After Marine veteran makes rescue, Baltimore police file gun charges against him

[csanc123]

So many lines to draw.

Many people, arms, and locations are prohibited by Federal, State, or Local governments. What constitutes infringement?

People: convicted criminals, VA permits in MD, etc.
Arms: military weapons, scary-looking/sounding firearms, etc.
Locations: government facilities, rapidly growing list of public places, etc.

So, perhaps well regulated from some perspectives and poorly regulated from others. Important cases like this one help test the system and establish precedents, but at considerable cost to individuals directly involved and enduring the litigious process. Surely there is a better way...

So much fail here.

Except all but an idiot know carry laws are not orphaned or no longer enforced. This isn’t a law about not carrying an ice cream cone on the streets on a Sunday without a head covering.

The law needs to change. But SCOTUS just ruled that carry permits are presumed constitutional. They haven’t had a test case on reciprocity. But for now, the law of the land is that you need to follow the carry laws if the state you stand in until ACOTUS says otherwise. Which they have not yet.

But on its face...most 2A laws are unconstitutional....hence...where is the line drawn. I'm pretty darn sure that Marine knew he was not in compliance with MD law and I sure am not going to chit on him for his choice.

 

[Crazytrain]

I'm perfectly OK with his choice to carry that day, whether or not he had a valid permit for that location.

He saved a life.

Plus, it is a freakin' bad law.

He is a free man. He made a decision. He saved a life. The rules are unreasonable. Is it really unreasonable to disregard them?

Of course, the state has the power to enforce even unreasonable (and Unconstitutional, no matter if the Supreme Court said that permits are presumed constitutional) laws. He will have to deal with that. And it sounds like he has the balls to ride that train.

I know for a fact that there are lots of otherwise law abiding folks who have been carrying for their own protection without the previously difficult to obtain (and even now not exactly easy) MD permit. Taking steps for the protection your own life is a moral responsibility.

The only reason I haven't spent my life carrying without the formerly impossible to get permit is that I am more afraid of my government than I am of ne'er-do-wells. This is tyranny and I am somewhat ashamed of my acquiescence to it.

 

[bjmsam]

So much fail here.

Especially in your county.

I am more afraid of my government than I am of ne'er-do-wells. This is tyranny and I am somewhat ashamed of my acquiescence to it.

Same here, even with the permit.

 

[csanc123]

Especially in your county.

And on that I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Docster]

Even unconstitutional ones? Just wondering where the line is. There are MANY laws on the books in many states that are 'orphaned'...people don't follow or are remnants of past times. Where should we draw the line?

The line is drawn at the point when someone illegally carries/uses a gun. The laws suck but they are what they are. The line is drawn over the concept of self defense vs defense of others. Most state's gun law address SD. They don't address the issue of moral use of weapons. That won't change for a long time. Even with national reciprocity state's may have varying laws on what actions are allowed within their borders

 

[Crazytrain]

The line is drawn at the point when someone illegally carries/uses a gun. The laws suck but they are what they are. The line is drawn over the concept of self defense vs defense of others. Most state's gun law address SD. They don't address the issue of moral use of weapons. That won't change for a long time. Even with national reciprocity state's may have varying laws on what actions are allowed within their borders

Who defines the line? Our so-called representatives? Does that trump our right to self defense? Does it trump the constitution? Does this line deserve to be respected?

 

[Crazytrain]

Do immoral laws deserve to be followed at all?

Edit to say that any law that prevents you from defending your life and the life of others is by its' very nature not only immoral but straight evil.

Feeling spicy lately.

 

[Occam]

It is unfortunate that my deliberate play on that word has distracted some from the point of my post

What was the point of your post if not the words you put in orbit around exactly that word? If you anchor your musings with phrases that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution generally, the Bill of Rights in particular, and the Second Amendment specifically, what point are we supposed to constructively walk away with?

 

[Brychan]

IMHO (which of course the correct opinion) if the make up of the Supreme Court holds for a while, I believe they will come to the proper conclusion on permits. That either on the federal, but most likely the state level is that a permit requirement is constitutional, however it has to be free and as easy to obtain as a voter registration card, including getting a temporary permit on demand that is valid until a background check maybe completed. The background check should be that the person is not a violent felon.

 

[eruby]

IMHO (which of course the correct opinion) if the make up of the Supreme Court holds for a while, I believe they will come to the proper conclusion on permits. That either on the federal, but most likely the state level is that a permit requirement is constitutional, however it has to be free and as easy to obtain as a voter registration card, including getting a temporary permit on demand that is valid until a background check maybe completed. The background check should be that the person is not a violent felon.

