2nd Amendment Question

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
RicoTX
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:35 pm

2nd Amendment Question

#1

Post by RicoTX » Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:03 am

Someone asked me today if I believed the 2nd amendment truly meant that I as an individual have the right to own guns and the right to carry guns in public. I answered yes. I was then asked why I allow the city, county, or state - much less federal governments to determine what kind of gun I can carry. He suggested that if I believed my 2A rights were being violated wouldn't that mean the LEO was in violation of their oath? Was I willing to go to jail to prove my belief in the 2nd Amendment?

It was a good question honestly.

I answered that yes I believed that the 2A meant that I, as an individual, had a right to keep my gun... but obviously the government and I have a different opinion on the right to bear arms.

I admitted that most days I am not willing to get arrested... because no one would have my back.

It got me thinking... can we really say we support and defend the 2nd Amendment when we have no problem with the government deciding who can bear arms, what type of arms they can bear, and where they can bear them?

Am I really just all talk when I am a member of numerous 2A organizations - but yet I will not push back on laws that clearly violate the 2nd Amendment? I do not hold my elected officials and law enforcement truly accountable for their part in violating my 2nd Amendment rights either?

Is it really good enough just to say I support politicians who will restore the 2nd Amendment, when I already know the best they might do is keep it the same?


What is your opinion?
How would you have responded?
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Member
GOA Member

User avatar

Smokey613
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Angelina County
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#2

Post by Smokey613 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:51 am

I too have had these same thoughts as I imagine have others on this forum. Unfortunately "We the People" have allowed and continue to allow the erosion of the 2A by our legislators and courts. I fear we are past the point of no return. On that note, I am as guilty as the next guy. I have no desire to be the test case and this is what empowers those that would remove our rights.
Texas LEO / TCOLE Firearms Instructor / LTC / Glock Armorer / NRA Endowment-Life Member

User avatar

RPBrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4258
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#3

Post by RPBrown » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:49 am

:iagree: with both of the above statements.
NRA-Benefactor Life member
TSRA-Life member
Image

User avatar

Middle Age Russ
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Spring-Woodlands

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#4

Post by Middle Age Russ » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:04 am

In society with our fellow man, all rights have limits where they run up against the rights of others. Since all rights have limits, it is silly to say that one cannot support a right or expression of a right if one is not willing to go to jail for it. I fully support the right to keep and bear any arm, but I am not willing today to flaunt laws (even though I may disagree with them) to make a point with an LEO whose job is enforcement -- not interpretation -- of the laws. If the point being made is to a MUCH larger audience with a chance of favorably influencing future events, I come nearer to being willing... The bottom line is that willingly relinquishing a right to make a point doesn't always jibe with cherishing that right.
Russ
Stay aware and engaged. Awareness buys time; time buys options. Survival may require moving quickly past the Observe, Orient and Decide steps to ACT.
NRA Life Member, CRSO, Basic Pistol, PPITH & PPOTH Instructor, Texas 4-H Certified Pistol & Rifle Coach, Texas LTC Instructor


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#5

Post by crazy2medic » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:41 am

Our founding fathers gave us three boxes to control a tyrannical government, the ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box. With the ballot box we need to vote for the MOST 2nd Amendment friendly candidate and try to move our right closer to what the original intent of our founding fathers envisioned, the jury box to stop tyranny in the courts, refusal to convict for weapons violations unless those individuals have a previous convictions that have abrogated their rights, I would never convict somebody for unlawful carrying of a weapon unless they had a previous convictions for something else! And if we have to open the cartridge box God help us all!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention


BBYC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#6

Post by BBYC » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:01 am

RicoTX wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:03 am
Someone asked me today if I believed the 2nd amendment truly meant that I as an individual have the right to own guns and the right to carry guns in public. I answered yes. I was then asked why I allow the city, county, or state - much less federal governments to determine what kind of gun I can carry. He suggested that if I believed my 2A rights were being violated wouldn't that mean the LEO was in violation of their oath? Was I willing to go to jail to prove my belief in the 2nd Amendment?
How would going to jail "prove" that I believe in the Bill of Rights?

