Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:01 AM #1201
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,544
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,544
The government's implied definition of "public safety" is less guns equals less crime. However, by that definition, the state of VT should have been (and today) a huge cesspool of crime.
And Judge Hardiman noted in Drake that simply giving permits only to those who prove a heightened "need" are no more or no less likely to commit crimes than those (law abiding) citizens who can't prove a "need".
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2017, 04:45 PM #1202
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 412
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 412
What you call an contradiction, I call an exception or limit on the compelling interest. Most exceptions can be considered contradictions because they don't implement the general rule. I have tried to explain the reasons why there is an exception. One is that the government can't protect everyone all the time. It is not really possible. Even if they could, they also face the problem of becoming part of the problem and negatively affecting public safety by their actions. The BCPD's decent decree is a local example of the government harming the public.

The reason you can't find the presumption is that you have not defined public safety. If you check your work, by including what you have found about public safety in the presumption, it becomes readily apparent. I know the definition won't change because as I have stated, the presumptions don't really address public safety. They tell us something about the government. Your main error is that ignored the contribution of the individual on public safety (the government is not the only sufficient conditions to achieve public safety). The lawyers that have brought the previous 2A cases have not included the role of the individual on public safety either.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2017, 05:29 PM #1203
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
What you call an contradiction, I call an exception or limit on the compelling interest.
So, in essence, your claim is that the government is compelled to act in favor of "public safety" except with respect to acting on behalf of individuals? What is the source of this specific exception? What is its justification, especially if it yields a reduction in public safety relative to what it would be if the exception were not there?

I admit that the exception you call out might be there. That's one way of getting out of the problem. But the other is the means I mentioned: to define "public safety" as excluding the safety of individuals.


Faced with the choice between the two, why would the court entertain the exception/limit method over and above the exclusion method? This question is especially relevant since your formulation would cause any law which imposes upon individual safety to automatically be a public safety hazard and, thus, contradictory to the government's duty towards public safety unless the operation of the law itself provided a greater public safety benefit than the decrease in public safety that its imposition upon individual safety would yield.

Put another way, the means you propose potentially puts a great many laws at risk, and opens up a legal minefield to laws in general, while the means I described does not. Obviously, a court will choose the means I described over the means you described absent some compelling reason to do otherwise.


Quote:
Most exceptions can be considered contradictions because they don't implement the general rule. I have tried to explain the reasons why there is an exception. One is that the government can't protect everyone all the time. It is not really possible.
A duty does not mean that one must do the impossible. It only means that one must do that which one has a duty to when and how one can. So that reason is no reason at all.


Quote:
Even if they could, they also face the problem of becoming part of the problem and negatively affecting public safety by their actions. The BCPD's decent decree is a local example of the government harming the public.
And neither is this a reason for not having a duty. One does not suddenly find oneself free of a duty merely because of the possibility that one may screw up that duty. Were this the case, the government wouldn't have any duty of any kind. And in any case, the BCPD example is an example of the government harming the public without any duty to the individual. If the BCPD example is reason to prevent the government from having a duty to individual safety, then clearly it is even better reason to prevent the government from having a duty to the public at large, since it is the latter for which it failed. So for your logic to hold, it would imply that the government should be relieved of all of its duty to public safety. I very much doubt a court would even entertain such a notion.

And the government will certainly argue that the exception you raise here applies equally to the prospect of handing the problem of public safety to individuals. It will argue that this, too, could become part of the problem and negatively affect public safety (this is the "blood in the streets", "people shooting each other over parking spaces", etc. argument the opposition loves to raise).


Quote:
The reason you can't find the presumption is that you have not defined public safety. If you check your work, by including what you have found about public safety in the presumption, it becomes readily apparent.
I did check my work, and no, I didn't include what I "found" about public safety in the presumptions. What I "found" about public safety is just a direct logical consequence of the presumptions. It may be so direct as to appear to you to be included in the presumptions, but it is not. Nowhere in my presumptions did I state that "public safety" does not include individual safety. But that is a conclusion I drew from the presumptions.


Quote:
I know the definition won't change because as I have stated, the presumptions don't really address public safety.
And now you're contradicting yourself in re the above. Either I addressed public safety in my presumptions, which is the only way for my conclusion to appear in my presumptions, or I didn't, in which case my conclusion cannot be included in the presumptions. Which is it? Of course, my argument is that you're right in what you state here, in that the presumptions don't address public safety.


Quote:
They tell us something about the government. Your main error is that ignored the contribution of the individual on public safety (the government is not the only sufficient conditions to achieve public safety).
No, I didn't ignore the contribution of the individual on public safety. I concluded that the definition of "public safety" cannot include the safety of individuals. That's a subtle difference. Individuals can contribute to "public safety", but that contribution cannot be through enhancement of individual safety, since "public safety" logically cannot include individual safety (assuming, of course, that my stated presumptions are valid).


Quote:
The lawyers that have brought the previous 2A cases have not included the role of the individual on public safety either.
I agree, the lawyers have not raised the role of the individual on public safety as part of their argument. But if they do, then you'll end up with the public safety benefit brought by the individual, as raised by the lawyers on our side, versus the public safety "benefit" brought by the law being challenged, as raised by the lawyers on the opposition's side.

Which means you'll end up with the court having to make a choice between public safety benefits.

Why do you believe the court can make that choice absent a quantitative argument? More to the point, the government will certainly bring a quantitative argument to the table, because it has always done so in the past. If we fail to do the same, then the court will be choosing between an argument backed with quantitative evidence versus an argument that is not backed with quantitative evidence. Why do you believe the court will favor the latter, and not the former, when faced with such a choice?


Last edited by kcbrown; July 6th, 2017 at 09:14 PM.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 04:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service