Posted on 06/01/2007 1:26:08 PM PDT by em2vn
POST FALLS – Zach Doty typically wears a tie and dress shirt to church. But lately, a new accessory of his is raising alarm in Post Falls.
After turning 18 last month, the Post Falls teenager began strapping a loaded 9 mm Glock 19 handgun to his belt every day. He totes it in full view to Bible studies, the public library, city parks and neighborhood stores and on walks around town.
His 15-year-old brother, Stephen, has joined him, carrying a loaded Ruger .22-caliber rifle slung over his shoulder.
The brothers, who are home-schooled, say they're flexing their Second Amendment right, which allows citizens to bear arms. They say they're protecting themselves and others, deterring crime and making a statement about constitutional freedoms.
"If you don't exercise a right, eventually it will go away," Zach Doty said last week, a handgun tucked in a holster on his hip. "I'd like to raise people's awareness that it's a right, and I hope to encourage others to exercise that right."
The brothers are stirring up concern about citizen safety and gun responsibility.
Residents have alerted police and complained to the city. Police officers have stopped the boys on several occasions in the past six weeks.
And city officials say the brothers' action may lead to restrictions on carrying weapons on public property within city limits. At this time, the city doesn't have an ordinance that prohibits firearms in most public buildings.
"It obviously has created some controversy in the community. …We are fielding a significant number of calls from concerned citizens about how we're going to react to this and how we're going to ensure their safety is upheld," Post Falls City Administrator Eric Keck said. "It really is a matter of defining things very carefully and balancing maintaining one's rights and what has become the norm of society. It's something we're really going to have to examine."
Actually, you have it backwards. Your fear and distrust are what politicians use to install more control over their subjects, all in the name of the public good, of course.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."
(The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.) -- Tacitus, Annales, 1st century A.D.
Moreover, your statements betray your utter distrust of your fellow citizens. While you may hold such feelings dear to your heart, there is nothing there to be proud of.
Stay well,
And that was probably decades ago. I think that it’s a shame that the US has been ‘pussified’ and that many are affraid of guns. I own dozens of guns. However, if I am going to carry a gun today... it’s going to be concealed.
Let me clarify.... there is NO mention of a right to vote in the US constitution.
However, the states include guidelines it in their constitutions. It’s better off that way anyway.
It is so stated in the Shooter's Bible. Ooops. Wrong Bible lol.
“Let me clarify.... there is NO mention of a right to vote in the US constitution.”
I believe you are correct. The federal constitution tells us that we will have two senators and a certain amount of congressman as determined by the census etc. It also tells us that the Pres and VP are elected by the electors chosen from each state. It is up to the states as to how the senators and electors are chosen. Obviously, all states currently do it by popular vote.
At one time, the senators were chosen by each states legislature and there was no popular election for them.
Another thing I learned from David McCollough’s pulitzer prize winning novel concerning Samuel Adams is that back during their time people did not openly campaign for President. It was considered unseemly. My how things have changed...
I see. The laws we now have against swearing in public in front of children came about because of my "fear and distrust". Not because some yahoo declared he had the constitutional "right" to say "F$%^ the Yankees" at a baseball game in front of my 8-year-old.
"Moreover, your statements betray your utter distrust of your fellow citizens."
More like disgust than distrust. Directed at those who lack the common sense and the common courtesy to honor the "rights" of others.
The Bill of Rights, as written, was to protect those rights from federal infringement only. States were free to infringe on those rights, and were guided only by their state constitution.
The concept is called "federalism". One of the things the 14th amendment destroyed.
That is true today. It wasn't always the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court also "protects" the first amendment by declaring that nude dancing is "speech" and now every state must allow it. They have also declared political ads 60 days before an election to NOT be protected speech. Go figure.
They have declared abortion to be a protected "right" that every state must now honor. Homosexual sodomy must also be allowed by every state. Private property taken by corporations? Sure, that's eminent domain.
It's not so much that the U.S. Supreme Court is misinterpreting the constitution. It's the fact that their decision affects every state rather than just federal law. Five justices run the entire United States. NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
“You are probably not aware that the Bill of Rights was a big controversy during ratification.”
I understand all of this. I did not think that my writing a novel on the whole subject of the constitution would prove anything. What you fail to understand is that most of the original 13 colonies state constitution were written before the federal constitution. That’s why they are similar.