Sending the bad guys to prison would do that, like was done nearly 75 years ago in Europe. Killing them would also work.

I don't recall the Founding Father's turning themselves over to the Crown to "prove" they believed they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [and] to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 23848
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#7

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:55 am

Here comes one of my endless rants.......

What Middle Age Russ says about the limits where one’s rights bump up against the rights of another make absolute sense, and to a large extent, I agree with that sentiment. But there have been times, and I continue on rare occasion to run into instances where I will take the opposite stance, including with both private rights and the rights of the state. But when I have done so, it has always been with careful consideration. This has taken several different forms.

Back when I lived in California, in Los Angeles County, and I had virtually ZERO chance of ever being granted a permit to carry, I sometimes broke the law because that was the only alternative available to me for those times when I calculated that it was riskier to not have a gun than to have one. I did so fully cognizant of the possible consequences if I were exposed; and I made a deliberate calculation of odds of exposure against odds of neeeding a gun, and I chose the gun. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of the time, I went unarmed other than having a pocket knife. Two friends of mine at the time - one an LAPD officer, and the other an investigator with the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (California’s “DEA”) - both told me that whenever they ran across a guy like me, a middle-aged white guy of apparent means in a decent car, who happened to have a gun in his car for personal protection, they would simply ignore the fact of the gun and let him go on about his business. Racist? Possibly. Classist? Definitely. Against the law? Most certainly. But even they recognized that to not be armed at certain times, in certain places, was an act of foolishness. It wasn’t a 2nd Amendment issue so much as it was a Common Sense issue.

When I moved to Texas in 2006, I set about trying to familiarize myself with Texas gun laws - which took a while given my then predisposition to the California-born fallacy that all things are illegal unless gov’t makes them legal. When I figured out how relatively easy it was to get a CHL, I got mine. But from mid-April 2006 until MPA became law on 9//1/07, I skirted the edges of Texas law by having a handgun in my car when I drove into/through sketchy areas of Dallas - which was frequently because my employer at the time was located in a sketchy area. After MPA passed the risk of exposure went away. I took the CHL class in December ‘07 and have been carrying ever since. But even before MPA passed and finally getting my CHL, I made a conscious calculation of the odds of being exposed versus the need to have a firearm handy, and I chose to have a firearm handy. That calculation included the fact that Texas is a much more 2nd Amendment friendly state than California. Again, before MPA I didn’t have a gun in the car all the time....just when I felt the need (I hadn’t yet read Longtooth’s dictum to “guess right, or carry 24/7/365”)....but I worried less about the implications if caught because I expected that a Texas LEO would not be as surprised by it as a California LEO. Maybe I was wrong about that, but it was a risk I was willing to take.

Today, the decision is not whether or not to carry all the time - I do - but whether or not to carry past signs (compliant or not) that make it plain that my gun is not welcome.....which is essentially a private property rights issue rather than a rights of the state issue. As a general thing, I will obey 30.06/30.07 signs and take my business elsewhere. That’s because, most of the time, I have choices. There have been a couple of times when I intentionally carried (concealed) past a compliant 30.06 sign. My rationale at the time was that (A) I didn’t have the option of taking my business elsewhere [loved one unexpectedly in the hospital], and (B) it was a bad idea to leave my gun in my vehicle in the large, poorly lit parking lot of a major hospital in the middle of the night, where the available spaces were nearer the street than the building. Yeah, I broke the law, but NOT breaking the law was a worse idea. Why? Because I can’t truly be in control of the firearm that the law expects me to be in control of, if that firearm is locked in a vehicle where there is a credible chance of it being robbed. There has even been litigation an another area other than firearms rights, having to do with availability of choices and the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.

