if you break out a 6-string and begin singing folks songs.
Likewise you have the right to own and, I think, carry a firearm. I do. But if a property owner or leaseholder requires that you not bring your gun onto the premises, that’s their right. It’s foolish, I agree but that is the owner’s right.
If you believe in strict construction then that is a problem for 2A. The wording, again, is absolute- admitting of no exceptions.
Your premise presumes a CCW is necessary, valid and/or Constitutional; thus the debate of Rights is moot.
Here, IMHO, Rights ‘end’ when they interfere with the Rights of another (2nd vs. private property).
If biz were required to ensure a safe environment, why the need for (large?) police force?
Per above, if the biz hired one armed guard, but were robbed by 3 armed criminals (vs. everyone whom WANTED to be self-armed)...is THAT still ‘enough’ to attempt to ensure a safe environment?
If 2nd A. Rights trump private property Rights, one could enter a premise one owns and be armed against the owners wishes....
“How that applies to private entities is a riddle but if it is answered by allowing private employers to “infringe” than application of that statement is no longer universal and admits of exceptions that are not allowed by the wording in the 2Amd. One exception permits others and negates the Amendment.”
I’m not sure I can buy that. After all, what about inmates in prison? They are not allowed to bear arms, so there is already one exception that will always be in place. So, according to your logic, the amendment is already negated.
The2A always applied to the States. It does not state that it applies to certain entities. It says "shall not be infringed." How do you read it to not apply to the States or to anyone else? Everybody infringes it! so that renders it null? If so then why are other provisions not also null? How do you interpret away a basic provision without nullifying the whole thing? Is it a "living" thus malleable Constitution or does it mean what it says?
Suppose private companies do begin verifying that employees have a CHL/CWP before allowing them to carry at work. Suppose insurance companies raise premiums for gun owners but give significant discounts to gun owners with a CHL.
Now slide a little farther down that slippery slope. It has become necessary to have a CHL if you want to own a gun, because:
- Insurance companies won't insure you if you own a gun without a CHL or won't pay your claim if they discover that you own a gun but don't have a CHL. They begin mining and collecting state CHL data.
- In order to insure you, employers require that you disclose whether or not you have a CHL. Because you have a CHL, your employer is hyper-sensitive to any complaints by your fellow employees about feeling threatened or being offended. You can be counseled, written up, and fired based on nefarious complaints. Your CHL becomes a liability that employers won't risk.
- Credit card companies and banks won't process your financial transactions for guns and ammunition unless you provide proof of a CHL on your credit application and they can verify it with the state.
- To assist creditors in determining your risk, credit agencies begin mining and collecting state CHL data. Your credit rating is affected by having or not having a CHL.
Where does the slope end? State CHLs become a de facto gun owners' registry. We know where that slope ends.
I haven't given much thought to BYGTW laws until now because I work from home. Time to consider them. Do BYGTW laws prevent or enable the above slippery slope?
Inmates in prison are flat-out denied ALL natural rights (may get as privileges, but not as “rights”), sometimes up to and including that to life itself. That such occurs under very specific, legislated, adjudicated conditions does not negate the Bill Of Rights.
“That such occurs under very specific, legislated, adjudicated conditions does not negate the Bill Of Rights.”
Well, according to the logic of the post I was replying to, it does.
Perfect!
My insurance rates should GO DOWN, because I’ve taken the responsibility to limit the risk to my life and property by taking proactive “security measures”!
Cooke argues that insurers should be able to able punish people for exercising their rights because they are private companies, not the government. But the government coerces people to obtain insurance, and heavily regulates who may offer insurance. Therefore, insurance companies act as agencies of the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.