James Madison is generally credited with writing the first 10 amendments or Bill of Rights. He patterned it after the Virginia constitution which he also had a major hand in writing.
The Bill of Rights was one of the first things that was passed in the first legislative session of Congress. Yes, it had a lot of different dissenters for many reasons. George Washington was against it because he felt that those things outlined in it were so self evident that they did not need to be codified.
All of these things miss the point I was trying to make to you. That is that there are two types of laws in the BOR. The first as you mentioned is to restrain the government. The second type of law is to codify civil liberties (or rights) that are guaranteed to every American citizen, not by the government but by their creator. The federal government’s only duty in these instances is to protect those rights (such as the second amendment). In other words, it would be illegal to completely ban the ownership of guns to law abiding American citizens by any state. That is essentially the ruling that came down in the recent Parker decision in Washington DC. The court in essence ruled that you can’t just ban guns. It was the correct lawful scholarly decision.
“It’s not so much that the U.S. Supreme Court is misinterpreting the constitution. It’s the fact that their decision affects every state rather than just federal law. Five justices run the entire United States. NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”
I agree with you about the SCOTUS. However, your beef with them is not in interpreting the law, but making new laws. Such as the Kilo decision and Roe vs. Wade. They essentially invented law and it’s ridiculous. We need to get more justices that understand that their job is to intrepret existing law and not make new ones. That is the legislature’s job...
“States were free to infringe on those rights, and were guided only by their state constitution.”
So you believe that at one time a state could confiscate everyone’s guns if they wanted to? Violate other civil liberties as guaranteed in the constitution and set up a dictatorship? That the federal government would have nothing to say about that? I think you are mistaken.
Please don’t say that would violate their own state constitution. Acording to your reasoning, someone could come in and abolish the state constitution and the federal government would be okay with that also.
See my recent replies on this subject. The federal government guarantees certain liberties to all citizens and no other government underneath that could ever take those things away.
I don't understand. I never said the kids couldn't carry openly. I just said it wasn't a good idea.
what have they done that is irresponsible?
Honestly...why do you think this? Whether concealed or open carry, the defensive capability is the same.
Open carry, screams...DONT ATTEMPT TO ROB ME....DONT ATTEMPT TO KILL ME OR MY FAMILY....DONT JACK WITH ME!
No. The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, guarantees to each state a republican form of government.
"So you believe that at one time a state could confiscate everyone’s guns if they wanted to?"
All guns? No. That would interfere with Congress' power to "call forth the Militia". Besides, what state would do that? What citizens would allow their state to do that?
But each state may reasonably regulate guns. Which is why some states, for example, allow concealed carry and some don't. If this right was protected by the second amendment, wouldn't every state have to allow it? Can you explain that please?
"The federal government guarantees certain liberties to all citizens and no other government underneath that could ever take those things away."
They do now. But that wasn't the way the Bill of Rights was written.
States were free to limit speech and the press. Many did. They were free to search without a warrant. Even for those states that required a warrant, evidence could be admitted in court that was obtained without a warrant. Some states still don't allow a jury trial in civil cases, though it's right there in the 7th amendment. Some states will try citizens for a capital crime, such as murder, without using a Grand Jury to indict, even though the 5th amendment requires one.
This should help, specifically the sections entitled "Bar to Federal Action" and "Incorporation".
Well, the fact that the local citizens are "alarmed", articles are being written, this has become national news, and we're now debating it, should be your first clues.
I suppose if your guideline in life is, "Is this legal or isn't it?", then I can understand why you're perplexed. But there are other factors -- morality, common sense, civility, courtesy, manners, respect for others, consideration, etc. -- that come into play when operating within a society.
If everyone in that city, or most everyone, walked around carrying guns I'd feel differently. But it appears as though these are the only two. Plus they're teens and they're doing it, not because they've been threatened or because they feel unsafe, but because they can.
Of course they have a right to do it. Just as you have the right to say "F$%^" in public. Just don't be surprised when your "right" to do that is curtailed because you've abused it once too often.
"Open carry, screams...DONT ATTEMPT TO ROB ME....DONT ATTEMPT TO KILL ME OR MY FAMILY....DONT JACK WITH ME!"
In their case, open carry screams, "Look at me!"
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.