Allegedly, access to abortion is a constitutionally protected right. In 2017, the ACLU sued the FDA seeking to force the FDA to require all pharmacies to carry RU-486 - the “morning after abortion pill”. The basis of the lawsuit is that if a pharmacy is the only one that serves an area, and it refuses to carry RU-486, then the pharmacy is de facto restricting a woman’s right to a “morning after” abortion. Now, the pharmacy is a private business - conducting its affairs in accordance with its own corporate culture and the rights of conscience of its owners/employers. But the ACLU seeks to force that business to violate the rights of conscience of its owners/employees, in order to protect the right of a woman to an abortion.

How is it that hospitals as private businesses are not subjected to the same kind of lawsuit - in which hospitals are compelled by the courts to allow concealed carry on their premises in order to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of people in areas where a given hospital is the only provider of hospital services to The People?

The point is, I have made those kinds of decisions many times over the years. When I did so, I did it with my eyes wide open, fully cognizant of the potential for a bad outcome. In each case, I judged that the potential for a bad outcome (me getting arrested) balanced acceptably against the potential for a worse outcome (arming a thief who breaks into my car), or the worst outcome (me REALLY needing a gun and not having one).

Yes, all of the above means that I cannot call myself a 100% law-abiding person. But the fact is, none of us can. How many of you all consciously drive above the posted speed limits? Here’s my personal standard: where the law makes good sense, I follow it without much question; where the law makes no sense, I make a calculated risk assessment which balances the likelihood and consequences of exposure against the likelihood of bad juju and consequences of not being armed.

It’s a question of priority. I do believe in private property rights, and the right of the property owner to keep my gun out. But, the priority of his right to keep my gun out of his establishment diminishes when balanced against (A) whether or not he holds a momentary monopoly on his services (for example my loved one unexpectedly in his hospital, not in some other provider’s hospital); and (B) whether or not he is able to guarantee the safety of my vehicle on his property against break-in or theft. There’s a Jared jewelry store in Southlake Town Center that is posted 30.06. A block way, across the street and a parking lot, 150 yards away as the crow flies, there is a James Avery jewelry store that is not posted. Jared does not have a temporary monopoly on jewelry sales in the area. I have choices. But beyond the issue of momentary monopoly, the fact is that I have yet to see a hospital in DFW that is NOT posted with 30.06/30.07 signs. So even when an individual hospital may not hold a monopoly on those kinds of medical services, industry-wide there is a de facto monopoly which prevents license carry in hospital facilities. When an entire industry, upon which society depends for its medical care, is monolithically suppressive of my 2nd Amendment right - NOT because the law requires them to suppress it, as with certain petrochemical industries, but because they monolithically choose to suppress it..... AS AN INDUSTRY .... then I am less likely to care a popcorn fart for their property rights, and the decision to walk past one of their signs in the middle of the night is made easy.

During the day, when the risks are lower, I will comply with their signs and disarm before entering. And if I have a planned visit at night, I can always leave my handgun at home and throw a Keltec Sub-2K carbine in my briefcase and lawfully carry that past the signs instead. My default position is to obey the sign, and the decision to carry past a sign is based on not having what I judge to be a morally reasonable alternative.

The point of all of this is to say that, where the rights of one bump up against the rights of another, there is sometimes a gray area. It’s not so cut and dried. And that is where one might be called as an individual to make choices FOR common sense, in a specific situation in which that choice may NOT be entirely lawful. If, for instance, a hospital is willing to (A) keep its parking lots brightly lit with controlled access and well patrolled, and (B) provide a security escort to and from your vehicle at night, then I am much more willing to disarm myself before entering the premises. But willfully disarming the lawfully armed, without providing a substitute for their personal security, when the hospital holds an objective monopoly over the service provided, and that service is absolutely essential to the preservation of life, the hospital’s decision is an immoral one because it forces the lawfully armed person into making a deal with the devil.

So by asserting their property rights in a situation where you have no choice but to deal with them alone, you are being forced to participate in their immorality. In such a case, I view it as my moral obligation to not comply. If they provide for a reasonable substitute for my personal security, then they are behaving morally, and I therefore have a moral obligation to be respectful of their rights. Maybe some day, the ACLU will sue the FDA to require hospitals to protect the exercise of the 2nd Amendment rights of their patrons.

I’m not holding my breath on that one. Therefore, I will take responsibility upon myself to protect my own rights whenever a hospital has a vitual monopoly over my access to services at a given moment in time, and that hospital makes the immoral decision to both suppress my 2nd Amendment right AND fail to provide a substitute protection for my personal security. If it means carrying concealed past their 30.06 sign when I have no choice, then that’s what I’ll do. Otherwise, it means carrying a concealed 9mm carbine past their sign - entirely lawfully, even if it violates the spirit of their stupid sign.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#8

Post by oljames3 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:41 pm

As with most other decisions in life, our self defense decisions come down to which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

As have many others here, I've already demonstrated my support and defense of the Constitution; all of it. I feel neither the desire nor the requirement to prove anything to anyone.

My response to such as statement/question would most likely be a derisive snort as I walk away.
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA Distinguished Life Member (Disabled Vet), TSRA, NAR L1


BBYC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#9

Post by BBYC » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:03 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:55 am
What Middle Age Russ says about the limits where one’s rights bump up against the rights of another make absolute sense, and to a large extent, I agree with that sentiment.
I agree and to be clear, I don't consider a property owner who bans guns a "bad guy" any more than a property owner who bans dogs. A person has the right to prohibit dogs or guns in their home I respect their private property rights as an individual, even if I don't agree with their decision.

However, a public accommodation is required to allow dogs, if the dogs are service animals. Using a similar standard, they should be required to allow guns, if the guns are carried by someone licensed to carry. That is consistent with established precedent for civil rights.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.

User avatar

Mel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:47 pm
Location: Farmersville, TX

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#10

Post by Mel » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:48 pm

Now there you go; trying to throw logic into the situation. You know that will not be tolerated! Next, you'll be requesting common sense.
Mel
Airworthiness Inspector specializing in Experimental and Light-Sport Aircraft since the last Century.

User avatar

Allons
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#11

Post by Allons » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:01 pm

BBYC wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:03 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:55 am
What Middle Age Russ says about the limits where one’s rights bump up against the rights of another make absolute sense, and to a large extent, I agree with that sentiment.
I agree and to be clear, I don't consider a property owner who bans guns a "bad guy" any more than a property owner who bans dogs. A person has the right to prohibit dogs or guns in their home I respect their private property rights as an individual, even if I don't agree with their decision.

However, a public accommodation is required to allow dogs, if the dogs are service animals. Using a similar standard, they should be required to allow guns, if the guns are carried by someone licensed to carry. That is consistent with established precedent for civil rights.
:iagree: Well said.
EDC'S: Dan Wesson CCO, CZ-P01, CZ-P10C, CZ-P07, XDS-45 MOD 2
Home Defense: Mossberg 930 SPX
NRA Member
US Army 1988-1999
Image


Topic author
RicoTX
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:35 pm

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#12

Post by RicoTX » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:01 pm

Thanks for the comments! Always interesting to see different views.

I'm assuming that the majority of gun owners have accepted (not happily I know)the current restrictions on 2A as lawful.

I am curious, what's the line?
If u don't want to answer. I understand.

Mine would be gun registration.
Not going to happen. I'll leave it there.
Does even thinking about a plan in case this happens make me paranoid, a criminal, or a patriot?

Is just bringing it up a violation of forum rules?

Yes I know anti 2A people read the forum.
I have no problem with anyone knowing my feelings... everyone in my real life already knows all too well!
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Member
GOA Member


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3282
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#13

Post by chasfm11 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:44 am

RicoTX wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:01 pm
Thanks for the comments! Always interesting to see different views.

I'm assuming that the majority of gun owners have accepted (not happily I know)the current restrictions on 2A as lawful.

I am curious, what's the line?
If u don't want to answer. I understand.

Mine would be gun registration.
Not going to happen. I'll leave it there.
Does even thinking about a plan in case this happens make me paranoid, a criminal, or a patriot?

Is just bringing it up a violation of forum rules?

Yes I know anti 2A people read the forum.
I have no problem with anyone knowing my feelings... everyone in my real life already knows all too well!
I'm not sure what my line would be. It is obvious what residents in CT and NY think of the "assault rife" bans in their respective States but I'm pretty sure that I would do the same thing that many of them are.

Regarding medical facilities, I agree with most of TAM's comments. I can also see the point of some of the 30.06 signs on medical facilities. For example, a GI doctor has offices in Southlake that are not posted. His procedure building close by has 30.06 and .07 signs. Since all of the patients there have to disrobe, someone carrying would have to deal with a firearm, either giving it to a family member (who may not be able to legally have it) or requiring the doctor's staff to deal with the firearm during the procedure. I can also see that it is not easy to predict when a similar situation might occur under other medical circumstances. The law does not provide the option for restricting patient carry (in order not to have the medical staff end up with the firearm) and allowing relatives and visitors to remain armed during visits. I do understand that emergency medical personnel end up dealing with firearms and that it isn't an insurmountable problem.

USACE gives us all an opportunity to be criminals. I drive across the Grapevine Dam (Corps controlled property) a lot and every time I do, I'm technically in violation of Federal law. Someone with a carry permit from another State where there are no classes can easily go to a Post Office parking lot and commit a crime without knowing it. But the key words are "without knowing it." I should have a reasonable chance to obey the law and that means that I should understand the places where that law applies. Absent that level of communication, compliance is a hit or miss result. As several Corps employees have told me, the laws are only there for those times when someone does something really bad. In other words, I'm free to break the law as long as I otherwise behave myself.

While not everyone agrees with her works, I'm an Ayn Rand fan. Dr. Ferris' dialogue in Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorites.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#14

Post by PriestTheRunner » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:04 am

chasfm11 wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:44 am
Since all of the patients there have to disrobe, someone carrying would have to deal with a firearm, either giving it to a family member (who may not be able to legally have it) or requiring the doctor's staff to deal with the firearm during the procedure.
(1) If the family member is LTC, then no laws are broken and there is no issue.
(2) If the patient gives the firearm to someone they don't know (who likely doesn't have an LTC), they are committing a crime. We already have a law to address it.
(3) Knowing that you are there for an appointment, it seems pretty self-explanatory that a LTC'er should just disarm at the car and go in if there is no one to give the firearm too.

This isn't rocket science. If we play the what-if game, guns would not be allowed anywhere. I see no reason to bar legal LTC's simply because of a 'what-if' scenario.


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: 2nd Amendment Question

#15

Post by K.Mooneyham » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:41 am

The OP mentioned 2A-rights organizations, but seemed to dismiss them to some degree. The old adage is that there is "strength in numbers", and that is the whole point of joining organizations such as the NRA, SAF, GOA, etc. Together, our voices are much louder than any of us standing alone (certain unusual situations/circumstances aside). I saw today that the NRA has officially grown to SIX MILLION members. While that may be a small part of the population, it is NOT a trivial number, and I can remember when it was about four million not so long ago. Victories have been won, no matter how the anti-2A mass news media might try to convince you otherwise. When I was a kid, it was more-or-less illegal to carry a handgun on your person for self-defense, even in our gun-friendly Texas. Each of us can do our small part to support the Second Amendment, and our God-given (natural) right as human beings to self-defense, including having the means to effectively attempt that self-defense should the need arise. There may be a time and place for extraordinary actions, but under everyday circumstances, it does no one any good to "become the example".

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”