Posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:59 AM PDT by StevenB
You're moving the goalpost. We're not talking about nukes at the demonstration, and getting into an argument about the original intended meaning of the word "arms" is a different subject altogether not really related to this thread.
That was just one "for instance" - neither the First nor the Second Amendments permit someone to incite a riot - brandishing a weapon like these idiots did could have led to a riot.
No training. But it has been consistent though. I knew the law before and won a bet once on this topic.
I do not know whether a) there were Brown Berets of Aztlan at this particular protest, or b) whether they would be armed if there were. Next question?
I told people the other day on a thread about the protest of illegals outside of Bush's ranch in Texas that citizens protesting would be harassed and maybe arrested.
I was mocked and laughed at. I was told "What country are you from? That doesn't happen here in the U.S".
Guess what?
Thank you for answering my questions.
I strongly disagree with you that citizens of another country should be allowed to compete with legal citizens for jobs. I think any workers brought in from other countries should only be allowed to work at jobs that there are not enough Americans to fill.
I also strongly disagree that citizens of another country should be allowed access to health care, I do not buy the argument that if they are indigent they should. I think illegals should only receive care if it is a real emergency, and as soon as their condition is stable they should be transferred to a hospital in their own country. I would not deny care to someone that had a real emergency in any circumstance, but many illegals go to the emergency room for minor issues. This is one of the reasons our health care costs are out of sight in this country.
I beg to differ. The legal authority for a detention is Terry v Ohio and states that an officer only have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed.
That threshold is easily met.
My pointing out the law was so people would realize the vagueness of this law. It also leaves wiggle room for an officer to do an investigation.
Most importantly, outside of this case, is that an overzealous prosecutor, with a political or ideological motive, could use this vagueness in the law to prosecute someone for headlines.
In a situation like the mass pro illegals march, simply counter-protesting could have incited a riot. Cartoons of Mohammed have incited riots. Should we throw the cartoonists in jail? To be consistent, you would have to say yes.
It's not that they cannot comprehend the Constitution, it's that they don't care. The first priority of the cops was to avoid any conflict, and the method that gets them into the least trouble is to cart away the white guys
Even if it is later found that their rights were violated, it's too late, the demonstration is over, and none of the cops will be personally affected
I recall a guy at St Joes who had a 44 strapped to his hip while I was there with a DUI blood draw. After a few ladies screamed at me to do something I still got a complaint for asking him nicely to please pull his shirt over it or I'd never get out of here. Always thinking about myself.
When you've got that many people, you don't need to be armed. You can just stomp victims to death.
But the 2nd Amendment, as of the time it was ratified, did in fact cover cannons. A cannon loaded with grapeshot will do more damage than a full-auto AK-47 with a 30-round mag.
In fact, per congress's power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" (authorizing privately-owned warships to capture and confiscate the ships of unfriendly nations), the Constitution explicitly contemplates that privately-owned warships are covered.
And I'll tell you, even a Revolutionary-war-era warship, loaded up with cannonballs and grapeshot, will do a considerable amount of damage to anything in range
If there is nothing to tell them where it came from, there's no way they can get to you to test your fingerprints against any found on the envelope. ;o)
You do not have to actually walk up to a police officer and say "I'm carrying a gun" you are just required to have your valid permit on your person and produce it when asked.
Here is the complete text pertaining to the section you referenced:
(1)(b): Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.
In other words: you don't have to volunteer it, but you must have it on your person when carrying, and must produce it when asked for it.
And there is no indication whatever that there was any "brandishing of weapons".
One hour until the Bryan Suits show on 570 KVI, http://www.570kvi.com/
Could be an interesting show.
This is the first time I've heard of this nonsense... I'd be hiring me some top shelf lawyers if this had happenned to me...
Bryan Suits show on 570 KVI, http://www.570kvi.com/ right now.
Ping for live show right now!!!!!
Ping
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.