Gun-toting teens alarm residents

spokesmanreview.com ^ | 05-31-07 | Hope Brumbach

[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."

[Responsibility2nd]

See post # 153.

Substitute “Two days ago” for “Yesterday”.

[Joe Brower]

You continue to make the negative comparison of someone safely carrying a firearm with someone who is "cursing in front of children" and the like. This is a false analogy. An accurate comparison would be if those firearms were being discharged in a reckless manner, which they are not.

Your self-righteous disgust is merely your prejudice seeking justification, and no more. And you apparently hold so deep a bias that you refuse to recognize it as such.

Your idea of "courtesy" is yours and yours alone, and you apparently think that if you offer enough self-righteous indignation about it, that somehow will make you right. In reality, it is only your fear and superego attempting to vainly force itself upon others.

Freedom does not mean that you will not be occasionally made uncomfortable, or never see things you don't like -- in fact, it almost guarantees the opposite. But your path is far, far worse. Your concept of "rights" would be alien to the founding fathers.

[RetiredNavy]

EEDUDE,

Concealed carry means the same thing all over. These gents are practicing what is called “open carry”. There are some places in this country where the state has not thrown out the 2nd.

[RetiredNavy]

“The boys are acting dumb. They should know that the ignorant public can’t distinguish between a crook with a gun and a law-abiding citizen with a gun, and so they do what all idiots do when they don’t know what to do, they call the police.”

I see nothing wrong with the way the boys are acting. They are not threatening people or committing crimes. How about if we assume that the folks reporting them are the ones acting dumb, rather than the law-abiding young men you seem to dislike.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

“No. The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, guarantees to each state a republican form of government.”

So you are now making my argument. That the federal constitution does trump state constitutions. In other words, a state cannot violate the basic tenets of the federal constitution. Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never disagreed that the states do not have the right to regulate things. Your original point was that at one time the states could violate the federal constitution and that is simply not so. Yes, they can regulate tenets of the constitution, but not violate it. There is a difference.

BTW, some of the times when states violated the constitution it turned out (via SCOTUS) that they were wrong. These things eventually get worked out in time.

[marktwain]

“One more question for you: if the US Constitution, at the time of its ratification, was considered to overrule State law, then why would ANY state have bothered to create a state constitution, which usually mirrored the federal Constitution? There is only one reason, and that is that the States did not think the US federal government had authority over them, and therefore state constitutions were necessary to protect those very same rights for state citizens that were protected at the federal level.”

Are you saying that the requirement in the US constitution that it guarantee that the states have a “Republican” form of government has *nothing* to do with it?

[robertpaulsen]

"That the federal constitution does trump state constitutions."

Yes and no. A state constitution may protect a right to a greater degree than the federal government. So, in that case, state law prevails. But if a conflict exists, federal law certainly trumps state law.

"In other words, a state cannot violate the basic tenets of the federal constitution."

I have no idea what that means. Certain parts of the U.S. Constitution apply to the states. Certain parts to the federal government. The U.S. Constitution, as a contract between the states and the federal government, is supreme over any other contract.

But it would be incorrect to generalize and say some content of the contract applies to the states.

"Your original point was that at one time the states could violate the federal constitution and that is simply not so."

I don't recall making that point. Nor would I. My point was that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. Some states did not protect those rights. And that was perfectly constitutional.

[robertpaulsen]

"You continue to make the negative comparison of someone safely carrying a firearm with someone who is "cursing in front of children" and the like."

They're both legal activities. That's the analogy.

"Your self-righteous disgust is merely your prejudice seeking justification, and no more. And you apparently hold so deep a bias that you refuse to recognize it as such."

When did this turn into a discussion about robertpaulsen? What's with the personal attack? Where do you see me forcing anything on anybody?

"Your concept of "rights" would be alien to the founding fathers."

MY concept of rights? Tell me about MY concept of rights. I haven't said a damn thing about MY concept of rights, so how would you know?

What I said is that I've seen what happens when people misuse rights. Others write laws that end up controlling that behavior.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

“Certain parts of the U.S. Constitution apply to the states.”

This whole discussion you originally commented upon revolved around the civil liberties that are guaranteed by the BOR. This is what I am referring to as far as voilating the federal constitution.

I was trying to explain to fr_reak (I think that is the posters name) that the civil liberties guaranteed by the constitution cannot be trumped by state law and they cannot override it. They can regulate it, but not take it away. In that respect, the federal government has a duty to step in and protect those rights. Witness the recent parker decision in DC as I talked about earlier. Sure, DC is not a state, but the same principal applies if say New York had laws that outlawed the ownership of firearms as DC does.

The court said you can regulate firearms, but not outlaw them.

[robertpaulsen]

"This whole discussion you originally commented upon revolved around the civil liberties that are guaranteed by the BOR."

The Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution have nothing to do with this. The teens are bearing arms under the rights protected by the Idaho state constitution.

"Witness the recent parker decision in DC as I talked about earlier."

The Parker decision involved a federal, not state, law. In that case, the U.S. Constitution applies. The federal DC Circuit Court concluded that the federal law violated the second amendment by infringing on the individual right to keep and bear arms. Their decision only applies to federal law and, consequently, the residents of Washington, DC that the law affects.

[Joe Brower]

Virtually everything in your post confirms my statements. Again, because of your innate bias, you cannot see it no matter how you try. Brainwashing does that.

As for "What I said is that I've seen what happens when people misuse rights. Others write laws that end up controlling that behavior". Yes. When people like you cry about it.

[robertpaulsen]

"When people like you cry about it."

Pfffft! People like you can't handle people like me pointing to the truth of the matter. You'd rather assign some invented motive for what I'm saying than examine the points being made -- maybe because that's all you're capable of.

Get back to me when you're ready to debate the issue rather than my perceived motives.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

“The Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution have nothing to do with this. The teens are bearing arms under the rights protected by the Idaho state constitution. “

You obviously love to argue even to the point of mistating what you said earlier. This is my last post to you as you have totally misunderstood the original point I was trying to make to someone else.

Unless there was a law specifically forbiddding open carry in Idaho, then it’s legal. That’s how it is in Pa. Why is it legal? Because the 2nd amendment said so, that’s why. If you would have actually read the conversation I was having with another poster, you would have realized we were talking about the FEDERAL constitution and the BOR. But you just like to argue and debate and not actually read what anyone else is writing.

Good day!

[Joe Brower]

As I said earlier, the fact that you are crying loudly doesn't make you right. That's a POV I expect and often get from the political left, not here on FR.

As for what I'm capable of, you have no idea.

[Groganeer]

I am someone who carries both openly and concealed. Here’s the thing, when the temps get up into the 100 degree range, it starts getting awful hard to conceal and not sweat to death. You can always tell the guys who are toting concealed in July because they’re wearing an extra shirt.

I’ve carried openly for years and have never had a problem. Frankly if it bothers other people, I AM sorry it does so, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Sometimes frank, honest, truthful discussions make people uncomfortable too. Should I weigh any possible discussions against whether or not people will be made uncomfortable? No. Then why should I worry about my gun making people uncomfortable?

The interesting thing about carrying openly is that it is one part activism, and one part educational opportunity. You’ll never get a chance to discuss the benefits of firearms with the public in general if you only every carry concealed. Carrying openly however is a much different situation. It allows you an opportuinty to start a dialog with people who you otherwise wouldn’t.

[beltfed308]

I just said it wasn't a good idea.

I get the feeling it would never be a good idea to you for open carry. Your thoughts seem to be along the line of even though it's legal and protected by the state constitution just don't do it. People like robertpaulen don't like it and are scared. The courtesy "door" swings both ways. My thinking is if someone doesn't wish to exercise their rights fine. If I choose to then it is none of their business.

[robertpaulsen]

"If you would have actually read the conversation I was having with another poster, you would have realized we were talking about the FEDERAL constitution and the BOR. But you just like to argue and debate and not actually read what anyone else is writing."

I read it.

Didn't it ever occur to you that you were wrong? Never occurred to you that the federal constitution and the BOR don't apply to these kids and that I was simply pointing that out?

Yeah, I'm changing the subject. To something that's relevant to the thread.

[robertpaulsen]

"Your thoughts seem to be along the line of even though it's legal and protected by the state constitution just don't do it."

My thoughts were along the line of even though it's legal and protected by the state constitution it's not a good idea for two teens to be the only ones doing it -- and doing it for the sole reason being that they can.

[Centurion2000]

There are better ways to promote the Second Amendment rights rather than going around scaring people.

The people scared need to get over it. It's a right. Deal with it.

[beltfed308]

and doing it for the sole reason being that they can.

It's called freedom. Not a bad concept.