I will disagree, only in that anyone walking the streets in these United States should be free to carry a gun.

There is no background check of any sort on 1A rights, travelling from state to state (in a recreational vehicle perhaps - no papers), and the same should hold true for the 2A.

If a violent felon is walking about, (s)he should be able to carry. If the felon is that violent, (s)he shouldn't be walking about.

If a mad-dog violent felon shoots me, well, freedom is ugly. And MDS get a $5,000 beer bash at Pub Dog, as per instructions to my majordomo.

 

[OldBrokenGrunt]

I will disagree, only in that anyone walking the streets in these United States should be free to carry a gun.

There is no background check of any sort on 1A rights, travelling from state to state (in a recreational vehicle perhaps - no papers), and the same should hold true for the 2A.

If a violent felon is walking about, (s)he should be able to carry. If the felon is that violent, (s)he shouldn't be walking about.

If a mad-dog violent felon shoots me, well, freedom is ugly. And MDS get a $5,000 beer bash at Pub Dog, as per instructions to my majordomo.

It’s easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots me”, but it’s not to easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots my child”. So no, in my opinion, and probably most people with children, a proven, violent felon, who is walking around free, shouldn’t carry.

With that said, I also believe that these violent felons who murder, rape, molest children should be executed by wild animals on live TV.

Just my opinion.

 

[eruby]

It’s easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots me”, but it’s not to easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots my child”. So no, in my opinion, and probably most people with children, a proven, violent felon, who is walking around free, shouldn’t carry.

With that said, I also believe that these violent felons who murder, rape, molest children should be executed by wild animals on live TV.

Just my opinion.

What's to stop him from carrying?

If he's so violent, he shouldn't be walking around.

I realize that is very idealistic.

Your "live TV" event terms are acceptable.

 

[bjmsam]

What was the point of your post if not the words you put in orbit around exactly that word?

1. Does regulation (legal control) of who can bear what, where, when, why or how constitute infringement (violation of rights) in all cases, or only some? This was among the examples I offered:

anyone walking the streets in these United States should be free to carry a gun.

a proven, violent felon, who is walking around free, shouldn’t carry.

2. How can such cases be clarified more comprehensively before individuals (such as this Marine Veteran) are forced to test them and endure the consequences (which tend to be severe even when ultimately found innocent)?

 

[rhull1971]

I used the word "regulated" in its literal sense WRT statute, not militia.

regulate
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning

infringe
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

I'd be careful with definitions unless it comes from a dictionary that is several decades old. Merrian Webster has been compromised and is redefining terms constantly to fit their politics and narrative. Definitions are only relative to the time that the word was used in a statement. I'd like to see the exact definitions used in several dictionaries published around 1791.

 

[rbird7282]

I used the word "regulated" in its literal sense WRT statute, not militia.

regulate
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning

infringe
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

That's not what it meant then

 

[teratos]

That's not what it meant then

And we're the ones who don't understand....

To be fair, "regulars" here tend to think a little differently than newbies.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I hate it when people do this...

"Ex-Marine Arrested for Saving a Man's Life"

No, the arresting papers do not say "for saving a man's life" SHEESH!

 

[Boondock Saint]

Languages are a living, breathing thing. The meaning of words can change over time.

Documents, however, are functionally chiseled in stone. The written word should be understood to have the meaning recognized at the time it was written, not changed through the filter of contemporary meanings that the author could not have foreseen/intended.

Words like "regulated" and "militia" have different meanings now than they did in 1791. Fortunately, words like "people" and "infringed" have a very similar meaning.

Even the thickest among us should be able to arrive at the correct conclusion when reading the 2A, if they are not motivated by an agenda.

 

[teratos]

Languages are a living, breathing thing. The meaning of words can change over time.

Documents, however, are functionally chiseled in stone. The written word should be understood to have the meaning recognized at the time it was written, not changed through the filter of contemporary meanings that the author could not have foreseen/intended.

Words like "regulated" and "militia" have different meanings now than they did in 1791. Fortunately, words like "people" and "infringed" have a very similar meaning.

Even the thickest among us should be able to arrive at the correct conclusion when reading the 2A, if they are not motivated by an agenda.

Soooo...Text, History, Tradition is what you are saying?

 

[Boondock Saint]

Soooo...Text, History, Tradition is what you are saying?

Star Trek > Star Wars, always and forever. However: